doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adl5255. Epub 2024 Apr 24.
Evolution and genetic architecture of sex-limited polymorphism in cuckoos
Justin Merondun 1 2, Cristiana I Marques 3 4 5, Pedro Andrade 3 5, Swetlana Meshcheryagina 6, Ismael Galván 7, Sandra Afonso 3 5, Joel M Alves 3 5 8 9, Pedro M Araújo 3 5 10, Gennadiy Bachurin 11, Jennifer Balacco 12, Miklós Bán 13, Olivier Fedrigo 12, Giulio Formenti 12, Frode Fossøy 14, Attila Fülöp 13 15 16, Mikhail Golovatin 6, Sofia Granja 3 5 9, Chris Hewson 17, Marcel Honza 18, Kerstin Howe 19, Greger Larson 9, Attila Marton 20 21, Csaba Moskát 22, Jacquelyn Mountcastle 12, Petr Procházka 18, Yaroslav Red'kin 23, Ying Sims 19, Michal Šulc 18, Alan Tracey 19, Jonathan M D Wood 19, Erich D Jarvis 12, Mark E Hauber 24, Miguel Carneiro 3 5, Jochen B W Wolf 1
Affiliations
- PMID:38657058
- PMCID: PMC11042743
- DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adl5255
Item in Clipboard
Evolution and genetic architecture of sex-limited polymorphism in cuckoos
Justin Merondun et al. Sci Adv..
Display options
Format
Display options
Format
Abstract
Sex-limited polymorphism has evolved in many species including our own. Yet, we lack a detailed understanding of the underlying genetic variation and evolutionary processes at work. The brood parasitic common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) is a prime example of female-limited color polymorphism, where adult males are monochromatic gray and females exhibit either gray or rufous plumage. This polymorphism has been hypothesized to be governed by negative frequency-dependent selection whereby the rarer female morph is protected against harassment by males or from mobbing by parasitized host species. Here, we show that female plumage dichromatism maps to the female-restricted genome. We further demonstrate that, consistent with balancing selection, ancestry of the rufous phenotype is shared with the likewise female dichromatic sister species, the oriental cuckoo (Cuculus optatus). This study shows that sex-specific polymorphism in trait variation can be resolved by genetic variation residing on a sex-limited chromosome and be maintained across species boundaries.
Figures
(A) Representation of female gray (top) and rufous (bottom) common cuckoo plumage morphs and sampling location at Apaj village, Hungary. Map includes sample sizes from each morph. (B) PCA using whole-genome sequencing data showing no genetic structure between Hungariancanorus morphs. Individuals are colored by phenotype, and the percentage of variance explained by each component is given in parentheses. (C) Genome-wide association analysis. Each dot represents the −log10 transformation of likelihood ratio test (LRT)P values based on a 1 df chi-square distribution, per variant site. (D) Genetic differentiation between morphs across the genome. Each dot represents the fixation index (FST) averaged in 50-kb non-overlapping windows. In (C) and (D), the significance threshold after genome-wide Bonferroni correction (P = 2.77 × 10−9) and the top 0.1% of the empirical distribution are shown by a red dashed line, respectively.
(A) Photos depicting the two female plumage morphs of both species studied (common cuckoo,C. canorus; oriental cuckoo,C. optatus) (left). Feather insets show measured sites for both spectroscopic analyses (right). (B) Spectrophotometric measurements (percent reflectance) obtained from wing covert feathers of rufous and gray morphs for each species. (C) Raman spectra of the same feathers used for spectrophotometry. Diagnostic intensity peaks for eumelanin and pheomelanin identified in each spectrum of dark and light bands, respectively. (B) and (C) In rufous feathers, light and dark bands were measured separately to better account for patterning. Photo credits: Imran shah (canorus gray and rufous, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0), ming110 (optatus gray, licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0), and Ged Tranter (optatus rufous, ML193641471). a.u., arbitrary units.
(A) Maximum-likelihood phylogeny of the W chromosome (n = 53,712 biallelic SNPs) rooted along the truncated outgroup branch of the lesser cuckoo (C. poliocephalus), further including two specimens of another outgroup species (C. micropterus). Nodes with SH-like approximate likelihood ratio test (SH-aLRT; > 99%) support are marked with a diamond. (B) Autosomal ancestry coefficients (n = 16,031,301 biallelic SNPs) with individuals (x axis) displayed in the same order as the phylogeny. (C) Jittered sampling distribution with insets for two localities with higher sampling density. (D) First principal component of autosomal (left) and W chromosome (right) genetic variation, with PC scores scaled from 0.0 to 1.0 (outgroupsC. poliocephalus andC. micropterus excluded). Because of deviations from normality, two Wilcoxon rank sum tests were conducted on each axis to evaluate significant differences between species and plumage morphs, denoted below each axis after Bonferroni correction. The eigenvalue proportion of variance explained is indicated adjacent to each PC label. *P < 0.05; ns, not significant.
