The contribution of historical processes to contemporary extinction risk in placental mammals

Species persistence can be influenced by the amount, type, and distribution of diversity across the genome, suggesting a potential relationship between historical demography and resilience. In this study, we surveyed genetic variation across single genomes of 240 mammals that compose the Zoonomia alignment to evaluate how historical effective population size (Ne) affects heterozygosity and deleterious genetic load and how these factors may contribute to extinction risk. We find that species with smaller historical Ne carry a proportionally larger burden of deleterious alleles owing to long-term accumulation and fixation of genetic load and have a higher risk of extinction. This suggests that historical demography can inform contemporary resilience. Models that included genomic data were predictive of species’ conservation status, suggesting that, in the absence of adequate census or ecological data, genomic information may provide an initial risk assessment. Description INTRODUCTION The Anthropocene is marked by an accelerated loss of biodiversity, widespread population declines, and a global conservation crisis. Given limited resources for conservation intervention, an approach is needed to identify threatened species from among the thousands lacking adequate information for status assessments. Such prioritization for intervention could come from genome sequence data, as genomes contain information about demography, diversity, fitness, and adaptive potential. However, the relevance of genomic data for identifying at-risk species is uncertain, in part because genetic variation may reflect past events and life histories better than contemporary conservation status. RATIONALE The Zoonomia multispecies alignment presents an opportunity to systematically compare neutral and functional genomic diversity and their relationships to contemporary extinction risk across a large sample of diverse mammalian taxa. We surveyed 240 species spanning from the “Least Concern” to “Critically Endangered” categories, as published in the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species. Using a single genome for each species, we estimated historical effective population sizes (Ne) and distributions of genome-wide heterozygosity. To estimate genetic load, we identified substitutions relative to reconstructed ancestral sequences, assuming that mutations at evolutionarily conserved sites and in protein-coding sequences, especially in genes essential for viability in mice, are predominantly deleterious. We examined relationships between the conservation status of species and metrics of heterozygosity, demography, and genetic load and used these data to train and test models to distinguish threatened from nonthreatened species. RESULTS Species with smaller historical Ne are more likely to be categorized as at risk of extinction, suggesting that demography, even from periods more than 10,000 years in the past, may be informative of contemporary resilience. Species with smaller historical Ne also carry proportionally higher burdens of weakly and moderately deleterious alleles, consistent with theoretical expectations of the long-term accumulation and fixation of genetic load under strong genetic drift. We found weak support for a causative link between fixed drift load and extinction risk; however, other types of genetic load not captured in our data, such as rare, highly deleterious alleles, may also play a role. Although ecological (e.g., physiological, life-history, and behavioral) variables were the best predictors of extinction risk, genomic variables nonrandomly distinguished threatened from nonthreatened species in regression and machine learning models. These results suggest that information encoded within even a single genome can provide a risk assessment in the absence of adequate ecological or population census data. CONCLUSION Our analysis highlights the potential for genomic data to rapidly and inexpensively gauge extinction risk by leveraging relationships between contemporary conservation status and genetic variation shaped by the long-term demographic history of species. As more resequencing data and additional reference genomes become available, estimates of genetic load, estimates of recent demographic history, and accuracy of predictive models will improve. We therefore echo calls for including genomic information in assessments of the conservation status of species. Genomic information can help predict extinction risk in diverse mammalian species. Across 240 mammals, species with smaller historical Ne had lower genetic diversity, higher genetic load, and were more likely to be threatened with extinction. Genomic data were used to train models that predict whether a species is threatened, which can be valuable for assessing extinction risk in species lacking ecological or census data. [Animal silhouettes are from PhyloPic]

Voichita D. Marinescu | Andreas R. Pfenning | Graham M. Hughes | BaDoi N. Phan | Irene M. Kaplow | Pardis C Sabeti | F. Di Palma | B. Birren | K. Lindblad-Toh | Z. Weng | M. Diekhans | K. Pollard | T. Marquès-Bonet | H. Clawson | B. Paten | O. Wallerman | W. Murphy | R. Hubley | E. Karlsson | E. Teeling | A. Navarro | G. Muntané | M. Springer | E. Eizirik | Jill E. Moore | S. Gazal | B. Shapiro | H. Lewin | Steven K. Reilly | Oliver A. Ryder | D. Ray | Jason Turner-Maier | C. Steiner | Jeremy Johnson | K. Fan | J. Meadows | Diana D. Moreno-Santillán | S. Kozyrev | M. Christmas | K. Koepfli | Morgan E. Wirthlin | Ross Swofford | G. Hickey | Abigail L. Lind | Joana Damas | Kathleen Morrill | Nicole M. Foley | J. Gatesy | Ayshwarya Subramanian | Alyssa J. Lawler | Joy-El R B Talbot | T. Lehmann | P. Sullivan | Kathleen C. Keough | K. Forsberg-Nilsson | D. Genereux | Chaitanya Srinivasan | E. Sundström | Daniel E. Schäffer | David Juan | M. Nweeia | B. Kirilenko | S. Ortmann | A. Valenzuela | Arian F. A. Smit | Aryn P. Wilder | Aitor Serres | Carlos J. Garcia | Anish Mudide | Juehan Wang | Chao Wang | I. Ruf | Jessica M. Storer | M. Bianchi | Aitor Serres-Armero | Amanda Kowalczyk | C. Lawless | Xue Li | D. Levesque | Xiaomeng Zhang | Kathleen Foley | Wynn K. Meyer | Jeb Rosen | A. Breit | Victor C. Mason | Andrew J. Harris | K. Bredemeyer | Nicole S. Paulat | Austin B. Osmanski | Michael Hiller | L. R. Moreira | Megan A. Supple | J. Korstian | Franziska Wagner | Ava Mackay-Smith | Jenna R. Grimshaw | Michaela K. Halsey | Kevin A. M. Sullivan | H. Pratt | Allyson Hindle | Louise Ryan | Linda Goodman | Michael X. Dong | Joel C. Armstrong | Violeta Munoz Fuentes | James R. Xue | Gregory Andrews | Cornelia Fanter | Klaus‐Peter Koepfli | Graham M. Hughes | Jennifer M. Korstian | Jeremy Johnson | Tomàs Marquès-Bonet | Bogdan M. Kirilenko

[1]  Voichita D. Marinescu,et al.  Evolutionary constraint and innovation across hundreds of placental mammals , 2023, bioRxiv.

[2]  H. Ellegren,et al.  From high masked to high realized genetic load in inbred Scandinavian wolves , 2022, Molecular ecology.

[3]  C. van Oosterhout,et al.  Genomic erosion in the assessment of species extinction risk and recovery potential , 2022, bioRxiv.

[4]  W. Murphy,et al.  A genomic timescale for placental mammal evolution , 2022, bioRxiv.

[5]  Christopher C. Kyriazis,et al.  The critically endangered vaquita is not doomed to extinction by inbreeding depression , 2022, Science.

[6]  G. Bertorelle,et al.  Genetic load: genomic estimates and applications in non-model animals , 2022, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[7]  P. Hedrick,et al.  The crucial role of genome-wide genetic variation in conservation , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  J. DeWoody,et al.  The long‐standing significance of genetic diversity in conservation , 2021, Molecular ecology.

[9]  C. van Oosterhout,et al.  Comment on “Individual heterozygosity predicts translocation success in threatened desert tortoises” , 2021, Science.

[10]  U. Ramakrishnan,et al.  Genomic evidence for inbreeding depression and purging of deleterious genetic variation in Indian tigers , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  David Alvarez-Ponce,et al.  Mammals with Small Populations Do Not Exhibit Larger Genomes , 2021, Molecular biology and evolution.

[12]  Thomas M. Keane,et al.  Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools , 2020, GigaScience.

[13]  J. C. Teixeira,et al.  The inflated significance of neutral genetic diversity in conservation genetics , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Roy C. Averill-Murray,et al.  Individual heterozygosity predicts translocation success in threatened desert tortoises , 2020, Science.

[15]  R. Nielsen,et al.  Evolution of the genetic architecture of local adaptations under genetic rescue is determined by mutational load and polygenicity , 2020, bioRxiv.

[16]  Voichita D. Marinescu,et al.  Progressive Cactus is a multiple-genome aligner for the thousand-genome era , 2020, Nature.

[17]  Voichita D. Marinescu,et al.  A comparative genomics multitool for scientific discovery and conservation , 2020, Nature.

[18]  E. Madin,et al.  Herbivores at the highest risk of extinction among mammals, birds, and reptiles , 2020, Science Advances.

[19]  D. Miles Can Morphology Predict the Conservation Status of Iguanian Lizards? , 2020, Integrative and comparative biology.

[20]  N. Gemmell,et al.  Determinants of genetic variation across eco-evolutionary scales in pinnipeds , 2020, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[21]  N. Dulvy,et al.  Eliminating the dark matter of data deficiency by predicting the conservation status of Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea sharks and rays , 2020 .

[22]  C. van Oosterhout Mutation load is the spectre of species conservation , 2020, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[23]  A. Toyoda,et al.  Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Landlocked Threespine Stickleback Populations , 2020, Genome biology and evolution.

[24]  D. Schluter,et al.  Vulnerability to Fishing and Life History Traits Correlate with the Load of Deleterious Mutations in Teleosts , 2020, Molecular biology and evolution.

[25]  T. Sicheritz-Pontén,et al.  Historical population declines prompted significant genomic erosion in the northern and southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) , 2020, bioRxiv.

[26]  Bernard Y. Kim,et al.  Population genetic models of GERP scores suggest pervasive turnover of constrained sites across mammalian evolution , 2019, bioRxiv.

[27]  Parice A. Brandies,et al.  The Value of Reference Genomes in the Conservation of Threatened Species , 2019, Genes.

[28]  F. Samarra,et al.  North Atlantic killer whale Orcinus orca populations: a review of current knowledge and threats to conservation , 2019, Mammal Review.

[29]  Brendan L. O’Connell,et al.  Puma genomes from North and South America provide insights into the genomic consequences of inbreeding , 2019, Nature Communications.

[30]  Austin H. Patton,et al.  Contemporary Demographic Reconstruction Methods Are Robust to Genome Assembly Quality: A Case Study in Tasmanian Devils , 2019, Molecular biology and evolution.

[31]  T. Marquès-Bonet,et al.  Estimates of genetic load suggest frequent purging of deleterious alleles in small populations 1 , 2020 .

[32]  L. Keller,et al.  Purging of highly deleterious mutations through severe bottlenecks in Alpine ibex , 2019, bioRxiv.

[33]  S. Yeaman,et al.  Unpacking conditional neutrality: genomic signatures of selection on conditionally beneficial and conditionally deleterious mutations , 2019, bioRxiv.

[34]  R. Wayne,et al.  Genomic signatures of extensive inbreeding in Isle Royale wolves, a population on the threshold of extinction , 2018, Science Advances.

[35]  Bernard Y. Kim,et al.  Purging of Strongly Deleterious Mutations Explains Long-Term Persistence and Absence of Inbreeding Depression in Island Foxes , 2018, Current Biology.

[36]  B. Shapiro,et al.  Conservation of biodiversity in the genomics era , 2018, Genome Biology.

[37]  Rebecca B. Dikow,et al.  Genome sequence and population declines in the critically endangered greater bamboo lemur (Prolemur simus) and implications for conservation , 2018, BMC Genomics.

[38]  Damian Smedley,et al.  The International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC): a functional catalogue of the mammalian genome that informs conservation , 2018, Conservation Genetics.

[39]  Sanjit S. Batra,et al.  The Juicebox Assembly Tools module facilitates de novo assembly of mammalian genomes with chromosome-length scaffolds for under $1000 , 2018, bioRxiv.

