Positive selection and relaxed purifying selection contribute to rapid evolution of male-biased genes in a dioecious flowering plant

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The evolution of dioecy in angiosperms has significant implications for plant reproductive efficiency, adaptation, evolutionary potential, and resilience to environmental changes. Dioecy allows for the specialization and division of labor between male and female plants, where each sex can focus on specific aspects of reproduction and allocate resources accordingly. This division of labor creates an opportunity for sexual selection to act and can drive the evolution of sexual dimorphism.

In the present study, the authors investigate sex-biased gene expression patterns in juvenile and mature dioecious flowers to gain insights into the molecular basis of sexual dimorphism. They find that a large proportion of the plant transcriptome is differentially regulated between males and females with the number of sex-biased genes in floral buds being approximately 15 times higher than in mature flowers. The functional analysis of sex-biased genes reveals that chemical defense pathways against herbivores are up-regulated in the female buds along with genes involved in the acquisition of resources such as carbon for fruit and seed production, whereas male buds are enriched in genes related to signaling, inflorescence development and senescence of male flowers. Furthermore, the authors implement sophisticated maximum likelihood methods to understand the forces driving the evolution of sex-biased genes. They highlight the influence of positive and relaxed purifying selection on the evolution of male-biased genes, which show significantly higher rates of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions than female or unbiased genes. This is the first report (to my knowledge) highlighting the occurrence of this pattern in plants. Overall, this study provides important insights into the genetic basis of sexual dimorphism and the evolution of reproductive genes in Cucurbitaceae.

There are, however, parts of the manuscript that are not clearly described or could be otherwise improved.

- The number of denovo-assembled unigenes seems large and I would like to know how it compares to the number of genes in other Cucurbitaceae species. The presence of alternatively assembled isoforms or assembly artifacts may be still high in the final assembly and inflate the numbers of identified sex-biased genes.

- It is interesting that the majority of sex-biased genes are present in the floral buds but not in the mature flowers. I think this pattern could be explored in more detail, by investigating the expression of male and female sex-biased genes throughout the flower development in the opposite sex. It is also not clear how the expression of the sex-biased genes found in the buds changes when buds and mature flowers are compared within each sex.

- The statistical analysis of evolutionary rates between male-biased, female-biased, and unbiased genes is performed on samples with very different numbers of observations, therefore, a permutation test seems more appropriate here.

- The impact of pleiotropy on the evolutionary rates of male-biased genes is speculative since only two tissue samples (buds and mature flowers) are used. More tissue types need to be included to draw any meaningful conclusions here.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
This study uses transcriptome sequence from a dioecious plant to compare evolutionary rates between genes with male- and female-biased expression and distinguish between relaxed selection and positive selection as causes for more rapid evolution. These questions have been explored in animals and algae, but few studies have investigated this in dioecious angiosperms, and none have so far identified faster rates of evolution in male-biased genes (though see Hough et al. 2014 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319227111).

Strengths:
The methods are appropriate to the questions asked. Both the sample size and the depth of sequencing are sufficient, and the methods used to estimate evolutionary rates and the strength of selection are appropriate. The data presented are consistent with faster evolution of genes with male-biased expression, due to both positive and relaxed selection.

This is a useful contribution to understanding the effect of sex-biased expression in genetic evolution in plants. It demonstrates the range of variation in evolutionary rates and selective mechanisms, and provides further context to connect these patterns to potential explanatory factors in plant diversity such as the age of sex chromosomes and the developmental trajectories of male and female flowers.

Weaknesses:
The presence of sex chromosomes is a potential confounding factor, since there are different evolutionary expectations for X-linked, Y-linked, and autosomal genes. Attempting to distinguish transcripts on the sex chromosomes from autosomal transcripts could provide additional insight into the relative contributions of positive and relaxed selection.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The potential for sexual selection and the extent of sexual dimorphism in gene expression have been studied in great detail in animals, but hardly examined in plants so far. In this context, the study by Zhao, Zhou et al. al represents a welcome addition to the literature.

Relative to the previous studies in Angiosperms, the dataset is interesting in that it focuses on reproductive rather than somatic tissues (which makes sense to investigate sexual selection), and includes more than a single developmental stage (buds + mature flowers).

The main limitation of the study is the very low number of samples analyzed, with only three replicate individuals per sex (i.e. the whole study is built on six individuals only). This provides low power to detect differential expression. Along the same line, only three species were used to evaluate the rates of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions, which also represents a very limited dataset, in particular when trying to fit parameter-rich models such as those implemented here.

A third limitation relates to the absence of a reference genome for the species, making the use of a de novo transcriptome assembly necessary, which is likely to lead to a large number of incorrectly assembled transcripts. Of course, the production of a reference transcriptome in this non-model species is already a useful resource, but this point should at least be acknowledged somewhere in the manuscript.

Each of these shortcomings is relatively important, and together they strongly limit the scope of the conclusions that can be made, and they should at least be acknowledged more prominently. The study is valuable in spite of these limitations and the topic remains grossly understudied, so I think the study will be of interest to researchers in the field, and hopefully inspire further, more comprehensive analyses.