<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD with MathML3 v1.3 20210610//EN"  "JATS-archivearticle1-3-mathml3.dtd"><article xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">elife</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">eLife</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>eLife</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn publication-format="electronic" pub-type="epub">2050-084X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">81640</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.81640</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="display-channel"><subject>Short Report</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Evolutionary Biology</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>A toxin-antidote selfish element increases fitness of its host</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" id="author-287869"><name><surname>Long</surname><given-names>Lijiang</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9897-5900</contrib-id><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con1"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="author-287870"><name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>Wen</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2085-7223</contrib-id><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con2"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="author-320461"><name><surname>Valencia</surname><given-names>Francisco</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con3"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" id="author-174684"><name><surname>Paaby</surname><given-names>Annalise B</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1422-047X</contrib-id><email>paaby@gatech.edu</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref><xref ref-type="other" rid="fund2"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con4"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" id="author-54703"><name><surname>McGrath</surname><given-names>Patrick T</given-names></name><contrib-id authenticated="true" contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1598-3746</contrib-id><email>patrick.mcgrath@biology.gatech.edu</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref><xref ref-type="other" rid="fund1"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="con5"/><xref ref-type="fn" rid="conf1"/></contrib><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/01zkghx44</institution-id><institution>School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology</institution></institution-wrap><addr-line><named-content content-type="city">Atlanta</named-content></addr-line><country>United States</country></aff><aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/01zkghx44</institution-id><institution>Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Quantitative Biosciences, Georgia Institute of Technology</institution></institution-wrap><addr-line><named-content content-type="city">Atlanta</named-content></addr-line><country>United States</country></aff><aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/01zkghx44</institution-id><institution>School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology</institution></institution-wrap><addr-line><named-content content-type="city">Atlanta</named-content></addr-line><country>United States</country></aff></contrib-group><contrib-group content-type="section"><contrib contrib-type="editor"><name><surname>Andersen</surname><given-names>Erik C</given-names></name><role>Reviewing Editor</role><aff><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/000e0be47</institution-id><institution>Northwestern University</institution></institution-wrap><country>United States</country></aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="senior_editor"><name><surname>Landry</surname><given-names>Christian R</given-names></name><role>Senior Editor</role><aff><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/04sjchr03</institution-id><institution>Université Laval</institution></institution-wrap><country>Canada</country></aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date publication-format="electronic" date-type="publication"><day>24</day><month>10</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><elocation-id>e81640</elocation-id><history><date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="2022-07-05"><day>05</day><month>07</month><year>2022</year></date><date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="2023-10-23"><day>23</day><month>10</month><year>2023</year></date></history><pub-history><event><event-desc>This manuscript was published as a preprint at .</event-desc><date date-type="preprint" iso-8601-date="2022-07-15"><day>15</day><month>07</month><year>2022</year></date><self-uri content-type="preprint" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.15.500229"/></event></pub-history><permissions><copyright-statement>© 2023, Long et al</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2023</copyright-year><copyright-holder>Long et al</copyright-holder><ali:free_to_read/><license xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><ali:license_ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ali:license_ref><license-p>This article is distributed under the terms of the <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution License</ext-link>, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="elife-81640-v2.pdf"/><self-uri content-type="figures-pdf" xlink:href="elife-81640-figures-v2.pdf"/><abstract><p>Selfish genetic elements can promote their transmission at the expense of individual survival, creating conflict between the element and the rest of the genome. Recently, a large number of toxin-antidote (TA) post-segregation distorters have been identified in non-obligate outcrossing nematodes. Their origin and the evolutionary forces that keep them at intermediate population frequencies are poorly understood. Here, we study a TA element in <italic>Caenorhabditis elegans</italic> called <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic>. Two major haplotypes of this locus, with and without the selfish element, segregate in <italic>C. elegans</italic>. We evaluate the fitness consequences of the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> element outside of its role in gene drive in non-outcrossing animals and demonstrate that loss of the toxin <italic>peel-1</italic> decreased fitness of hermaphrodites and resulted in reductions in fecundity and body size. These findings suggest a biological role for <italic>peel-1</italic> beyond toxin lethality. This work demonstrates that a TA element can provide a fitness benefit to its hosts either during their initial evolution or by being co-opted by the animals following their selfish spread. These findings guide our understanding on how TA elements can remain in a population where gene drive is minimized, helping resolve the mystery of prevalent TA elements in selfing animals.</p></abstract><kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords"><kwd>genomic conflict</kwd><kwd>toxin-antidote elements</kwd><kwd>fitness</kwd><kwd>selfish genetic elements</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group kwd-group-type="research-organism"><title>Research organism</title><kwd><italic>C. elegans</italic></kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><award-group id="fund1"><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="FundRef">http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002</institution-id><institution>National Institutes of Health</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>R35 GM139594</award-id><principal-award-recipient><name><surname>McGrath</surname><given-names>Patrick T</given-names></name></principal-award-recipient></award-group><award-group id="fund2"><funding-source><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="FundRef">http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002</institution-id><institution>National Institutes of Health</institution></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>R35 GM119744</award-id><principal-award-recipient><name><surname>Paaby</surname><given-names>Annalise B</given-names></name></principal-award-recipient></award-group><funding-statement>The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.</funding-statement></funding-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta specific-use="meta-only"><meta-name>Author impact statement</meta-name><meta-value>A toxin-antidote element, identified for its role as a selfish genetic element that spreads through a population by killing certain offspring, also plays a beneficial role to the host.</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1" sec-type="intro"><title>Introduction</title><p>Selfish genetic elements, or selfish genes, are heritable segments of DNA that promote their own transmission relative to the rest of the genome, potentially at the expense of the individual organism (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib34">Werren, 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib33">Werren et al., 1988</xref>). They act through a diverse catalog of molecular mechanisms to increase their frequency, including transposons, homing endonucleases, sex-ratio distorters, and segregation or post-segregation distorters (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib19">Hurst and Werren, 2001</xref>). Because selfish genetic elements induce tension between genes and the hosts that carry them, including causing disease and other health problems, their discovery and study over the last 50 or so years have motivated major questions—and debate—over the nature and consequences of genetic conflict in inheritance systems (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1">Ågren, 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib2">Ågren and Clark, 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib19">Hurst and Werren, 2001</xref>). In an early review, and in its revisit 23 years later, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib34">Werren, 2011</xref> posed three questions about selfish genetic elements that remain outstanding today: (i) how they arise, (ii) how they are maintained, and (iii) how they influence evolution.</p><p>Theory and observation have indicated that selfish genetic elements decrease in prevalence as inbreeding in a system increases; spreading necessarily requires outcrossing to a vulnerable genetic background (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib2">Ågren and Clark, 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib19">Hurst and Werren, 2001</xref>). However, a recent wave of discovery of toxin-antidote (TA) elements in non-obligate outcrossing species (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib9">Ben-David et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib10">Ben-David et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib26">Nuckolls et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib30">Shen et al., 2017</xref>) challenges this view. TA elements are post-segregation distorters composed of two or more linked sub-elements, including a ‘toxin’ transmitted cytoplasmically from the parent to the offspring through the gamete and an ‘antidote’ that rescues when expressed in the zygote. TA elements induce heavy fitness costs to hybrids heterozygous for an active/inactive genotype because while all gametes will carry the cytoplasmic toxin, only those zygotes that inherit the TA allele will express the antidote and survive.</p><p>TA systems, which include Medea elements (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib8">Beeman et al., 1992</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>) and functionally similar ‘gamete killers’ (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib26">Nuckolls et al., 2017</xref>), have been identified across multiple kingdoms of life, including bacteria, plants, fungi, insects, and nematodes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib3">Akarsu et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib5">Bardaji et al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib7">Beckmann et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib8">Beeman et al., 1992</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib10">Ben-David et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib14">Chen et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib22">Leplae et al., 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib27">Saavedra De Bast et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib29">Seidel et al., 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib35">Yang et al., 2012</xref>). In the nematode genus <italic>Caenorhabditis</italic>, androdioecy (male and hermaphrodite sexes) has evolved independently three times from a male–female ancestor (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib17">Ellis, 2017</xref>); consequently, <italic>C. elegans</italic>, <italic>C. briggsae,</italic> and <italic>C. tropicalis</italic> reproduce primarily by selfing, with infrequent instances of outcrossing via male mating (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib6">Barrière and Félix, 2005</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib16">Cutter et al., 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>). Medea TA elements have been identified in all three species, including multiple elements in both <italic>C. elegans</italic> and <italic>C. tropicalis</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib9">Ben-David et al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib10">Ben-David et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib28">Seidel et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib29">Seidel et al., 2011</xref>). These results beg the question: Why have so many TA elements been identified in non-obligate outcrossing species (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Sweigart et al., 2019</xref>)?</p><p>One of the most complete mechanistic descriptions of a TA system is the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> locus in <italic>C. elegans</italic>, in which a sperm-delivered toxin (<italic>peel-1</italic>) induces arrest in embryos not carrying the zygotically expressed antidote (<italic>zeel-1</italic>) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1A</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib28">Seidel et al., 2008</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib29">Seidel et al., 2011</xref>). The alternative active/inactive haplotypes that segregate within <italic>C. elegans</italic> exhibit high genetic diversity (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1B</xref>) that dates the divergence of the two haplotypes to roughly 8 million generations ago (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib21">Lee et al., 2021</xref>). Maintenance (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1C</xref>) of ancient polymorphism is inconsistent with a history of selfish activity: in outcrossing populations, genic drive should fix the active haplotype rapidly; in the androdioecious mating system of <italic>C. elegans</italic>, a high rate of selfing should fix an element at high frequency or allow it to be lost by drift at low frequency (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>). However, it is unknown how the fitness of a TA element, independent of its selfishness, may influence its spread or maintenance.</p><fig-group><fig id="fig1" position="float"><label>Figure 1.</label><caption><title>Description and models of selection for <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic>.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Schematic of the progenies created from an F1 hybrid cross, produced through intercrossing. Red outline indicates cytoplasmic inheritance of the PEEL-1 toxin from the hybrid male, independent of genomic inheritance of <italic>peel-1</italic> (red circle) or <italic>zeel-1</italic> (green star), which counteracts the toxin by zygotic expression (green background). Progeny that die are indicated by the X cross. (<bold>B</bold>) Schematic of the genomic region surrounding <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> for two major haplotypes, N2 and CB4856. <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> is present in the N2 genome and deleted in the CB4856 genome. Amino acid identities of each gene are shown between the two haplotypes. The red bar denotes the hyperdivergent region starting in the 5′ end of <italic>srbc-64</italic> and ending in the beginning of <italic>nekl-1</italic>. (<bold>C</bold>) A gene tree representation of the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> locus from wild strains of <italic>C. elegans</italic> using the hyperdivergent region (based on <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib28">Seidel et al., 2008</xref>). Two major branches distinguish the N2 and CB4856 haplotypes; the number of wild isolates and distinct isotypes are labeled on each branch. This distribution is consistent with balancing selection acting on each haplotype. (<bold>D</bold>) Schematic of the simulation of <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> population dynamics. The fitness of each genotype is shown on top. Genotype frequencies are updated each generation using <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. (<bold>E</bold>) The allele frequency change per generation (y-axis) of <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> (s = 0, k = 1, blue curve) or a beneficial allele (s = 0.44, h = 0.5) as a function of allele frequency (x-axis). (<bold>F</bold>) The change in allele frequency per generation (y-axis) of <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> with three different carrying costs (s = 0, s = 0.3, and s = 0.6), as a function of allele frequency (x-axis). (<bold>G</bold>) The change in allele frequency per generation (y-axis) of <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> with a fixed fitness cost (s = 0.35, h = 0.5) at different rates of outcrossing, as a function of allele frequency (x-axis). (<bold>H</bold>) Heatmap showing the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> frequency after 1000 generations, over varying outcrossing rates (y-axis) and carrying costs (x-axis). Initial frequency of the element was 50%. Black indicates animals that have lost the element.</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig1sdata1"><label>Figure 1—source data 1.</label><caption><title>Excel file containing source data for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>.</title></caption><media mimetype="application" mime-subtype="xlsx" xlink:href="elife-81640-fig1-data1-v2.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff" xlink:href="elife-81640-fig1-v2.tif"/></fig><fig id="fig1s1" position="float" specific-use="child-fig"><label>Figure 1—figure supplement 1.</label><caption><title>Heatmap of <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> frequency after 100 generations.</title><p>The x-axis shows carrying costs and the y-axis shows outcrossing rates over a range typical of <italic>C. elegans</italic> in nature. Initial frequency was 50%.</p></caption><graphic mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff" xlink:href="elife-81640-fig1-figsupp1-v2.tif"/></fig></fig-group><p>In this study, we investigate the fitness effect of a TA element in the host genotype, independent of its toxic incompatibility in outcrossed individuals, to assess its role in maintaining the prevalence of TA elements in non-obligate outcrossing populations. Modeling under expected conditions shows that TA elements are vulnerable to being lost at low frequency, but direct tests of fitness-proximal traits indicate that the active <italic>peel-1</italic> allele increases fitness relative to the inactive haplotype. These results suggest that the spread of the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> allele within <italic>C. elegans</italic> might not be gene drive, but positive selection acting on independent biological traits. These findings have consequences for considering the origin and maintenance of TA elements and their influence on the historical evolution of populations.</p></sec><sec id="s2" sec-type="results|discussion"><title>Results and discussion</title><sec id="s2-1"><title>The fitness cost of a TA element influences its initial spread and final fate</title><p>The effectiveness of a gene drive system is dependent on multiple factors beyond its selfish induction of incompatibility, including genotype frequency, outcrossing rate, and fitness in the host background. To explore these parameters, we adapted a family-based model (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1D</xref>, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib32">Wade and Beeman, 1994</xref>) with modifications to account for paternal delivery of the toxin, selfing versus outcrossing rate, and selection cost of the element.</p><table-wrap id="table1" position="float"><label>Table 1.</label><caption><title>A family-based model for the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> evolution dynamics.</title></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="2">Family</th><th align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Mating types</th><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="2">Frequency</th><th align="left" valign="top" rowspan="2">Female fitness</th><th align="left" valign="top" colspan="3">Offspring genotype</th></tr><tr><th align="left" valign="top">Sire</th><th align="left" valign="top">Dam</th><th align="left" valign="top">PP</th><th align="left" valign="top">P+</th><th align="left" valign="top">++</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td><td align="left" valign="top">PP</td><td align="left" valign="top">PP</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>pp</sub>X<sub>pp</sub>k</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1-s</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td><td align="left" valign="top"/><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">2</td><td align="left" valign="top">P+</td><td align="left" valign="top">PP</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>p+</sub>X<sub>pp</sub>k</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1-s</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.5</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.5</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">3</td><td align="char" char="plus" valign="top">++</td><td align="left" valign="top">PP</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>++</sub>X<sub>pp</sub>k</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1-s</td><td align="left" valign="top"/><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">4</td><td align="left" valign="top">PP</td><td align="left" valign="top">P+</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>pp</sub>X<sub>p+</sub>k</td><td align="char" char="hyphen" valign="top">1-hs</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.5</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.5</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">5</td><td align="left" valign="top">P+</td><td align="left" valign="top">P+</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>p+</sub>X<sub>p+</sub>k</td><td align="char" char="hyphen" valign="top">1-hs</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.25</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.5</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.25(1-t)</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">6</td><td align="char" char="plus" valign="top">++</td><td align="left" valign="top">P+</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>++</sub>X<sub>p+</sub>k</td><td align="char" char="hyphen" valign="top">1-hs</td><td align="left" valign="top"/><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.5</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">7</td><td align="left" valign="top">PP</td><td align="char" char="plus" valign="top">++</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>pp</sub>X<sub>++</sub>k</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td><td align="left" valign="top"/><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">8</td><td align="left" valign="top">P+</td><td align="char" char="plus" valign="top">++</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>p+</sub>X<sub>++</sub>k</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td><td align="left" valign="top"/><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.5</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.5(1-t)</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">9</td><td align="char" char="plus" valign="top">++</td><td align="char" char="plus" valign="top">++</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>++</sub>X<sub>++</sub>k</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td><td align="left" valign="top"/><td align="left" valign="top"/><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">10</td><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">PP selfing</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>pp</sub>(1-k)</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1-s</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td><td align="left" valign="top"/><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">11</td><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><italic>P</italic>+selfing</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>p+</sub>(1-k)</td><td align="char" char="hyphen" valign="top">1-hs</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.25</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.5</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">0.25(1-t)</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char="." valign="top">12</td><td align="char" char="plus" valign="top" colspan="2">++selfing</td><td align="left" valign="top">X<sub>++</sub>(1-k)</td><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td><td align="left" valign="top"/><td align="left" valign="top"/><td align="char" char="." valign="top">1</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><p>Parameter X denotes the ratio of a certain genotype in a population. Genotype P denotes <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> and +denotes ‘no <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic>’. The parameter k specifies the outcrossing rate. When k = 1, there is complete outcrossing, and partial outcrossing is given by 0 &lt; k &lt; 1. The parameter s is the degree <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> might reduce female fecundity. Dominance of the fecundity loss is defined by h. The parameter t models the paternal effect lethality. In the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> case, t is very close to 1.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>Under a simple scenario of no fitness consequence to the host genotype (s = 0) and a completely outcrossing population (k = 1), the element spreads rapidly through the population with a maximum allele change comparable to an additive beneficial allele with a selection coefficient of 0.44 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1E</xref>), 2–4 times higher than the selection coefficient of lactase persistence in humans (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib11">Bersaglieri et al., 2004</xref>). However, gene drive is weaker than the beneficial allele at the tails of the allele frequency range: at low frequency, the rarity of the element limits how fast it spreads; at high frequency, the rarity of the vulnerable genotype slows its approach to fixation. If the element induces a carrying cost to the host genotype (e.g. s = 0.3, s = 0.6), for example, via energy expenditure or ‘leaky’ toxicity, the dynamics at the extreme allele frequencies are amplified (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1F</xref>). At low frequency, the carrying cost counteracts gene drive, reducing the likelihood that the element reaches appreciable frequency by genetic drift before being lost. At high frequency, the carrying cost compounds the slowing rate of gene drive such that it reaches a stable equilibrium and does not fix.</p><p>Previous models have shown that spread of a TA element accelerates with the rate of outcrossing (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>). Given a substantial carrying cost to the host genotype (s = 0.35), a TA element is likely to increase in frequency only under relatively high rates of outcrossing (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1G</xref>). Under outcrossing rates (~1%) typical for <italic>C. elegans</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib6">Barrière and Félix, 2005</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib18">Frézal and Félix, 2015</xref>), the element will likely be lost from the population under all but the mildest carrying costs (0.008) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1s1">Figure 1—figure supplement 1</xref>), as increasing fitness costs require increasing outcrossing for the element to reach a stable equilibrium (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1H</xref>).</p><p>Given these dynamics, we are challenged to explain how a novel TA element could rise in initial frequency in a population. One hypothesis is that TA elements in non-obligate outcrossing <italic>Caenorhabditis</italic> may have originated in an outcrossing ancestor, then persisted by other evolutionary forces such as drift or balancing selection (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib29">Seidel et al., 2011</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Sweigart et al., 2019</xref>). Such a scenario is consistent with the recent opinion by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Sweigart et al., 2019</xref>, who argue that TA elements may exist in nature with only incidental instances of ‘selfish’ activity. This shift away from the conventional framing of TA elements as consistently selfish makes sense in the context of non-obligate outcrossing populations, which permit elements to proliferate in sequestered lineages without conflict.</p></sec><sec id="s2-2"><title>The active <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> haplotype is associated with higher fitness in laboratory environments</title><p>To investigate its potential to spread through the population without conflict, we evaluated the fitness consequences of the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> element independent of its incompatibility cost in heterozygotes. First, we employed a previously described fitness assay (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib20">Large et al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Zhao et al., 2018</xref>) to compete N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic>, which carries an ~140–370 kb interval spanning the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> locus from CB4856 introgressed into N2 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib9">Ben-David et al., 2017</xref>), against N2<italic><sup>marker</sup></italic>, a modified version of N2 carrying a silent marker mutation in the <italic>dpy-10</italic> gene. As CB4856 harbors the inactive haplotype, N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic> lacks the toxin/antidote element, while N2<italic><sup>marker</sup></italic> carries the active element native to N2. In these assays, males are not present and outcrossing is prevented, so relative fitness is estimated from true-breeding hermaphrodite genotypes. As a positive control, we used the N2<italic><sup>glb-5;npr-1</sup></italic><sup>(CB4856)</sup> near-isogenic lines (NILs) strain, which carries ancestral alleles of <italic>glb-5</italic> and <italic>npr-1</italic> that decrease fitness of animals in laboratory conditions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Zhao et al., 2018</xref>).</p><p>N2<italic><sup>marker</sup></italic> outcompeted N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A</xref>), with a relative fitness (w) of 1.18 (1.15–1.21, 95% CI). Association of the active allele with higher fitness suggests that induction of <italic>peel-1</italic> toxicity and/or rescue by <italic>zeel-1</italic> is not costly, that the active allele is linked to one or more mutations in the N2 background that confer an independent fitness advantage, or both. These mutations could reside within <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic>, within the four nearby genes within the high-diversity region, or outside the high-diversity region but within the 140–370 kb introgressed region of this strain (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1B</xref>). We also measured fecundity and body size in N2 and N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic> directly and observed similar outcomes: N2 laid 9% more embryos (p&lt;0.001, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2B</xref>) and was 9% larger 72 hr after hatching (p&lt;0.001, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2C</xref>), indicating animals grew faster, resulting in a larger body size at a similar time in development.</p><fig id="fig2" position="float"><label>Figure 2.</label><caption><title><italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> is linked to genetic variation that increases fitness in the host genotype in laboratory conditions.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Relative fitness of experimental genotypes competed against N2<italic><sup>marker</sup></italic>, which has a silent mutation in <italic>dpy-10</italic> used as a barcode for digital PCR. This mutation exhibits no fitness effect as there was no significant difference in the competition between N2<italic><sup>marker</sup></italic> and N2. N2<italic><sup>marker</sup></italic>, which has the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> element native to N2, outcompeted N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic>, which has an ~140–370 kb interval spanning the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> locus from CB4856 introgressed into N2 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib9">Ben-David et al., 2017</xref>). The relative fitness of N2<italic><sup>marker</sup></italic> over N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic> (w = 1.18, 1.15–1.21, 95% CI) is similar to its relative fitness over N2<italic><sup>glb-5;npr-1(CB4856)</sup></italic> (w = 1.19, 1.10–1.28, 95% CI), which was used as a positive control. N2<italic><sup>glb-5;npr-1(CB4856)</sup></italic> carries introgressed CB4856 alleles at <italic>npr-1</italic> and <italic>glb-5</italic> that were previously shown to decrease fitness relative to N2 alleles in laboratory conditions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib24">McGrath et al., 2009</xref>). The N2 vs. N2<sup>marker</sup> and N2 <sup>marker</sup> vs. N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic> are identical to the data in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3E</xref> as the competition were done (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib24">McGrath et al., 2009</xref>) in parallel. (<bold>B</bold>) Fecundity of N2 and N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic>. (<bold>C</bold>) Growth/size analysis of N2 and N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic>. The body size of young adult animals was measured at 72 hr and normalized to the average size of N2. The N2 data for (<bold>B</bold>) and (<bold>C</bold>) is identical to the data in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3C and D</xref>, as all three strains were analyzed on the same day. Box plots show the central 50% of the dataset and the whiskers indicate 1.5× of the interquartile range; ***p&lt;0.001 and *p&lt;0.05 by non-parametric analysis with correction for multiple tests (see ‘Methods’).</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig2sdata1"><label>Figure 2—source data 1.</label><caption><title>Excel file containing source data for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>.</title></caption><media mimetype="application" mime-subtype="xlsx" xlink:href="elife-81640-fig2-data1-v2.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff" xlink:href="elife-81640-fig2-v2.tif"/></fig><p>These results indicate that variants associated with the active <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> haplotype promote fitness in the host genotype, providing a potential mechanism for proliferation and persistence of the element in selfing lineages.</p></sec><sec id="s2-3"><title>The active <italic>peel-1</italic> allele is associated with higher fitness in laboratory environments</title><p>To test the fitness consequences of the <italic>peel-1</italic> toxin directly, we used CRISPR/Cas9 to engineer a knockout of <italic>peel-1</italic> (<italic>kah126</italic>, or <italic>peel-1(trunc</italic>)) in the N2 background. N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic> produces a truncated protein of 46 amino acids (relative to 174) via an early stop codon (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3A</xref>). We verified loss of function by embryo killing assays: N2 crossed to CB4856 produced the expected 25% embryonic lethality from selfed F1 hermaphrodites; the N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic> cross produced zero dead embryos (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3B</xref>). Interestingly, the <italic>peel-1(trunc</italic>) allele affected fitness proximal traits and fitness in laboratory conditions. The N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic> produced 6% fewer offspring (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3C</xref>) and were 7% smaller 72 hr after hatching than N2 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3D</xref>). Competition experiments between N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic> against N2<italic><sup>marker</sup></italic> also demonstrated a fitness increase associated with the active <italic>peel-1</italic> allele (w = 1.06, 1.04–1.07, 95% CI) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3E</xref>); this fitness difference accounts for 32% of the difference arising from the N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic> comparison. Thus, while <italic>peel-1</italic> acts as a toxin in the context of outcrossing cross-progeny, it increases the fitness of selfing hermaphrodites in laboratory conditions. These results suggest that <italic>peel-1</italic> is not simply a toxin gene and plays some other biologically relevant role in <italic>C. elegans</italic>. The fitness differences may be mediated via egg-laying rate. The higher total fecundity suggests that the number of self-sperm produced differs among strains, which would also affect the earliest timepoint eggs may be laid; additional experiments are needed for confirmation. These results also suggest that additional genetic variations linked to the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> locus play a role in laboratory fitness as the <italic>peel-1</italic> mutations did not fully phenocopy the fitness of the <italic>peel-1</italic> NIL line.</p><fig id="fig3" position="float"><label>Figure 3.</label><caption><title>Tests of <italic>peel-1</italic> function using CRISPR/Cas9 show the active <italic>peel-1</italic> allele increases fitness.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Schematic of the <italic>peel-1</italic> loss-of-function allele, N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic>. At <italic>peel-1</italic>, two additional nucleotides (marked in red) inserted into the third exon generate a frameshift and an early stop codon (marked by *). The green numbers denote the amino acid position of the PEEL-1 protein sequence. (<bold>B</bold>) N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic> has lost <italic>peel-1</italic> function, as selfed cross-progeny show. As expected, N2 × CB4856 produce ~25% embryonic lethality (p=0.44 compared to null expectation of 25%), and N2 × N2 produce zero dead embryos. N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic> × CB4856 also produce zero dead embryos, indicating loss of toxicity. (<bold>C</bold>) Fecundity of the N2 and N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic> strains. (<bold>D</bold>) Growth/size analysis of N2 and N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic>. The body size of young adult animals was measured at 72 hr and normalized to the average size of N2. For (<bold>B–D</bold>), yellow represents the N2 genome, blue represents the CB4856 genome, and red represents the truncated allele of <italic>peel-1</italic> on chromosome I. The N2 data for (<bold>C</bold>) and (<bold>D</bold>) is identical to the data in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2B and C</xref>, as all three strains were analyzed on the same day. (<bold>E</bold>) Competition assays between strains in standard laboratory conditions; positive values indicate strain 1 is more fit and negative values indicate strain 2 is more fit. Competition between the wild-type N2 <italic>peel-1</italic> allele and the <italic>peel-1</italic> loss-of-function mutation indicate a fitness benefit for <italic>peel-1</italic> (in assays with the marker in both backgrounds), which accounts for 32% of the difference arising from the relative fitness of the CB4856 introgression of <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic>. The N2 vs. N2<sup>marker</sup> and N2 <sup>marker</sup> vs. N2<italic><sup>zeel-1;peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic> are identical to the data in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2A</xref> as the competition were done in parallel. The relative fitness of N2<italic><sup>glb-5;npr-1 (CB4856)</sup></italic> over N2<italic><sup>marker</sup></italic> is shown as a positive control. Box plots show the central 50% of the dataset and the whiskers indicate 1.5× of the interquartile range; ***p&lt;0.001, **p&lt;0.01, and *p&lt;0.05 by non-parametric analysis with correction for multiple tests (see ‘Methods’).</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig3sdata1"><label>Figure 3—source data 1.</label><caption><title>Excel file containing source data for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>.</title></caption><media mimetype="application" mime-subtype="xlsx" xlink:href="elife-81640-fig3-data1-v2.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff" xlink:href="elife-81640-fig3-v2.tif"/></fig><p>Our work indicates that <italic>peel-1</italic> plays an additional biological role outside of its role as a selfish element. Since the experiments on <italic>peel-1</italic> relied on a single CRISPR/Cas9-generated strain, we were worried that background mutations could account for the differences in fitness and fitness-proximal traits of this strain. To address this, we generated six additional alleles modifying <italic>peel-1</italic> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>). First, we created two replicate alleles (<italic>kah1000</italic> and <italic>kah1001</italic>) that revert the original <italic>peel-1</italic> mutant allele (<italic>kah126</italic>) back to wild-type. Second, we created three replicate alleles (<italic>kah1003-5</italic>) with an edit in the third codon to induce an early stop. Finally, we created an allele (<italic>kah1006</italic>) with a 5 bp deletion that excised the ATG start codon. Unlike the original N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic> strain, with a stop codon in the third exon that could potentially lead to a truncated protein product, these latter four strains are predicted to create true null alleles that should prevent the production of any <italic>peel-1</italic> protein. We verified <italic>peel-1</italic> activity using embryo killing assays on one strain of each allele type; as expected, self-progeny of the heterozygous offspring of the strain with the reversion allele of <italic>peel-1</italic> showed 25% lethality, and self-progeny from crosses with the loss-of-function alleles of <italic>peel-1</italic> showed zero lethality (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4C</xref>). We tested these strains in competition experiments and observed equivalent performance among the replicate genotypes within the reversion and early stop allele classes, and further, equivalent performance among all <italic>peel-1</italic> mutants (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4D</xref>). As expected, strains carrying the reversion alleles showed no significant difference in fitness in competition with wildtype, while strains carrying the new loss-of-function alleles, like the original N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic> strain, were significantly outcompeted (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4D</xref>). These experiments strongly support a role for <italic>peel-1</italic> outside of its role as a selfish element. We did not test these additional strains to confirm that the egg-laying and growth rate phenotypes that we measured in the original <italic>peel-1</italic> loss-of-function, so we cannot exclude the possibility that this phenotypic difference is due to background mutations.</p><fig id="fig4" position="float"><label>Figure 4.</label><caption><title>Additional <italic>peel-1</italic> alleles phenocopy the <italic>peel-1</italic> fitness effects.</title><p>(<bold>A</bold>) Two independently derived <italic>peel-1</italic> revertant alleles (<italic>kah1000</italic>, <italic>kah1001</italic>) restore the original <italic>peel-1</italic> mutation (<italic>kah126</italic>) to wild-type. (<bold>B</bold>) Three independently derived <italic>peel-1</italic> alleles (<italic>kah1003</italic>, <italic>kah1004</italic>, <italic>kah1005</italic>) introduce an early stop in the third codon of the first exon; a 5 bp deletion in the first exon eliminates the start codon (<italic>kah1006</italic>). (<bold>C</bold>) Following crosses to CB4856, the progeny of selfed F1s confirm the expected toxin activity for these alleles: the <italic>kah1000</italic> revertant allele restores wild-type toxin activity, as N2<italic><sup>peel-1 (rev)</sup></italic> selfed cross-progeny show ~25% lethality, similar to N2 (p=0.56, p=0.12, respectively, compared to null expectation of 25%); the <italic>kah1003</italic> and <italic>kah1006</italic> loss-of-function alleles eliminate toxin activity, as selfed cross-progeny from N2<italic><sup>peel-1(null-1)</sup></italic> and N2<italic><sup>peel-1(null-2)</sup></italic> produce zero dead embryos, the same as N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic> carrying the original <italic>kah126</italic> allele. (<bold>D</bold>) Strains carrying the revertant alleles (N2<italic><sup>peel-1 (rev)</sup></italic>) show no fitness difference relative to the wild-type control but do show a fitness advantage relative to the original mutant with the truncated <italic>peel-1</italic> allele (N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic>), suggesting that the reversion edits restored <italic>peel-1</italic> function. Strains carrying the new <italic>peel-1</italic> null alleles (N2<italic><sup>peel-1(null-1)</sup></italic>, N2<italic><sup>peel-1(null-2)</sup></italic>) show a fitness disadvantage equivalent to the original mutant, N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic>, suggesting that all three mutant allele classes eliminate <italic>peel-1</italic> activity. Box plots show the central 50% of the dataset and the whiskers indicate 1.5× of the interquartile range; ***p&lt;0.001, **p&lt;0.01, and *p&lt;0.05 by non-parametric analysis with correction for multiple tests (see ‘Methods’).</p><p><supplementary-material id="fig4sdata1"><label>Figure 4—source data 1.</label><caption><title>Excel file containing source data for <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>.</title></caption><media mimetype="application" mime-subtype="xlsx" xlink:href="elife-81640-fig4-data1-v2.xlsx"/></supplementary-material></p></caption><graphic mimetype="image" mime-subtype="tiff" xlink:href="elife-81640-fig4-v2.tif"/></fig><p>This is not necessarily surprising, as the role of <italic>peel-1</italic> in a secondary biological process was considered in its initial characterization (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib29">Seidel et al., 2011</xref>). Such a role would help the initial spread of the element during its formation, when its low frequency (where gene drive is ineffective) and its initial toxicity (before <italic>zeel-1</italic> could evolve to counteract it) should prevent its spread. Our work supports that model, suggesting that both roles of <italic>peel-1</italic> could co-evolve together. But then, why has not the element fixed? The <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> locus shows a signature of balancing selection, which appears widespread in <italic>C. elegans</italic>. Hyperdivergent regions, including that spanning <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic>, punctuate the genome; balancing selection across diverse ecological niches may explain their maintenance (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib21">Lee et al., 2021</xref>). Previously, maintenance of the <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> element was hypothesized to arise from tight linkage to a nearby polymorphism under balancing selection (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib28">Seidel et al., 2008</xref>). Our results suggest that <italic>peel-1</italic> could be under balancing selection itself. <italic>peel-1</italic> confers a fitness benefit within the lab environment, and it may pleiotropically influence other life history traits or affect fecundity and growth rate differently in different environments, providing alternate fitness strategies for local adaptation.</p><p>Previous work has suggested that TA elements may shape evolution by promoting selfing to escape the cost of selfish gene drive (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>). Here we provide a mechanism for their spread and maintenance that helps to explain their prevalence in selfing <italic>Caenorhabditis</italic> (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib10">Ben-David et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Sweigart et al., 2019</xref>). Moreover, our observation of a toxin directly affecting biological traits mirrors work in transposable elements, which are also selfish elements that can be domesticated for phenotypic benefit to the organism (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib34">Werren, 2011</xref>). This previously undescribed, non-toxin related role of a TA element is expected to shape evolutionary trajectories of both the element and the organism.</p><p>In the future, it will be interesting to parse the mechanism by which <italic>peel-1</italic> affects fitness in the adult hermaphrodite. <italic>peel-1</italic> transcripts are restricted to sperm (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib29">Seidel et al., 2011</xref>), but these results suggest that it can affect adult phenotypes like fecundity and growth rate. One possibility is that the PEEL-1 protein persists to adulthood and affects cellular function despite its presence at very low levels. Alternatively, PEEL-1 may induce long-lasting effects in adulthood via early developmental processes; notably, the toxic effect of PEEL-1 arises late in embryogenesis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib29">Seidel et al., 2011</xref>). As the toxicity of PEEL-1 depends on the sex of the sperm donor, mediated in part by dosage (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib29">Seidel et al., 2011</xref>), PEEL-1 may function as a mechanism to communicate parentage to the offspring. Additionally, it is possible that environmental conditions of the parent regulate PEEL-1 levels, which could also be communicated to the offspring.</p></sec><sec id="s2-4"><title>Conclusion</title><p>We have brought genomic editing and experimental evolution resources to bear on the study of a toxin-antidote element, addressing long-standing questions about their origin and maintenance in populations. We discovered that <italic>peel-1</italic> plays a role in individual fitness outside of its role as a toxin, affecting growth, fecundity, and fitness of non-hybrid genotypes, supporting recent arguments that non-selfish activity in inbred lineages may explain the prevalence of TA elements in non-obligate outcrossers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib25">Noble et al., 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib31">Sweigart et al., 2019</xref>). This work adds to the complicated nature of ‘selfish’ gene elements, similar to work in bacteria that has shown that TA elements can provide fitness benefits such as improved antibiotic resistance (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib12">Bogati et al., 2022</xref>). We hypothesize that other TA elements identified in <italic>Caenorhabditis</italic> species will also play roles outside of outcrossing, explaining how they can be retained in non-outcrossing populations.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3" sec-type="methods"><title>Methods</title><sec id="s3-1"><title>Growth conditions</title><p>Strains were cultivated on agar plates seeded with <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> strain OP50 at 20°C (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib13">Brenner, 1974</xref>). The following strains were used in the study.</p><table-wrap id="inlinetable1" position="anchor"><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" valign="bottom">Strain</th><th align="left" valign="bottom">Reference in text</th><th align="left" valign="bottom">Genotype</th><th align="left" valign="bottom">Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Wild-type reference</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Isolated in Bristol, UK</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">CB4856</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">CB4856</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Wild isolate</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Isolated from a pineapple field on Oahu.</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">QX1198</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<sup>zeel-1;</sup><italic><sup>peel-1(CB4856)</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>qqIr5</italic> [niDf9,CB4856&gt;N2] I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>qqIr5</italic> contains a 140–370 kb introgression from CB4856 into N2.</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">CX12311</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<italic><sup>glb-5;npr-1(CB4856)</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>kyIR1</italic>[CB4856&gt;N2] V; <italic>qgIR1</italic> [CB4856&gt;N2] X</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>kyIR1</italic> (V, CB4856&gt;N2) is an introgression of the region surrounding <italic>glb-5</italic> from CB4856 into N2. <italic>qgIR1</italic> (X, CB4856&gt;N2) is an introgression of the region surrounding <italic>npr-1</italic> from CB4856 into N2. Left breakpoint between 4,753,766 and 4,762,579. Right breakpoint between 4,882,488 and 4,885,498.</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PTM229</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<italic><sup>marker</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>dpy-10 (kah82</italic>) II</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Silent mutation in <italic>dpy-10</italic>: Thr 90: acc -&gt;act.</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PTM377</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc)</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1 (kah126</italic>) I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Original <italic>peel-1</italic> sequence: <named-content content-type="sequence">ATCTGCCTGAAAATGTATGGGTAAAT</named-content><break/>Mutated <italic>peel-1</italic> sequence: <named-content content-type="sequence">ATCTGCCTGAAAATGAGTATGGGTAAAT</named-content></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PTM409</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<italic><sup>peel-1(trunc);marker</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1(kah126</italic>) I; <italic>dpy-10 (kah82</italic>) II</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">PTM377 crossed with PTM229 to create this strain.</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PTM1000</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<italic><sup>peel-1(rev)</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1 (kah1000</italic>) I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1</italic> reverted to wild type from PTM377 <italic>peel-1 (kah126</italic>) I.</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PTM1001</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<italic><sup>peel-1(rev)</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1 (kah1001</italic>) I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1</italic> reverted to wild type from PTM377 <italic>peel-1 (kah126</italic>) I.</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PTM1003</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<italic><sup>peel-1(null1)</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1 (kah1003</italic>) I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1</italic> stop codon introduced at the third amino acid.<break/>Original <italic>peel-1</italic> sequence: atgcgctttggtaagat<break/>Mutated <italic>peel-1</italic> sequence: atgcgctAAggtaagat</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PTM1004</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<italic><sup>peel-1(null1)</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1 (kah1004</italic>) I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1</italic> stop codon introduced at the third amino acid.<break/>Original <italic>peel-1</italic> sequence: atgcgctttggtaagat<break/>Mutated <italic>peel-1</italic> sequence: atgcgctAAggtaagat</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PTM1005</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<italic><sup>peel-1(null1)</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1 (kah1005</italic>) I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1</italic> stop codon introduced at the third amino acid.<break/>Original <italic>peel-1</italic> sequence: atgcgctttggtaagat<break/>Mutated <italic>peel-1</italic> sequence: atgcgctAAggtaagat</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PTM1006</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">N2<italic><sup>peel-1(null2)</sup></italic></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1 (kah1006</italic>) I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1</italic> 5 bp deletion in the first exon.<break/>Original <italic>peel-1</italic> sequence: atgcgctttggtaagat<break/>Mutated <italic>peel-1</italic> sequence: atttggtaagat</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>CRISPR/Cas9 was used following a previously published co-conversion method to edit the target gene and <italic>dpy-10</italic> gene at the same time (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib4">Arribere et al., 2014</xref>). Generated strains are outcrossed to N2 more than three times before used for assay. Information on the N2 genome came from <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://wormbase.org//">https://wormbase.org//</ext-link> and CeNDR (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib15">Cook et al., 2017</xref>). The following primers/sequences were used to create the CRISPR/Cas9 strains:</p><table-wrap id="inlinetable2" position="anchor"><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" valign="bottom">Target allele</th><th align="left" valign="bottom">CRISPR/Cas9 Target site (19 bp)</th><th align="left" valign="bottom">Repairing oligo</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1 (kah126</italic>) I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><named-content content-type="sequence">gatctgcctgaaaatgtat</named-content></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><named-content content-type="sequence">cagaaatctacatgtatcttgatctgcctgaaTGAgtatgggtaaatcggtttgcgcatgttattgctct</named-content></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1 (kah1003</italic>) I<break/><italic>peel-1 (kah1004</italic>) I<break/><italic>peel-1 (kah1005</italic>) I<break/><italic>peel-1 (kah1006</italic>) I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><named-content content-type="sequence">gttttacaaggatgcgctt</named-content></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><named-content content-type="sequence">ccgtcacaccaactgtggttttacaaggatgcgctaaggtaagattgttgtaatagcagaggaggcaaaggt</named-content></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>peel-1 (kah1000</italic>) I<break/><italic>peel-1 (kah1001</italic>) I</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><named-content content-type="sequence">tctgcctgaaaatgagtat</named-content></td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><named-content content-type="sequence">cagaaatctacatgtatcttgatctgcctgaaaatgtatgggtaaatcggtttgcgcatgttattgctct</named-content></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3-2"><title>Population dynamics prediction</title><p>All code to control population dynamics parameters and then plot the trajectories were stored at <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://github.com/lijiang-long/TA_modeling">https://github.com/lijiang-long/TA_modeling</ext-link> (copy archived at <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib23">Long, 2023</xref>). To calculate the allele frequency change at different frequencies of <italic>zeel-1;peel-1,</italic> the population is initiated with Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium such that the frequency of homozygous <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> is the square of its allele frequency, and so on and so forth. The frequency of each genotype is updated each generation using the family-based toxin-antidote evolution dynamics in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. This population is allowed to evolve five generations to deviate from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium and reach the evolution trajectory of <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic>. The population evolves another generation, and the allele frequency change in this generation is used for plotting. To generate the heatmap where the frequency of <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> after 1000 generations is plotted against varying outcrossing rate and fitness cost, the population is initiated with half <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> allele. The genotype frequency is calculated assuming Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. The population then evolves 1000 generations following <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. The final allele frequency of <italic>zeel-1;peel-1</italic> is then plotted on the heatmap.</p></sec><sec id="s3-3"><title>Competition assay to measure organism fitness</title><p>Competition experiments followed previous work (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib36">Zhao et al., 2018</xref>). Pairwise competition assays in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figures 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">3</xref> were done in parallel with the same start date. The competition assays in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref> were performed parallel with a different start date. All pairwise competition assays were performed on 9 cm NGM plates, seeded with OP50 bacteria, and stored at 4°C until 24 hr before use. At the beginning of the experiment, 10 L4 worms of each strain were transferred onto the same plate. This plate was then incubated at 20°C for 5 d. To propagate the next generation, a 1 cm agar chunk was transferred to a new 9 cm NGM plate. The old plate was then washed with 1 ml of M9 buffer to collect worms and stored at –80°C. Subsequently, this transfer and collection procedure was held every 3 d for a total of seven transfers. The genomic DNA from the first, third, fifth, and seventh transfer was isolated using Zymo 96-well DNA isolation kit (cat# D4071). Isolated genomic DNA was fragmented using EcoRI-HF by incubation at 37°C for 4 hr and purified using a Zymo 96-well DNA purification kit (cat# D4024). After purification, DNA concentrations were measured using Qubit DNA HS assay and adjusted to 1 ng/μl. To quantify the relative proportion of the two strains, a previously designed TaqMan probe was used targeting the <italic>dpy-10</italic> gene. After this, the DNA and TaqMan probe were mixed with the digital plate PCR (ddPCR) mix and processed through standard ddPCR procedures. The fractions of each strain were quantified using the BioRad QX200 machine with standard absolute quantification protocol. To estimate relative fitness, a linear regression model was applied to the DNA proportion data using the following equation with the assumption of one generation per transfer:<disp-formula id="equ1"><mml:math id="m1"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" scriptlevel="0"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>−</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn><mml:mo>−</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mtext> </mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mtext> </mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p><p>where <italic>p(a</italic>) represents the relative allele proportion calculated from the ddPCR fluorescence signal and <italic>W<sub>aa</sub></italic> and <italic>W<sub>AA</sub></italic> represent the estimated fitnesses of the competing genotypes.</p></sec><sec id="s3-4"><title>Embryo lethality assays</title><p>On day, a 10 cm NGM plate with plenty of gravid adults was bleached following standard protocol for each strain. Embryos were deposited to a 10 cm plates and incubated a 20°C. On day 2, 4–5 L3, young L4s hermaphrodites, and 8–10 CB4856 young L4 males were transferred to a mating plate for each of strain. Plates were incubated a 20°C. On day 5, adult hermaphrodites were singled on 6 cm plates (four plates per strain) and incubated at 20°C. on day 7, Plates were checked for males (F1) to determine if cross was successful. 20–30 F1 L4s from successfully crossed F0 herms were transferred to a 6 cm plates. Plates were incubated at 20°C. On day 8, four adult egg-laying adults (F1) were transferred to a 6 cm ‘assay’ plate for each replicate (six replicates per strain). Adults were on plates for 4 hr at room temperature. Adults were removed and plates incubated at 20°C for 18 hr. On days 9 and 12, dead embryos (F2) and adult worms were counted on days 9 and 12, respectively, and embryonic lethality was calculated for each replicate.</p></sec><sec id="s3-5"><title>Fecundity assays</title><p>Fecundity assays were performed at 20°C using 3 cm NGM plate seeded with 50 μl of OP50 bacteria with OD<sub>600</sub> of 2.0. The plates were allowed to dry overnight and stored at 4°C until 24 hr before use. At the beginning of the assay, six fourth larval stage (L4) worms were transferred to each assay plate. The worms were allowed to grow and lay eggs for the first 24 hr after the assay began before being transferred to a new plate. This process was repeated every 12 hr thereafter until animals ceased laying eggs. The number of eggs laid was counted using a standard dissecting microscope. This process is repeated every 12 hr thereafter until 100 hr or there is no egg on the new plate. The average fecundity was calculated by summing over all time points and dividing by the total number of worms in a single assay plate. While the data was initially collected every 12 hr, only the total fecundity was recorded for each assay.</p></sec><sec id="s3-6"><title>Growth rate assay</title><p>Growth rate assays were performed on standard NGM plates seeded with OP50 bacteria as previously described (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib20">Large et al., 2016</xref>). At the beginning of the assay, 10–20 adult worms were transferred onto an assay plate to lay eggs. After 2 hr, they were transferred off of the plate, leaving ~80 eggs per plate. The plates were incubated for 72 hr at 20°C. At this point, the assay plate was mounted onto a video tracking camera and recorded for 1 min. The video clip was analyzed using a customized MATLAB script that tracks each animal and calculates the average size of each worm. The average size from each plate was then normalized by the average size of three N2 plates.</p></sec><sec id="s3-7"><title>Statistics</title><p>All hypothesis tests were performed using non-parametric analyses. One-sample comparisons to a null hypothesis value were assessed by the Wilcoxon test, and differences between pairs of samples were assessed by the Mann–Whitney <italic>U</italic> test. For experiments with multiple comparisons, p-values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg method. For the fitness competitions testing replicate <italic>peel-1</italic> alleles against the wild-type control, we first evaluated each independently derived allele separately; as expected, the reversion alleles (<italic>kah1000</italic>, <italic>kah1001</italic>) showed no significant fitness differences while the early stop mutant alleles (<italic>kah1003</italic>, <italic>kah1004</italic>, <italic>kah1005</italic>) each showed a fitness disadvantage (p&lt;0.05 following correction for multiple tests). We also observed no significant differences among independently derived replicates within allele class, so we pooled replicate outcomes for further analyses (as reported in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4D</xref>). For these tests, multiple comparison groups included the competition outcome tests and tests of replicate genotypes within allele class.</p></sec></sec></body><back><sec sec-type="additional-information" id="s4"><title>Additional information</title><fn-group content-type="competing-interest"><title>Competing interests</title><fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="conf1"><p>No competing interests declared</p></fn></fn-group><fn-group content-type="author-contribution"><title>Author contributions</title><fn fn-type="con" id="con1"><p>Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - original draft</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con2"><p>Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con3"><p>Data curation, Formal analysis</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con4"><p>Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing</p></fn><fn fn-type="con" id="con5"><p>Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration</p></fn></fn-group></sec><sec sec-type="supplementary-material" id="s5"><title>Additional files</title><supplementary-material id="mdar"><label>MDAR checklist</label><media xlink:href="elife-81640-mdarchecklist1-v2.docx" mimetype="application" mime-subtype="docx"/></supplementary-material></sec><sec sec-type="data-availability" id="s6"><title>Data availability</title><p>All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file. Source data files have been provided for all figures . Simulation code is included in a github: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://github.com/lijiang-long/TA_modeling">https://github.com/lijiang-long/TA_modeling</ext-link> (copy archived at <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib23">Long, 2023</xref>).</p></sec><ack id="ack"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We wish to acknowledge the core facilities at the Parker H Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience at the Georgia Institute of Technology for the use of their shared equipment, services, and expertise. Some strains were provided by the CGC, which is funded by NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (P40 OD010440). We also thank the Kruglyak lab (UCLA) for strains. This research was supported in part through research cyberinfrastructure resources and services provided by the Partnership for an Advanced Computing Environment (PACE) at the Georgia Institute of Technology. This research was funded by NIH grant R35 GM119744 to ABP and NIH grant R35 GM139594 to PTM.</p></ack><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="bib1"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ågren</surname><given-names>JA</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Selfish genetic elements and the gene’s-eye view of evolution</article-title><source>Current Zoology</source><volume>62</volume><fpage>659</fpage><lpage>665</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/cz/zow102</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">29491953</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib2"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ågren</surname><given-names>JA</given-names></name><name><surname>Clark</surname><given-names>AG</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Selfish genetic elements</article-title><source>PLOS Genetics</source><volume>14</volume><elocation-id>e1007700</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pgen.1007700</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30439939</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib3"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Akarsu</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Bordes</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Mansour</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Bigot</surname><given-names>DJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Genevaux</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Falquet</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title>TASmania: a bacterial Toxin-Antitoxin systems database</article-title><source>PLOS Computational Biology</source><volume>15</volume><elocation-id>e1006946</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006946</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">31022176</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib4"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Arribere</surname><given-names>JA</given-names></name><name><surname>Bell</surname><given-names>RT</given-names></name><name><surname>Fu</surname><given-names>BXH</given-names></name><name><surname>Artiles</surname><given-names>KL</given-names></name><name><surname>Hartman</surname><given-names>PS</given-names></name><name><surname>Fire</surname><given-names>AZ</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2014">2014</year><article-title>Efficient marker-free recovery of custom genetic modifications with CRISPR/Cas9 in <italic>Caenorhabditis elegans</italic></article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>198</volume><fpage>837</fpage><lpage>846</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1534/genetics.114.169730</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25161212</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib5"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bardaji</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Añorga</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Echeverría</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Ramos</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Murillo</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title>The toxic guardians - multiple toxin-antitoxin systems provide stability, avoid deletions and maintain virulence genes of <italic>Pseudomonas syringae</italic> virulence plasmids</article-title><source>Mobile DNA</source><volume>10</volume><elocation-id>7</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s13100-019-0149-4</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30728866</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib6"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Barrière</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Félix</surname><given-names>MA</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2005">2005</year><article-title>High local genetic diversity and low outcrossing rate in <italic>Caenorhabditis elegans</italic> natural populations</article-title><source>Current Biology</source><volume>15</volume><fpage>1176</fpage><lpage>1184</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cub.2005.06.022</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16005289</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib7"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Beckmann</surname><given-names>JF</given-names></name><name><surname>Ronau</surname><given-names>JA</given-names></name><name><surname>Hochstrasser</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>A Wolbachia deubiquitylating enzyme induces cytoplasmic incompatibility</article-title><source>Nature Microbiology</source><volume>2</volume><elocation-id>17007</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.7</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28248294</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib8"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Beeman</surname><given-names>RW</given-names></name><name><surname>Friesen</surname><given-names>KS</given-names></name><name><surname>Denell</surname><given-names>RE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1992">1992</year><article-title>Maternal-effect selfish genes in flour beetles</article-title><source>Science</source><volume>256</volume><fpage>89</fpage><lpage>92</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.1566060</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">1566060</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib9"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ben-David</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Burga</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Kruglyak</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>A maternal-effect selfish genetic element in <italic>Caenorhabditis elegans</italic></article-title><source>Science</source><volume>356</volume><fpage>1051</fpage><lpage>1055</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.aan0621</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28495877</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib10"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ben-David</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Pliota</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Widen</surname><given-names>SA</given-names></name><name><surname>Koreshova</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Lemus-Vergara</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Verpukhovskiy</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Mandali</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Braendle</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Burga</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Kruglyak</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2021">2021</year><article-title>Ubiquitous selfish toxin-antidote elements in <italic>Caenorhabditis</italic> species</article-title><source>Current Biology</source><volume>31</volume><fpage>990</fpage><lpage>1001</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.cub.2020.12.013</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">33417886</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib11"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bersaglieri</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Sabeti</surname><given-names>PC</given-names></name><name><surname>Patterson</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Vanderploeg</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Schaffner</surname><given-names>SF</given-names></name><name><surname>Drake</surname><given-names>JA</given-names></name><name><surname>Rhodes</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Reich</surname><given-names>DE</given-names></name><name><surname>Hirschhorn</surname><given-names>JN</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2004">2004</year><article-title>Genetic signatures of strong recent positive selection at the lactase gene</article-title><source>American Journal of Human Genetics</source><volume>74</volume><fpage>1111</fpage><lpage>1120</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1086/421051</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15114531</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib12"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bogati</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Wadsworth</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Barrera</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Fozo</surname><given-names>EM</given-names></name><name><surname>Henkin</surname><given-names>TM</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2022">2022</year><article-title>Improved Growth of <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> in Aminoglycoside Antibiotics by the <italic>zor-orz</italic> Toxin-Antitoxin System</article-title><source>Journal of Bacteriology</source><volume>204</volume><elocation-id>JB0040721</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1128/JB.00407-21</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib13"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Brenner</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1974">1974</year><article-title>The genetics of <italic>Caenorhabditis elegans</italic></article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>77</volume><fpage>71</fpage><lpage>94</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/genetics/77.1.71</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">4366476</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib14"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Ding</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Ouyang</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Du</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Cheng</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Qiu</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Yao</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Xue</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Xia</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Ji</surname><given-names>Q</given-names></name><name><surname>Lu</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Q</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>A triallelic system of S5 is A major regulator of the reproductive barrier and compatibility of indica-japonica hybrids in rice</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>105</volume><fpage>11436</fpage><lpage>11441</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.0804761105</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18678896</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib15"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Cook</surname><given-names>DE</given-names></name><name><surname>Zdraljevic</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Roberts</surname><given-names>JP</given-names></name><name><surname>Andersen</surname><given-names>EC</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>CeNDR, the <italic>Caenorhabditis elegans</italic> natural diversity resource</article-title><source>Nucleic Acids Research</source><volume>45</volume><fpage>D650</fpage><lpage>D657</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/nar/gkw893</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27701074</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib16"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Cutter</surname><given-names>AD</given-names></name><name><surname>Félix</surname><given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Barrière</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Charlesworth</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2006">2006</year><article-title>Patterns of nucleotide polymorphism distinguish temperate and tropical wild isolates of Caenorhabditis briggsae</article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>173</volume><fpage>2021</fpage><lpage>2031</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1534/genetics.106.058651</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16783011</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib17"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ellis</surname><given-names>RE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>“The persistence of memory”-Hermaphroditism in nematodes</article-title><source>Molecular Reproduction and Development</source><volume>84</volume><fpage>144</fpage><lpage>157</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/mrd.22668</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27291983</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib18"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Frézal</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Félix</surname><given-names>MA</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2015">2015</year><article-title><italic>C. elegans</italic> outside the Petri dish</article-title><source>eLife</source><volume>4</volume><elocation-id>e05849</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.05849</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25822066</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib19"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hurst</surname><given-names>GD</given-names></name><name><surname>Werren</surname><given-names>JH</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2001">2001</year><article-title>The role of selfish genetic elements in eukaryotic evolution</article-title><source>Nature Reviews. Genetics</source><volume>2</volume><fpage>597</fpage><lpage>606</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/35084545</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11483984</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib20"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Large</surname><given-names>EE</given-names></name><name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Brady</surname><given-names>SC</given-names></name><name><surname>Long</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Butcher</surname><given-names>RA</given-names></name><name><surname>Andersen</surname><given-names>EC</given-names></name><name><surname>McGrath</surname><given-names>PT</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2016">2016</year><article-title>Selection on a Subunit of the NURF Chromatin Remodeler Modifies Life History Traits in a Domesticated Strain of <italic>Caenorhabditis elegans</italic></article-title><source>PLOS Genetics</source><volume>12</volume><elocation-id>e1006219</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pgen.1006219</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27467070</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib21"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Zdraljevic</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Stevens</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Tanny</surname><given-names>RE</given-names></name><name><surname>Crombie</surname><given-names>TA</given-names></name><name><surname>Cook</surname><given-names>DE</given-names></name><name><surname>Webster</surname><given-names>AK</given-names></name><name><surname>Chirakar</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Baugh</surname><given-names>LR</given-names></name><name><surname>Sterken</surname><given-names>MG</given-names></name><name><surname>Braendle</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Félix</surname><given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Rockman</surname><given-names>MV</given-names></name><name><surname>Andersen</surname><given-names>EC</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2021">2021</year><article-title>Balancing selection maintains hyper-divergent haplotypes in <italic>Caenorhabditis elegans</italic></article-title><source>Nature Ecology &amp; Evolution</source><volume>5</volume><fpage>794</fpage><lpage>807</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/s41559-021-01435-x</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">33820969</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib22"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Leplae</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Geeraerts</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Hallez</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Guglielmini</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Drèze</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Van Melderen</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2011">2011</year><article-title>Diversity of bacterial type II toxin-antitoxin systems: a comprehensive search and functional analysis of novel families</article-title><source>Nucleic Acids Research</source><volume>39</volume><fpage>5513</fpage><lpage>5525</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/nar/gkr131</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21422074</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib23"><element-citation publication-type="software"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Long</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2023">2023</year><data-title>Ta_Modeling</data-title><version designator="swh:1:rev:91885c4e72766764479ebb4feb97fe1b939e126c">swh:1:rev:91885c4e72766764479ebb4feb97fe1b939e126c</version><source>Software Heritage</source><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:210eb392b2f69041f906502a9f240ff756db1b1b;origin=https://github.com/lijiang-long/TA_modeling;visit=swh:1:snp:7c28d7c3d2949814fdabb7465e4150f9a8ae33d4;anchor=swh:1:rev:91885c4e72766764479ebb4feb97fe1b939e126c">https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:210eb392b2f69041f906502a9f240ff756db1b1b;origin=https://github.com/lijiang-long/TA_modeling;visit=swh:1:snp:7c28d7c3d2949814fdabb7465e4150f9a8ae33d4;anchor=swh:1:rev:91885c4e72766764479ebb4feb97fe1b939e126c</ext-link></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib24"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>McGrath</surname><given-names>PT</given-names></name><name><surname>Rockman</surname><given-names>MV</given-names></name><name><surname>Zimmer</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Jang</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Macosko</surname><given-names>EZ</given-names></name><name><surname>Kruglyak</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Bargmann</surname><given-names>CI</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2009">2009</year><article-title>Quantitative mapping of a digenic behavioral trait implicates globin variation in <italic>C. elegans</italic> sensory behaviors</article-title><source>Neuron</source><volume>61</volume><fpage>692</fpage><lpage>699</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.neuron.2009.02.012</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19285466</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib25"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Noble</surname><given-names>LM</given-names></name><name><surname>Yuen</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Stevens</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Moya</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Persaud</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Moscatelli</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Jackson</surname><given-names>JL</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Chitrakar</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Baugh</surname><given-names>LR</given-names></name><name><surname>Braendle</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Andersen</surname><given-names>EC</given-names></name><name><surname>Seidel</surname><given-names>HS</given-names></name><name><surname>Rockman</surname><given-names>MV</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2021">2021</year><article-title>Selfing is the safest sex for <italic>Caenorhabditis tropicalis</italic></article-title><source>eLife</source><volume>10</volume><elocation-id>e62587</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.62587</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">33427200</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib26"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nuckolls</surname><given-names>NL</given-names></name><name><surname>Bravo Núñez</surname><given-names>MA</given-names></name><name><surname>Eickbush</surname><given-names>MT</given-names></name><name><surname>Young</surname><given-names>JM</given-names></name><name><surname>Lange</surname><given-names>JJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Yu</surname><given-names>JS</given-names></name><name><surname>Smith</surname><given-names>GR</given-names></name><name><surname>Jaspersen</surname><given-names>SL</given-names></name><name><surname>Malik</surname><given-names>HS</given-names></name><name><surname>Zanders</surname><given-names>SE</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title><italic>wtf</italic> genes are prolific dual poison-antidote meiotic drivers</article-title><source>eLife</source><volume>6</volume><elocation-id>e26033</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.26033</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28631612</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib27"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Saavedra De Bast</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Mine</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Van Melderen</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>Chromosomal toxin-antitoxin systems may act as antiaddiction modules</article-title><source>Journal of Bacteriology</source><volume>190</volume><fpage>4603</fpage><lpage>4609</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1128/JB.00357-08</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18441063</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib28"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Seidel</surname><given-names>HS</given-names></name><name><surname>Rockman</surname><given-names>MV</given-names></name><name><surname>Kruglyak</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2008">2008</year><article-title>Widespread genetic incompatibility in <italic>C. elegans</italic> maintained by balancing selection</article-title><source>Science</source><volume>319</volume><fpage>589</fpage><lpage>594</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.1151107</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18187622</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib29"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Seidel</surname><given-names>HS</given-names></name><name><surname>Ailion</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>van Oudenaarden</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Rockman</surname><given-names>MV</given-names></name><name><surname>Kruglyak</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2011">2011</year><article-title>A novel sperm-delivered toxin causes late-stage embryo lethality and transmission ratio distortion in <italic>C. elegans</italic></article-title><source>PLOS Biology</source><volume>9</volume><elocation-id>e1001115</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pbio.1001115</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21814493</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib30"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Shen</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Jin</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Xie</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhu</surname><given-names>Q</given-names></name><name><surname>Tang</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Q</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>YG</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2017">2017</year><article-title>Genomic structural variation-mediated allelic suppression causes hybrid male sterility in rice</article-title><source>Nature Communications</source><volume>8</volume><elocation-id>1310</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/s41467-017-01400-y</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">29101356</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib31"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sweigart</surname><given-names>AL</given-names></name><name><surname>Brandvain</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Fishman</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2019">2019</year><article-title>Making a Murderer: The Evolutionary Framing of Hybrid Gamete-Killers</article-title><source>Trends in Genetics</source><volume>35</volume><fpage>245</fpage><lpage>252</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.tig.2019.01.004</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30826132</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib32"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wade</surname><given-names>MJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Beeman</surname><given-names>RW</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1994">1994</year><article-title>The population dynamics of maternal-effect selfish genes</article-title><source>Genetics</source><volume>138</volume><fpage>1309</fpage><lpage>1314</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/genetics/138.4.1309</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">7896109</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib33"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Werren</surname><given-names>JH</given-names></name><name><surname>Nur</surname><given-names>U</given-names></name><name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>CI</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="1988">1988</year><article-title>Selfish genetic elements</article-title><source>Trends in Ecology &amp; Evolution</source><volume>3</volume><fpage>297</fpage><lpage>302</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0169-5347(88)90105-X</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21227262</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib34"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Werren</surname><given-names>JH</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2011">2011</year><article-title>Selfish genetic elements, genetic conflict, and evolutionary innovation</article-title><source>PNAS</source><volume>108 Suppl 2</volume><fpage>10863</fpage><lpage>10870</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1102343108</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21690392</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib35"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Cheng</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Du</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Ouyang</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Qiu</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Jiang</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Jiang</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Ding</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Q</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2012">2012</year><article-title>A killer-protector system regulates both hybrid sterility and segregation distortion in rice</article-title><source>Science</source><volume>337</volume><fpage>1336</fpage><lpage>1340</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.1223702</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22984070</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib36"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Long</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Campbell</surname><given-names>RF</given-names></name><name><surname>Large</surname><given-names>EE</given-names></name><name><surname>Greene</surname><given-names>JS</given-names></name><name><surname>McGrath</surname><given-names>PT</given-names></name></person-group><year iso-8601-date="2018">2018</year><article-title>Changes to social feeding behaviors are not sufficient for fitness gains of the <italic>Caenorhabditis elegans</italic> N2 reference strain</article-title><source>eLife</source><volume>7</volume><elocation-id>e38675</elocation-id><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.38675</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30328811</pub-id></element-citation></ref></ref-list></back><sub-article article-type="editor-report" id="sa0"><front-stub><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.81640.sa0</article-id><title-group><article-title>Editor's evaluation</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Andersen</surname><given-names>Erik C</given-names></name><role specific-use="editor">Reviewing Editor</role><aff><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/000e0be47</institution-id><institution>Northwestern University</institution></institution-wrap><country>United States</country></aff></contrib></contrib-group><related-object id="sa0ro1" object-id-type="id" object-id="10.1101/2022.07.15.500229" link-type="continued-by" xlink:href="https://sciety.org/articles/activity/10.1101/2022.07.15.500229"/></front-stub><body><p>This important work addresses how a selfish genetic element is maintained at intermediate frequencies in <italic>C. elegans</italic>. The evidence is convincing with both experimental and theoretical findings that tell us more about how these elements affect transmission in populations. Overall, the results of this study will be of broad interest to evolutionary biologists.</p></body></sub-article><sub-article article-type="decision-letter" id="sa1"><front-stub><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.81640.sa1</article-id><title-group><article-title>Decision letter</article-title></title-group><contrib-group content-type="section"><contrib contrib-type="editor"><name><surname>Andersen</surname><given-names>Erik C</given-names></name><role>Reviewing Editor</role><aff><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/000e0be47</institution-id><institution>Northwestern University</institution></institution-wrap><country>United States</country></aff></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="reviewer"><name><surname>Andersen</surname><given-names>Erik C</given-names></name><role>Reviewer</role><aff><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/000e0be47</institution-id><institution>Northwestern University</institution></institution-wrap><country>United States</country></aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="reviewer"><name><surname>Ailion</surname><given-names>Michael</given-names></name><role>Reviewer</role><aff><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/00cvxb145</institution-id><institution>University of Washington</institution></institution-wrap><country>United States</country></aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="reviewer"><name><surname>Zdraljevic</surname><given-names>Stefan</given-names></name><role>Reviewer</role><aff><institution-wrap><institution-id institution-id-type="ror">https://ror.org/046rm7j60</institution-id><institution>University of California, Los Angeles</institution></institution-wrap><country>United States</country></aff></contrib></contrib-group></front-stub><body><boxed-text id="sa2-box1"><p>Our editorial process produces two outputs: (i) <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://sciety.org/articles/activity/10.1101/2022.07.15.500229">public reviews</ext-link> designed to be posted alongside <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.500229v1">the preprint</ext-link> for the benefit of readers; (ii) feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions, shown below. We also include an acceptance summary that explains what the editors found interesting or important about the work.</p></boxed-text><p><bold>Decision letter after peer review:</bold></p><p>Thank you for submitting your article &quot;A Toxin-Antidote Selfish Element Increases Fitness of its Host&quot; for consideration by <italic>eLife</italic>. Your article has been reviewed by 4 peer reviewers, including Erik C Andersen as Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by Christian Landry as the Senior Editor. The following individuals involved in the review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Michael Ailion (Reviewer #3); Stefan Zdraljevic (Reviewer #4).</p><p>The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.</p><p>Essential revisions:</p><p>1) All reviewers noted the lack of controls for the peel-1 edited strain. I believe that backcrossing and whole-genome sequencing will not adequately address the concerns about the modest peel-1 effect and the single CRISPR-edited allele. The authors should either generate another peel-1 edited strain and test this new strain in the same experiments or add back peel-1 to the deleted strain to show that the modest peel-1 effect goes away.</p><p>2) Please update the statistical tests to address issues of multiple testing and non-normality.</p><p>3) The N2 data in Figures 2 and 3 are repeated. Please note that point.</p><p>4) Many of the other reviewer comments can be addressed by toning down some claims and providing more caveats and/or explanations. Reviewers made good suggestions for how to respond to these comments.</p><p><italic>Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):</italic></p><p>1. Though the mathematical modeling is interesting from a theoretical point of view, we feel that it oversells the rationale behind the experiments, setting up a &quot;straw man&quot; argument to knock down. Also, the modeling relies on rather high assumptions of the possible carrying cost of peel-1/zeel-1. For example, the modeling of the effect of outcrossing rate on peel-1/zeel-1 frequency assumes a selection coefficient of 0.35, which seems rather arbitrary and high. Where does this number come from? Is there any precedent for this high carrying cost? In our opinion, the idea that energy expenditure or leaky toxicity accounts for such a high carrying cost seems unlikely.</p><p>2. The two studies cited for &quot;outcrossing rates typical for <italic>C. elegans</italic>&quot; estimated vastly different outcrossing rates (~20% or ~1%). The model presented in Figure 1S2 specifically uses the lower estimates (0-2%), so the Sivasundar and Hey paper is miscited here. It is unclear whether there is a good rationale to go with the lower rate estimates. It would also be helpful to the reader if the value for these outcrossing rates is provided in the main text. Similarly, it would be helpful to provide in the main text the value for &quot;all but the mildest carrying costs&quot; (line 115).</p><p>3. The measurement of body size is unclear in the main text. Only when reading methods did we realize that body size is more of a proxy for growth rate rather than an end-point measurement of worm size. Please clarify this in the main text.</p><p>4. What is the temporal distribution of egg laying of the N2 and N2peel-1(null) strains? Based on how the data collection is described in the Methods, the authors should already have these data. Does egg-laying start at the same time in the two strains? The fact that strains carrying peel-1 grow faster but also apparently produce more sperm (which might slow them down) makes an analysis of this worthwhile, especially since fitness depends on when eggs are laid, not just how many. Some more characterization of this fitness trait seems appropriate and useful for beginning to understand how peel-1 may be increasing fitness. The original raw data for egg-laying with numbers of eggs laid at each time point should also be presented in the supplementary table rather than just the total amounts.</p><p>5. Line 65: the statement &quot;similar elements have not been identified in obligate outcrossing Caenorhabditis nematodes&quot; is somewhat misleading. TA elements may not have been identified in obligate outcrossing nematodes because of research bias since genetic experiments are easier to perform in non-obligate outcrossers and it is unclear that there have been extensive searches for TA elements in outcrossing nematodes. Furthermore, as the mathematical models in this study suggest, TA elements will spread quickly with an increasing rate of outcrossing. Since a TA element's non-fixation within a species has historically been a prerequisite for its discovery, the rapid TA element fixation that would generally occur in obligate outcrossers would make their identification more challenging.</p><p>6. Line 211-212: it is stated that this is the &quot;first measurement of the fitness cost of a TA element to the host&quot; and &quot;first demonstration that a TA element can benefit the organism.&quot; These claims may be overstated. It has been previously shown in several cases that TA elements can provide fitness benefits to bacteria, such as improved antibiotic resistance (e.g. Bogati et al. 2022, PMID: 34570627). Also, the use of the phrase &quot;fitness cost&quot; in the first part of this sentence is confusing, since &quot;cost&quot; implies reduced fitness which is the opposite of what the paper shows for peel-1/zeel-1.</p><p>7. More details about the CRISPR protocol should be provided. It is unclear whether Cas9/sgRNAs were introduced as RNPs or plasmids (and at what concentrations). It is unclear how worms were screened for edits – the table has columns for primer sequences but these are blank. It is also unclear how many Dpy or Rol worms were screened and how many peel-1 or zeel-1 edited worms were found (the efficiency of CRISPR). The meaning of the shaded portion of the repairing oligo sequences in the table is not explained. Finally, it is not stated whether CRISPR-generated mutant strains were outcrossed.</p><p>8. The n values for fecundity assays are somewhat unclear. In the legends for Figure 2C and 3B, it says n=5 or n=6. Intuitively, most readers would interpret this as 5 or 6 worms, but according to the methods, it seems that this is 5 or 6 plates where each plate has a total of 6 worms whose average fecundity is calculated. This should be made clear in the figure legends. And though it says n=6 for the introgressed zeel-1 peel-1 strain, it seems that it is only 5 based on the source data in the supplementary table.</p><p>9. Line 185: it seems to be assumed that peel-1 arose before zeel-1, but the basis for this assumption is unclear.</p><p>10. Line 191 should cite Seidel et al. 2008 instead of Seidel et al. 2011.</p><p>11. The very right side of Figure 2C is cut off, making the rightmost column label incomplete. The legend of Figure 2 is also cut off at the bottom.</p><p>12. Figure 2B and 3C data are oversold visually due to the y-axis scale. There is only a 20-30 embryo difference but visually appears much more than that. It would be better to start the y-axis at 0.</p><p>13. Raw data for relative fitness experiments should be provided in a supplementary table.</p><p>14. The concluding sentence of the Results and Discussion section is unclear to us. What is meant by &quot;outsized?&quot;</p><p>15. The concluding sentence of the Conclusion would be better framed as a hypothesis rather than a belief.</p><p>16. How were outliers (mentioned in Figure 3 legend) identified/defined in the datasets?</p><p>17. Units should be added to column titles in the supplementary source data tables.</p><p>18. Line 243: the term &quot;1k&quot; is used but should be written out as &quot;1000&quot; to differentiate it from the &quot;k&quot; parameter used in the model.</p><p>19. Line 115: typo – &quot;will likely to be&quot; should read &quot;will likely be&quot;.</p><p>20. Figure 1A typo: hermaphrodite.</p><p><italic>Reviewer #4 (Recommendations for the authors):</italic></p><p>1) It is unclear what, if any, experiments PTM573 (dpy-10 barcoded strain with the CB4856 hyper-divergent introgression) was used for. I am wondering why it is in the strain table.</p><p>1) Are the data for N2 presented in Figures 2B and 3C the same data? The boxplot distribution seems very similar by eye and without any data tables showing the actual values it is impossible for me to tell. Bacteria prep, agar prep, temperature, humidity levels, etc might affect the results on different days. So if the N2 values are from a single experiment, it might be best to repeat the experiment at the same time with the comparison strain. Ignore this comment if the data presented is actually from two separate experiments where the comparison strain was assayed simultaneously.</p><p>[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]</p><p>Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled &quot;A Toxin-Antidote Selfish Element Increases Fitness of its Host&quot; for further consideration by <italic>eLife</italic>. Your revised article has been evaluated by Christian Landry (Senior Editor) and a Reviewing Editor.</p><p>The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed, as outlined below:</p><p>The three reviewers appreciated all of the hard work and adjustments made to the manuscript. Overall, many of their comments can be addressed by additional explanations and addition of a few caveats. I have added short suggestions to the comments from each reviewer to help guide your edits.</p><p><italic>Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):</italic></p><p>In this revised version of their manuscript, Long et al. present further experimental evidence to support their claim that the peel-1 toxin, which is part of a paternal-effect toxin-antidote element in <italic>C. elegans</italic>, increases the competitive fitness of selfing hermaphrodites compared to those not carrying a copy. Several reviewers independently pointed out that to convincingly show this, the authors needed (1) to generate independent peel-1 knockout alleles that recapitulated the effect of the peel-1(kah126) mutant and (2) a rescue experiment, ideally a repair or reversion of the mutated allele back to WT to rule out any background effects. For this revision, the authors have generated additional strains and performed new competitive fitness assays to provide more convincing evidence that the fitness effect, albeit small, is indeed reproducible and caused by peel-1.</p><p>1. While the authors have addressed the major criticisms that focused on the genetics and reproducibility of the peel-1 mutant effect, there are some aspects of their fitness assays that remain unclear at the moment and would be important to clarify. The results shown in panel Figure 4D are central to the interpretation of the main claim of this paper, yet several questions come into mind upon close inspection, for instance:</p><p>1.1 Why is the data coming from independently generated alleles of the same genotype combined? Looking at the source data, it would appear that the authors replicated each pair-wise competition assay 6 times. However the data originating from independent alleles were combined in the final plots. As a result, the wt control and the original peel-1 mutant allele (kah126) have 6 replicates each, whereas other conditions, like the peel-1 &quot;revertant&quot; mutants and &quot;new&quot; peel-1 mutants have 12 and 18 replicates, respectively. I find it a bit troublesome that the fitness estimations are being done by aggregating independently derived lines (which goes against the original purpose of having independent alleles).</p><p>– The data for the different lines can be separated and reported.</p><p>1.2. Although it was brought up by a reviewer in the first round, it appears that there is no information available on the timing of the competitive fitness experiments. Were the experiments performed in parallel? And if not, when exactly? (this is important information for readers that should be available in the methods section/supplement).</p><p>– Please answer this question by adding text to the Methods.</p><p>2. I think it would be very important to check that the phenotype of the new peel-1 lines (new mutant alleles and revertant) is also consistent when measuring the total number of offspring laid by hermaphrodites (see Figure 3C)</p><p>– Without these data, the authors can mention that this trait was not measured for all of the peel-1 lines.</p><p>3. The authors may want to reconsider or justify the use of the term &quot;biological role&quot;, for example as used in line 196</p><p>&quot;These experiments strongly support a biological role for peel-1. &quot;</p><p>I find the use of the term &quot;biological role&quot; very confusing in this context because it implies that the role of peel-1 as a toxin (or that of selfish elements in general) is &quot;non- biological&quot;. Maybe the authors refer to a &quot;physiological role&quot; (not perfect either but more accurate)?</p><p>– Please edit to a different term. All genes have biological and physiological roles. Maybe &quot;fitness-relevant role&quot;?</p><p>Overall, this is a very exciting and interesting result and the manuscript has been greatly improved. Yet, many questions still remain open (which is OK if this is intended to be only a short report). How would a protein that is only expressed in sperm delay the development of hermaphrodites? Does this effect depend on zeel-1? Are the two opposing roles of peel-1 independent? (in other words, can one isolate mutants that abrogate toxicity but not the effect on fitness and vice versa). Does the benefit of carrying peel-1 evolved before or after the toxicity? Is there balancing selection and what is the selective force?</p><p>– Depending on space in the Discussion, some or all of these points can be addressed.</p></body></sub-article><sub-article article-type="reply" id="sa2"><front-stub><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7554/eLife.81640.sa2</article-id><title-group><article-title>Author response</article-title></title-group></front-stub><body><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>Essential revisions:</p><p>1) All reviewers noted the lack of controls for the peel-1 edited strain. I believe that backcrossing and whole-genome sequencing will not adequately address the concerns about the modest peel-1 effect and the single CRISPR-edited allele. The authors should either generate another peel-1 edited strain and test this new strain in the same experiments or add back peel-1 to the deleted strain to show that the modest peel-1 effect goes away.</p><p>2) Please update the statistical tests to address issues of multiple testing and non-normality.</p><p>3) The N2 data in Figures 2 and 3 are repeated. Please note that point.</p><p>4) Many of the other reviewer comments can be addressed by toning down some claims and providing more caveats and/or explanations. Reviewers made good suggestions for how to respond to these comments.</p></disp-quote><p>We appreciate the reviewers time and attention in reviewing our manuscript. We agree with their critiques and have addressed their major criticisms. Some of the main changes to the paper (marked in tracked changes):</p><p>1. There was significant worry that the conclusions relied on a single CRISPR-edited strain. Due to the small effect sizes, background effects or protein truncations could be responsible for the observed difference in fitness in the <italic>peel-1</italic> knockout strain. To address this, we created 6 new CRISPR-edited strains. Two of these strains reversed the knock out allele back to wild-type, which would leave the background mutations intact. These two new strains showed decreased fitness from the original <italic>peel-1</italic> allele, indicating that this <italic>peel-1</italic> allele was responsible for the fitness differences we observed vs. nonspecific background mutations. We also generated four additional loss of function alleles of <italic>peel-1</italic> in the first 3 amino acids of the protein. These loss-of-function mutations also showed decreased fitness from N2, further supporting our hypothesis that the fitness differences were from <italic>peel-1</italic> effects and not background mutations. These alleles also demonstrate that the fitness difference was not due to the expression of the translation of a partial PEEL-1 protein product. This data can be found in a new Figure 4.</p><p>2. We have updated the statistics to account for multiple testing and non-Guassian effects. For the fitness experiments, we modified the statistical test to determine if the fitness of one strain was significantly different from the second strain in a non-parametric way. This approach took advantage of the large number of comparisons we did for the competitions that had a small effect. The complete approach is detailed in the methods.</p><p>3. We have made a number of changes to address these specific comments of the reviewers:</p><p>a. We have updated nomenclature of genetic elements and strains as suggested by reviewers.</p><p>b. We have added references as suggested by reviewers.</p><p>c. We have deleted the line about discovery of these elements in obligate outcrossing nematodes (we agree that they many obligate male/female species have not been studied).</p><p>d. We have removed the effects of <italic>zeel-1</italic> from the manuscript (we agree that our initial conclusions about the role of <italic>zeel-1</italic> were incorrect).</p><p>e. We added a line to make it clear that our results suggest that additional natural polymorphisms linked to <italic>peel-1</italic> also affect laboratory fitness (as the NIL has a much stronger effect that the engineered <italic>peel-1</italic> strains).</p><p>f. We have removed the Sivasundar reference and added a review that further supports the low outcrossing rate. We have made explicit the carrying costs as suggested by reviewer 3.</p><p>g. We have removed PTM573 from the paper.</p><p>h. We have indicated where the data was shared between different figures.</p><p>4. We unfortunately do not have the detailed egg-laying rates for each strain to further analyze. While the experiments suggested by Reviewer 3 would be interesting, we believe they are outside of the scope of the paper (short report). Re Reviewer 4’s comments on starvation, differences in their response also could play a role in the laboratory fitness. Teasing out the exact contribution of egg-laying, growth, dauer formation, starvation, etc would be laborious.[Editors’ note: what follows is the authors’ response to the second round of review.]</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):</p><p>1. While the authors have addressed the major criticisms that focused on the genetics and reproducibility of the peel-1 mutant effect, there are some aspects of their fitness assays that remain unclear at the moment and would be important to clarify. The results shown in panel Figure 4D are central to the interpretation of the main claim of this paper, yet several questions come into mind upon close inspection, for instance:</p><p>1.1 Why is the data coming from independently generated alleles of the same genotype combined? Looking at the source data, it would appear that the authors replicated each pair-wise competition assay 6 times. However the data originating from independent alleles were combined in the final plots. As a result, the wt control and the original peel-1 mutant allele (kah126) have 6 replicates each, whereas other conditions, like the peel-1 &quot;revertant&quot; mutants and &quot;new&quot; peel-1 mutants have 12 and 18 replicates, respectively. I find it a bit troublesome that the fitness estimations are being done by aggregating independently derived lines (which goes against the original purpose of having independent alleles).</p><p>– The data for the different lines can be separated and reported.</p></disp-quote><p>We revised our presentation of these results to include comparisons within and among the independently derived alleles. Our results now show that all independently derived but identical alleles are equivalent to each other in the competition assays, and further, that all three allele classes of the peel-1 mutants are equivalent to each other. Figure 4D has been updated to display the replicate lines separately, and the text has been updated to describe our analysis in finer detail.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>1.2. Although it was brought up by a reviewer in the first round, it appears that there is no information available on the timing of the competitive fitness experiments. Were the experiments performed in parallel? And if not, when exactly? (this is important information for readers that should be available in the methods section/supplement).</p><p>– Please answer this question by adding text to the Methods.</p></disp-quote><p>Added ‘Pairwise competition assays in figure 2 and figure 3 were done in parallel with the same start date. The competition assays in figure 4 were performed parallel with a different start date.’ to the method section.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>2. I think it would be very important to check that the phenotype of the new peel-1 lines (new mutant alleles and revertant) is also consistent when measuring the total number of offspring laid by hermaphrodites (see Figure 3C)</p><p>– Without these data, the authors can mention that this trait was not measured for all of the peel-1 lines.</p></disp-quote><p>We added this line (195).</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>3. The authors may want to reconsider or justify the use of the term &quot;biological role&quot;, for example as used in line 196</p><p>&quot;These experiments strongly support a biological role for peel-1. &quot;</p><p>I find the use of the term &quot;biological role&quot; very confusing in this context because it implies that the role of peel-1 as a toxin (or that of selfish elements in general) is &quot;non- biological&quot;. Maybe the authors refer to a &quot;physiological role&quot; (not perfect either but more accurate)?</p><p>– Please edit to a different term. All genes have biological and physiological roles. Maybe &quot;fitness-relevant role&quot;?</p></disp-quote><p>Changed in this line and in the conclusion.</p><disp-quote content-type="editor-comment"><p>Overall, this is a very exciting and interesting result and the manuscript has been greatly improved. Yet, many questions still remain open (which is OK if this is intended to be only a short report). How would a protein that is only expressed in sperm delay the development of hermaphrodites? Does this effect depend on zeel-1? Are the two opposing roles of peel-1 independent? (in other words, can one isolate mutants that abrogate toxicity but not the effect on fitness and vice versa). Does the benefit of carrying peel-1 evolved before or after the toxicity? Is there balancing selection and what is the selective force?</p><p>– Depending on space in the Discussion, some or all of these points can be addressed.</p></disp-quote><p>We added an additional paragraph at the end of the Results to address these points.</p></body></sub-article></article>