[40]  Jacob Schreiber,et al.  Pomegranate: fast and flexible probabilistic modeling in python , 2017, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[41]  J. M. Anderson The Annihilation of Nature: Human Extinction of Birds and Mammals , 2017 .

[42]  P. Humphries,et al.  Trait‐based prediction of extinction risk of small‐bodied freshwater fishes , 2017, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[43]  P. Hedrick,et al.  Understanding Inbreeding Depression, Purging, and Genetic Rescue. , 2016, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[44]  Molly Przeworski,et al.  Evolutionary history inferred from the de novo assembly of a nonmodel organism, the blue-eyed black lemur , 2015, Molecular ecology.

[45]  A. Clark,et al.  Estimating the mutation load in human genomes , 2015, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[46]  David W. Macdonald,et al.  Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores , 2015, Science Advances.

[47]  C. Orme,et al.  Predicting the conservation status of data‐deficient species , 2015, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[48]  Matthew W. Hahn,et al.  Convergent evolution of the genomes of marine mammals , 2015, Nature Genetics.

[49]  E. Teeling,et al.  How and why should we implement genomics into conservation? , 2014, Evolutionary applications.

[50]  C. Ané,et al.  A linear-time algorithm for Gaussian and non-Gaussian trait evolution models. , 2014, Systematic biology.

[51]  Michael Eickenberg,et al.  Machine learning for neuroimaging with scikit-learn , 2014, Front. Neuroinform..

[52]  M. Hebblewhite,et al.  Status and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores , 2014, Science.

[53]  Ilan Gronau,et al.  Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs , 2014, PLoS genetics.

[54]  L. Santini,et al.  Generation length for mammals , 2013 .

[55]  David Haussler,et al.  HAL: a hierarchical format for storing and analyzing multiple genome alignments , 2013, Bioinform..

[56]  Heng Li Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM , 2013, 1303.3997.

[57]  Huanming Yang,et al.  Whole-genome sequencing of giant pandas provides insights into demographic history and local adaptation , 2012, Nature Genetics.

[58]  Pablo Cingolani,et al.  © 2012 Landes Bioscience. Do not distribute. , 2022 .

[59]  Albert J. Vilella,et al.  A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals , 2011, Nature.

[60]  R. Durbin,et al.  Inference of Human Population History From Whole Genome Sequence of A Single Individual , 2011, Nature.

[61]  Marcel Martin Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads , 2011 .

[62]  C. Marshall,et al.  Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? , 2011, Nature.

[63]  William N. Venables,et al.  Modern Applied Statistics with S , 2010 .

[64]  G. Luikart,et al.  Genomics and the future of conservation genetics , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[65]  M. DePristo,et al.  The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. , 2010, Genome research.

[66]  Kate E. Jones,et al.  PanTHERIA: a species‐level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals , 2009 .

[67]  M. Jakobsson,et al.  Nonlinear Dynamics of Nonsynonymous (dN) and Synonymous (dS) Substitution Rates Affects Inference of Selection , 2009, Genome biology and evolution.

[68]  P. Hedrick Conservation genetics and North American bison (Bison bison). , 2009, The Journal of heredity.

[69]  James H Brown,et al.  Multiple ecological pathways to extinction in mammals , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[70]  Gonçalo R. Abecasis,et al.  The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools , 2009, Bioinform..

[71]  S. Otto Fixation Probabilities and Times , 2005 .

[72]  B. Hansson,et al.  On the correlation between heterozygosity and fitness in natural populations , 2002, Molecular ecology.

[73]  Sudhir Kumar,et al.  Mutation rates in mammalian genomes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[74]  J. L. Gittleman,et al.  Predicting extinction risk in declining species , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[75]  M. Kimura Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level , 1968, Nature.

[76]  R. Nowak,et al.  Walker's mammals of the world , 1968 .

[77]  F. THE MUTATION LOAD IN SMALL POPULATIONS , 2022 .