You have accessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Hedgecock Dennis 2022No evidence for temporally balanced selection on larval Pacific oysters Crassostrea gigas: a comment on Durland et al. (2021)Proc. R. Soc. B.2892021257920212579http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2579SectionYou have accessCommentNo evidence for temporally balanced selection on larval Pacific oysters Crassostrea gigas: a comment on Durland et al. (2021) Dennis Hedgecock Dennis Hedgecock http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3995-646X Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0371, USA [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Dennis Hedgecock Dennis Hedgecock http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3995-646X Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0371, USA [email protected] Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Published:01 June 2022https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2579This article comments on the following:Research ArticleTemporally balanced selection during development of larval Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) inherently preserves genetic diversity within offspringhttps://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.3223 Evan Durland, Pierre De Wit and Chris Langdon volume 288issue 1958Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences01 September 2021 Review history Review history is available via Web of Science at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1098/rspb.2021.2579/ Durland et al. [1] claim that temporally balanced selection preserves genetic diversity in a developing larval cohort of Pacific oysters produced from wild-caught parents. Their assertion is based upon pooled DNA sequencing estimates of changes in SNP minor-allele frequencies (MAFs) in the cohort. Finding bidirectional changes in allele frequencies for 17% of markers—allele-frequency change is detected at 473 of 751 markers; of these, 127 show bidirectional changes over the course of 22 days of development—they conclude that ‘temporal patterns of changes in allele frequencies for a significant proportion of loci are inconsistent with simple explanations of directional selection and purging of deleterious mutations’. Durland et al.'s null hypothesis that purifying selection ought only to produce unidirectional changes in MAF is ill-informed, divorced from classical mutational load theory [2], and at odds with abundant empirical evidence concerning large genetic loads in the Pacific oyster and other bivalve molluscs.Frequencies of marker genotypes change within bivalve families because of viability selection against linked deleterious mutations (Plough [3] reviews nearly a half-century of research on this topic), but in a mixed cohort of families, the magnitude and direction of allele-frequency changes are necessarily conditioned on the complex genetic architectures (i.e. linkage of markers and mutations, strength of selection and degree of dominance) and temporal patterns of genotype-dependent viability selection within each family [4–10]. Two simple examples suffice to illustrate that trajectories of SNP MAFs in a mixed cohort of families with different genetic architectures need not be unidirectional (table 1). One reason not to expect simple directional changes in MAF is that a deleterious mutation (mapped as a quantitative-trait locus affecting viability or a vQTL [7,9,10]) may be linked either to the minor allele or to its alternative in different families, leading possibly to offsetting changes in MAF (table 1a). Another reason not to expect a simple directional change in MAF is that different vQTL may be expressed at different stages of larval development [7], leading potentially to bidirectional changes in MAF (table 1b). Simply put, the nature of genotype-dependent selection within families cannot be inferred from observing MAF changes in a pool of those families. Durland et al.'s data are compatible with the paradigm of purifying selection, which has been established by direct observations of genotype-dependent survival within families [3–10]. Durland et al.'s additional expectation that purifying selection should have eliminated some SNP alleles is unreasonable, since partially dominant, deleterious mutations in random-bred families would be carried in heterozygotes, which have average fitness of 0.5–0.7 relative to wild-type homozygotes [9,10] and would not be eliminated within a single generation. Table 1. Examples of MAFs in pools of two families with different SNP-vQTL architectures.a Collapse family 1vQTL in family 1family 2vQTL in family 2MAF in poolcross: a*A//bB × bC//bDACADBCBDcross: aA//b*B × bC//bDACADBCBDdayf[a](a) selection at day 10 against haplotype a*-A in family 1 and against haplotype b*-B in family 2frequency at fertilization0.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.2500.25fitness day 100.50.511110.50.5frequency at day 120.1670.1670.3330.3330.3330.3330.1670.167120.25(b) selection at day 10 against haplotype a*-A in family 1; selection at day 20 against haplotype b*-B in family 2frequency at fertilization0.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.2500.25fitness day 100.50.5111111frequency at day 120.1670.1670.3330.3330.250.250.250.25120.21fitness day 201111110.3330.333frequency at day 220.1670.1670.3330.3330.3750.3750.1250.125220.26aSNP alleles denoted by lowercase letters; a, minor allele; asterisk denotes tight linkage to deleterious mutation at vQTL. Alleles at vQTL are A, B (paternal) and C, D (maternal). Fitness values modelled after [7,8]. Pools start out 1 : 1, but the ratio changes, following selective mortality; allele frequencies in pool are weighted by family survival proportions.Durland et al. produced a larval cohort by a factorial cross of 5 males × 19 females, pooling families in approximately equal proportions 1 h after fertilization. Substantial research has repeatedly shown that mass or pooled spawns of bivalves result in progressively uneven representations of families through larval development, owing to a high variance in reproductive success [11–21]. This variance in reproductive success arises from variation in gamete quality, sperm-egg interactions and larval mortality and has non-genetic [22] and genetic components [11,23]. Often, over the course of larval development, there is a complete loss of half-sib families (rows or columns in a factorial mating design), even though fertilization is initially apparently successful [11,24,25]. Such variance in reproductive success reduces the effective size of a cohort, by 30% or more from the actual number of parents [11,15]. Thus, of the 24 parents used by Durland et al., far fewer were likely represented in the cohort by the end of larval development. Parental contributions and the relative abundances of families, moreover, are only weakly correlated or are uncorrelated from one time point to another during larval development [15,16,18]. Thus, SNP-allele frequencies are expected to change markedly and in different directions in pools of families over time, not because of changing selection pressures on SNP alleles, as claimed by Durland et al., but because of shifting family composition in the cohort.Finally, Durland et al. estimate SNP-allele frequencies from fertilized egg and larval DNA pools, but this approach assumes that individuals in a sample provide a similar number of DNA templates, which is doubtful. For example, because polar bodies remain adhered to fertilized eggs [26], the ratio of female to male DNA in a pool of eggs collected at 1 h post-fertilization is 4 : 1. Later, during development, individual larvae, even full-sibs, become progressively heterogeneous in size and mass; by day 10, for example, ash-free dry organic mass of the largest larva in a family can be 5× that of its smallest sibling and the average dry organic mass of larvae in a fast-growing family may be 2× that of larvae in a slow-growing family (calculated, for example, from data in [27], using the dry organic mass-to-length regression in [28]; cell numbers and DNA content are directly proportional to biochemical composition in marine invertebrate larvae [29]). That families can have very different average sizes is also demonstrated by the very different proportions of families in a size-graded mixed cohort compared to its non-graded control [16]. Thus, Durland et al.'s estimates of SNP-allele frequencies in pooled samples are biased, likely, by differences in template abundance, violating a basic assumption of DNA-pooling methods [30].Durland et al.'s inference of temporally balanced selection acting on larval Pacific oysters is based on fundamental conceptual and methodological errors. Their observations are compatible with and more readily explained by a large load of deleterious mutations affecting the survival of early life stages and by variance in the reproductive success of pooled, hatchery-propagated families. The hypothesis that temporally balanced selection preserves genetic diversity within larval cohorts is neither warranted nor necessary.Pooled DNA-sequencing approaches have been used in several recent studies of genetic change in larval cohorts of bivalves and other marine invertebrates (e.g. [31–33]). While a detailed critique of these works is beyond the scope of this comment, the caveats expressed here about pooling of samples may apply to them as well. Pooled DNA-sequencing in experiments is facile and possibly suited to answering some biological questions, but understanding genotype-dependent selection is still probably best achieved by applying the tried-and-true methods of Mendelian experimental genetics (i.e. analyses of individual progeny from single-pair crosses or assignment of individual progeny to parents if families must be pooled, coupled with QTL-mapping methods to identify genomic foci and modes of selection).Data accessibilityThis article has no additional data.Authors' contributionsD.H.: conceptualization, writing—original draft and writing—review and editing.Competing interestsI declare I have no competing interests.FundingI received no funding for this study.AcknowledgementsThe author thanks Drs Louis V. Plough, Xiaoshen Yin and especially Donal T. Manahan for reading and commenting on this note. He is grateful, as well, for the support provided to the Paxson H. Offield Professor in Fisheries Ecology.FootnotesThe accompanying reply can be viewed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.0197.© 2022 The Author(s)Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.