Unprecedented Number of Recurrent Mutations Drive the Rapid Evolution of Pesticide Resistance in a Notorious Pest

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Cao et al. provides a compelling investigation into the role of mutational input in the rapid evolution of pesticide resistance, focusing on the two-spotted spider mite's response to the recent introduction of the acaricide cyetpyrafen. This well-documented introduction of the pesticide - and thus a clearly defined history of selection - offers a powerful framework for studying the temporal dynamics of rapid adaptation. The authors combine resistance phenotyping across multiple populations, extensive resequencing to track the frequency of resistance alleles, and genomic analyses of selection in both contemporary and historical samples. These approaches are further complemented by laboratory-based experimental evolution, which serves as a baseline for understanding the genetic architecture of resistance across mite populations in China. Their analyses identify two key resistance-associated genes, sdhB and sdhD, within which they detect 15 mutations in wild-collected samples. Protein modeling reveals that these mutations cluster around the pesticide's binding site, suggesting a direct functional role in resistance. The authors further examine signatures of selective sweeps and their distribution across populations to infer the mechanisms - such as de novo mutation or gene flow-driving the spread of resistance, a crucial consideration for predicting evolutionary responses to extreme selection pressure. Overall, this is a well-rounded, thoughtfully designed, and well-written manuscript. It shows significant novelty, as it is relatively rare to integrate broad-scale evolutionary inference from natural populations with experimentally informed bioassays, however, some aspects of the methods and discussion have an opportunity to be clarified and strengthened.

Strengths:

One of the most compelling aspects of this study is its integration of genomic time-series data in natural populations with controlled experimental evolution. By coupling genome sequencing of resistant field populations with laboratory selection experiments, the authors tease apart the individual effects of resistance alleles along with regions of the genome where selection is expected to occur, and compare that to the observed frequency in the wild populations over space and time. Their temporal data clearly demonstrates the pace at which evolution can occur in response to extreme selection. This type of approach is a powerful roadmap for the rest of the field of rapid adaptation.

The study effectively links specific genetic changes to resistance phenotypes. The identification of sdhB and sdhD mutations as major drivers of cyetpyrafen resistance is well-supported by allele frequency shifts in both field and experimental populations. The scope of their sampling clearly facilitated the remarkable number of observed mutations within these target genes, and the authors provide a careful discussion of the likelihood of these mutations from de novo or standing variation. Furthermore, the discovered cross-resistance that these mutations confer to other mitochondrial complex II inhibitors highlights the potential for broader resistance management and evolution.

Weaknesses:

(1) Experimental Evolution:

- Additional information about the lab experimental evolution would be useful in the main text. Specifically, the dose of cyetpyrafen used should be clarified, especially with respect to the LD50 values. How does it compare to recommended field doses? This is expected to influence the architecture of resistance evolution. What was the sample size? This will help readers contextualize how the experimental design could influence the role of standing variation.

- The finding that lab-evolved strains show cross-resistance is interesting, but potentially complicates the story. It would help to know more about the other mitochondrial complex II inhibitors used across China and their impact on adaptive dynamics at these loci, particularly regarding pre-existing resistance alleles. For example, a comparison of usage data from 2013, 2017, and 2019 could help explain whether cyetpyrafen was the main driver of resistance or if previous pesticides played a role. What happened in 2020 that caused such rapid evolution 3 years after launch?

(2) Evolutionary history of resistance alleles:

- It would be beneficial to examine the population structure of the sampled populations, especially regarding the role of migration. Though resistance evolution appears to have had minimal impact on genome-wide diversity (as shown in Supplementary Figure 2), could admixture be influencing the results? An explicit multivariate regression framework could help to understand factors influencing diversity across populations, as right now much is left to the readers' visual acuity.

- It is unclear why lab populations were included in the migration/treemix analysis. We might suggest redoing the analysis without including the laboratory populations to reveal biologically plausible patterns of resistance evolution.

- Can the authors explore isolation by distance (IBD) in the frequency of resistance alleles?

- Given the claim regarding the novelty of the number of pesticide resistance mutations, it is important to acknowledge the evolution of resistance to all pesticides (antibiotics, herbicides, etc.). ALS-inhibiting herbicides have driven remarkable repeatability across species based on numerous SNPs within the target gene.

- Figure 5 A-B. Why not run a multivariate regression with status at each resistance mutation encoded as a separate predictor? It is interesting that focusing on the predominant mutation gives the strongest r2, but it is somewhat unintuitive and masks some interesting variation among populations.

(3) Haplotype Reconstruction (Line 271-):

- We are a bit sceptical of the methods taken to reconstruct these haplotypes. It seems as though the authors did so with Sanger sequencing (this should be mentioned in the text), focusing only on homozygous SNPs. How many such SNPs were used to reconstruct haplotypes, along what length of sequence? For how many individuals were haplotypes reconstructed? Nonetheless, I appreciated that the authors looked into the extent to which the reconstructed haplotypes could be driven by recombination. Can the authors elaborate on the calculations in line 296? Is that the census population size estimate or effective?

(4) Single Mutations and Their Effect (line 312-):

- It's not entirely clear how the breeding scheme resulted in near-isogenic lines. Could the authors provide a clearer explanation of the process and its biological implications?

- If they are indeed isogenic, it's interesting that individual resistance mutations have effects on resistance that vary considerably among lines. Could the authors run a multivariate analysis including all potential resistance SNPs to account for interactions between them? Given the variable effects of the D116G substitution (ranging from 4-25%), could polygenic or epistatic factors be influencing the evolution of resistance?

- Why are there some populations that segregate for resistance mutations but have no survival to pesticides (i.e., the green points in Figure 5)? Some discussion of this heterogeneity seems required in the absence of validation of the effects of these particular mutations. Could it be dominance playing a role, or do the authors have some other explanation?

- The authors mention that all resistance mutations co-localized to the Q-site. Is this where the pesticide binds? This seems like an important point to follow their argument for these being resistance-related.

(5) Statistical Considerations for Allele Frequency Changes (Figure 3):

- It might be helpful to use a logistic regression model to assess the rate of allele frequency changes and determine the strength of selection acting on these alleles (e.g., Kreiner et al. 2022; Patel et al. 2024). This approach could refine the interpretation of selection dynamics over time.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper investigates the evolution of pesticide resistance in the two-spotted spider mite following the introduction of an SDHI acaricide, cyatpyrafen, in China. The authors make use of cyatpyrafen-naive populations collected before that pesticide was first used, as well as more recent populations (both sensitive and resistant) to conduct comparative population genomics. They report 15 different mutations in the insecticide target site from resistant populations, many reported here for the first time, and look at the mutation and selection processes underlying the evolution of resistance, through GWAS, haplotype mapping, and testing for loss of diversity indicating selective sweeps. None of the target site mutations found in resistant populations was found in pre-exposure populations, suggesting that the mutations may have arisen de novo rather than being present as standing variation, unless initially present at very low frequencies; a de novo origin is also supported by evidence of selective sweeps in some resistant populations. Furthermore, there is no significant evidence of migration of resistant genotypes between the sampled field populations, indicating multiple origins of common mutations. Overall, this indicates a very high mutation rate and a wide range of mutational pathways to resistance for this target site in this pest species. The series of population genomic analyses carried out here, in addition to the evolutionary processes that appear to underlie resistance development in this case, could have implications for the study of resistance evolution more widely.

Strengths:

This paper combines phenotypic characterisation with extensive comparative population genomics, made possible by the availability of multiple population samples (each with hundreds of individuals) collected before as well as after the introduction of the pesticide cyatpyrafen, as well as lab-evolved lines. This results in findings of mutation and selection processes that can be related back to the pesticide resistance trait of concern. Large numbers of mites were tested phenotypically to show the levels of resistance present, and the authors also made near-isogenic lines to confirm the phenotypic effects of key mutations. The population genomic analyses consider a range of alternative hypotheses, including mutations arising by de novo mutation or selection from standing genetic variation, and mutations in different populations arising independently or arriving by migration. The claim that mutations most likley arose by multiple repeated de novo mutations is therefore supported by multiple lines of evidence: the direct evidence of none of the mutations being found in over 2000 individuals from naive populations, and the indirect evidence from population genomics showing evidence of selective sweeps but not of significant migration between the sampled populations.

Weaknesses:

As acknowledged within the discussion, whilst evidence supports a de novo origin of the resistance-associated mutations, this cannot be proven definitively as mutations may have been present at a very low frequency and therefore not found within the tested pesticide-naive population samples.

Near-isofemale lines were made to confirm the resistance levels associated with five of the 15 mutations, but otherwise, the genotype-phenotype associations are correlative, as confirmation by functional genetics was beyond the scope of this study.