(A) Cartoon depicting strategy for calculating age in generations since divergence using genetic variation within each population (π) and sequence divergence between them (DXY) to estimateDa in conjunction with a generational mutation rate (μgeneration = 1.01 × 10−08). Divergence was calculated for both species split and plumage color contrast. (B) Relative ratio of plumage to species divergence for autosomal and W chromosomes. Mean and 95% CIs were generated by calculating the meanDa(Plumage)/Da(Species) with 1000 bootstrap resampling events. Dashed line indicates a value of 1.0 where divergence between plumage morphs is equal to divergence between species. (C) AutosomalD-statistics from ABBA-BABA analyses. Mean and SDD-statistics were obtained by jackknifing all autosomal data. The analysis was run once with graycanorus as the target population (P3) and again with rufouscanorus as the target (P3) to examine excess allele sharing with rufousoptatus (P2), usingcanorus from the Hungarian population. (D) Tajima’sD in 50-kb windows for autosomal and W chromosome data within thecanorus Hungarian dataset, with violin plots showing all windows with 25 and 75% quartiles indicated. (E) Proportion of genome-wide topologies exhibiting majority support (≥50%) for either the Species, Plumage, or “other ILS” tree with 100-SNP windows. All topologies other than the species tree and plumage tree were categorized as other ILS trees. Bootstrapped mean and 95% CIs are indicated.
Similar articles
- Host nest defence does not act as selective agent against plumage polymorphism in brood parasites.Honza M, Štětková G, Požgayová M, Samaš P.Honza M, et al.Proc Biol Sci. 2024 Nov;291(2034):20241135. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2024.1135. Epub 2024 Nov 13.Proc Biol Sci. 2024.PMID:39533954
- Common cuckoo females may escape male sexual harassment by color polymorphism.Lee JW, Kim HN, Yoo S, Yoo JC.Lee JW, et al.Sci Rep. 2019 May 17;9(1):7515. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44024-6.Sci Rep. 2019.PMID:31101873Free PMC article.
- Color plumage polymorphism and predator mimicry in brood parasites.Trnka A, Grim T.Trnka A, et al.Front Zool. 2013 May 10;10(1):25. doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-10-25.Front Zool. 2013.PMID:23663311Free PMC article.
- The evolution, maintenance and adaptive function of genetic colour polymorphism in birds.Roulin A.Roulin A.Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 Nov;79(4):815-48. doi: 10.1017/s1464793104006487.Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004.PMID:15682872Review.
- Progress on the formation mechanism of sexual dimorphism plumage color in birds.Wang JM, Liu HH, Ma SC, Xi Y, Zhang RP, Xu Q, Li L.Wang JM, et al.Yi Chuan. 2022 Jun 20;44(6):491-500. doi: 10.16288/j.yczz.22-004.Yi Chuan. 2022.PMID:35729097Review.
Cited by
- Host nest defence does not act as selective agent against plumage polymorphism in brood parasites.Honza M, Štětková G, Požgayová M, Samaš P.Honza M, et al.Proc Biol Sci. 2024 Nov;291(2034):20241135. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2024.1135. Epub 2024 Nov 13.Proc Biol Sci. 2024.PMID:39533954
- Beyond genes-for-behaviour: The potential for genomics to resolve long-standing questions in avian brood parasitism.Rönkä K, Eroukhmanoff F, Kulmuni J, Nouhaud P, Thorogood R.Rönkä K, et al.Ecol Evol. 2024 Nov 17;14(11):e70335. doi: 10.1002/ece3.70335. eCollection 2024 Nov.Ecol Evol. 2024.PMID:39575141Free PMC article.Review.
References
- C. Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (John Murray, London, ed. 1, 1871).
- Rice W. R., Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38, 735–742 (1984). - PubMed
- Galeotti P., Rubolini D., Dunn P. O., Fasola M., Colour polymorphism in birds: Causes and functions. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 635–646 (2003). - PubMed
- H. Van Gossum, T. Sherratt, A. Cordero-Rivera, The evolution of sex-limited colour polymorphism, in Dragonflies & Damselflies Model Organisms for Ecological and Evolutionary Research (Oxford Univ. Press, 2008), pp. 219–230.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Related information
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources