Evolution of novel mimicry polymorphisms through Haldane’s sieve and rare recombination

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this study, Deshmukh et al. provide an elegant illustration of Haldane's sieve, the population genetics concept stating that novel advantageous alleles are more likely to fix if dominant because dominant alleles are more readily exposed to selection. To achieve this, the authors rely on a uniquely suited study system, the female-polymorphic butterfly Papilio polytes.

Deshmukh et al. first reconstruct the chronology of allele evolution in the P. polytes species group, clearly establishing the non-mimetic cyrus allele as ancestral, followed by the origin of the mimetic allele polytes/theseus, via a previously characterized inversion of the dsx locus, and most recently, the origin of the romulus allele in the P. polytes lineage, after its split from P. javanus. The authors then examine the two crucial predictions of Haldane's sieve, using the three alleles of P. polytes (cyrus, polytes, and romulus). First, they report with compelling evidence that these alleles are sequentially dominant, or put in other words, novel adaptive alleles either are or quickly become dominant upon their origin. Second, the authors find a robust signature of positive selection at the dsx locus, across all five species that share the polytes allele.

In addition to exquisitely exemplifying Haldane's sieve, this study characterizes the genetic differences (or lack thereof) between mimetic alleles at the dsx locus. Remarkably, the polytes and romulus alleles are profoundly differentiated, despite their short divergence time (< 0.5 my), whereas the polytes and theseus alleles are indistinguishable across both coding and intronic sequences of dsx. Finally, the study reports incidental evidence of exon swaps between the polytes and romulus alleles. These exon swaps caused intermediate colour patterns and suggest that (rare) recombination might be a mechanism by which novel morphs evolve.

This study advances our understanding of the evolution of the mimicry polymorphism in Papilio butterflies. This is an important contribution to a system already at the forefront of research on the genetic and developmental basis of sex-specific phenotypic morphs, which are common in insects. More generally, the findings of this study have important implications for how we think about the molecular dynamics of adaptation. In particular, I found that finding extensive genetic divergence between the polytes and romulus alleles is striking, and it challenges the way I used to think about the evolution of this and other otherwise conserved developmental genes. I think that this study is also a great resource for teaching evolution. By linking classic population genetic theory to modern genomic methods, while using visually appealing traits (colour patterns), this study provides a simple yet compelling example to bring to a classroom.

In general, I think that the conclusions of the study, in terms of the evolutionary history of the locus, the dominance relationships between P. polytes alleles, and the inference of a selective sweep in spite of contemporary balancing selection, are strongly supported; the data set is impressive and the analyses are all rigorous. I nonetheless think that there are a few ways in which the current presentation of these data could lead to confusion, and should be clarified and potentially also expanded.

(1) The study is presented as addressing a paradox related to the evolution of phenotypic novelty in "highly constrained genetic architectures". If I understand correctly, these constraints are assumed to arise because the dsx inversion acts as a barrier to recombination. I agree that recombination in the mimicry locus is reduced and that recombination can be a source of phenotypic novelty. However, I'm not convinced that the presence of a structural variant necessarily constrains the potential evolution of novel discrete phenotypes. Instead, I'm having a hard time coming up with examples of discrete phenotypic polymorphisms that do not involve structural variants. If there is a paradox here, I think it should be more clearly justified, including an explanation of what a constrained genetic architecture means. I also think that the Discussion would be the place to return to this supposed paradox, and tell us exactly how the observations of exon swaps and the genetic characterization of the different mimicry alleles help resolve it.

(2) While Haldane's sieve is clearly demonstrated in the P. polytes lineage (with cyrus, polytes, and romulus alleles), there is another allele trio (cyrus, polytes, and theseus) for which Haldane's sieve could also be expected. However, the chronological order in which polytes and theseus evolved remains unresolved, precluding a similar investigation of sequential dominance. Likewise, the locus that differentiates polytes from theseus is unknown, so it's not currently feasible to identify a signature of positive selection shared by P. javanus and P. alphenor at this locus. I, therefore, think that it is premature to conclude that the evolution of these mimicry polymorphisms generally follows Haldane's sieve; of two allele trios, only one currently shows the expected pattern.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Deshmukh and colleagues studied the evolution of mimetic morphs in the Papilio polytes species group. They investigate the timing of origin of haplotypes associated with different morphs, their dominance relationships, associations with different isoform expressions, and evidence for selection and recombination in the sequence data. P. polytes is a textbook example of a Batesian mimic, and this study provides important nuanced insights into its evolution, and will therefore be relevant to many evolutionary biologists. I find the results regarding dominance and the sequence of events generally convincing, but I have some concerns about the motivation and interpretation of some other analyses, particularly the tests for selection.

Strengths:

This study uses widespread sampling, large sample sizes from crossing experiments, and a wide range of data sources.

Weaknesses:

(1) Purpose and premise of selective sweep analysis

A major narrative of the paper is that new mimetic alleles have arisen and spread to high frequency, and their dominance over the pre-existing alleles is consistent with Haldane's sieve. It would therefore make sense to test for selective sweep signatures within each morph (and its corresponding dsx haplotype), rather than at the species level. This would allow a test of the prediction that those morphs that arose most recently would have the strongest sweep signatures.

Sweep signatures erode over time - see Figure 2 of Moest et al. 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000597), and it is unclear whether we expect the signatures of the original sweeps of these haplotypes to still be detectable at all. Moest et al show that sweep signatures are completely eroded by 1N generations after the event, and probably not detectable much sooner than that, so assuming effective population sizes of these species of a few million, at what time scale can we expect to detect sweeps? If these putative sweeps are in fact more recent than the origin of the different morphs, perhaps they would more likely be associated with the refinement of mimicry, but not necessarily providing evidence for or against a Haldane's sieve process in the origin of the morphs.

(2) Selective sweep methods

A tool called RAiSD was used to detect signatures of selective sweeps, but this manuscript does not describe what signatures this tool considers (reduced diversity, skewed frequency spectrum, increased LD, all of the above?). Given the comment above, would this tool be sensitive to incomplete sweeps that affect only one morph in a species-level dataset? It is also not clear how RAiSD could identify signatures of selective sweeps at individual SNPs (line 206). Sweeps occur over tracts of the genome and it is often difficult to associate a sweep with a single gene.

(3) Episodic diversification

Very little information is provided about the Branch-site Unrestricted Statistical Test for Episodic Diversification (BUSTED) and Mixed Effects Model of Evolution (MEME), and what hypothesis the authors were testing by applying these methods. Although it is not mentioned in the manuscript, a quick search reveals that these are methods to study codon evolution along branches of a phylogeny. Without this information, it is difficult to understand the motivation for this analysis.

(4) GWAS for form romulus

The authors argue that the lack of SNP associations within dsx for form romulus is caused by poor read mapping in the inverted region itself (line 125). If this is true, we would expect strong association in the regions immediately outside the inversion. From Figure S3, there are four discrete peaks of association, and the location of dsx and the inversion are not indicated, so it is difficult to understand the authors' interpretation in light of this figure.

(5) Form theseus

Since there appears to be only one sequence available for form theseus (actually it is said to be "P. javanus f. polytes/theseus"), is it reasonable to conclude that "the dsx coding sequence of f. theseus was identical to that of f. polytes in both P. javanus and P. alphenor" (Line 151)? Looking at the Clarke and Sheppard (1972) paper cited in the statement that "f. polytes and f. theseus show equal dominance" (line 153), it seems to me that their definition of theseus is quite different from that here. Without addressing this discrepancy, the results are difficult to interpret.