The mitochondrial genome of the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis (Gastropoda: Succineidae) and the phylogenetic relationships within Stylommatophora.

Here we report the first complete mitochondrial genome of the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis (d'Orbigny, 1836) (Gastropoda: Succineidae). Sequencing was performed on a specimen from Argentina. Assembly was performed using Sanger data and Illumina next generation sequencing (NGS). The mitogenome was 13,984 bp in length and encoded the 37 typical Metazoan genes. A potential origin for mitochondrial DNA replication was found in a non-coding intergenic spacer (49 bp) located between cox3 and tRNA-Ile genes, and its secondary structure was characterized. Secondary structure models of the tRNA genes of O. unguis largely agreed with those proposed for other mollusks. Secondary structure models for the two rRNA genes were also obtained. To our knowledge, the 12S-rRNA model derived here is the first complete one available for mollusks. Phylogenetic analyses based on the mitogenomes of O. unguis and 37 other species of Stylommatophora were performed using amino acid sequences from the 13 protein-coding genes. Our results located Succineoidea as a sister group of Helicoidea + Urocoptoidea, similar to previous studies based on mitochondrial genomes. The gene arrangement of O. unguis was identical to that reported for another species of Succineoidea. The unique rearrangements observed for this group within Stylommatophora, may constitute synapomorphies for the superfamily.

Introduction

Metazoa mitochondrial (mt) genome is a circular double stranded DNA that typically encodes two ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs), 22 transfer RNAs (tRNAs) and 13 protein-coding genes (i.e., cytochrome c oxidase subunits I-III; cytochrome b; ATP synthase subunits 6 and 8; NADH dehydrogenase subunits 1–6 and 4L), with a size ranging from 14 to 20 kb [1-4]. In recent years, the development of new technologies and the decrease in sequencing costs produced a significant increase in available animal mitogenomes, and currently more than 90,000 mitochondrial genomes are deposited in NCBI database [5-7]. Despite this and considering that mollusks are the second most specious animal phylum, they continue to be a poorly represented taxon with only 1,440 known mitogenomes (approximately 0.04% of species represented) [8].

Unlike vertebrates with a highly conserved mitochondrial genome, the available mollusk mitochondrial genomes have shown exceptional features, including doubly uniparental inheritance, gene rearrangements, large sizes, gene duplications, different gene distribution between DNA strands, and a high degree of mtDNA variability [1, 9–11]. The mtDNA as a molecular marker has been widely used throughout animal groups for the study of phylogenetic relationships among taxa, resolution of taxonomic controversies, and population genetics [12-15]. In this sense, complete mitochondrial genomes as phylogenetic markers provide additional comparison features, including gene order and content, as well as structural and compositional features [1, 16]. In addition, several studies using gene order as a phylogenetic marker indicated a good level of resolution in phylogenetic relationships, because of its low probability of convergence [3, 17, 18].

Succineidae Beck, 1837 is a molluscan family included in the superfamily Succineoidea Beck, 1837 within the order Stylommatophora that comprise more than 30 genera. The members of the family are distributed worldwide and inhabit diverse environments [19, 20]. Omalonyx d’Orbigny, 1838 is a genus of succinids endemic to Central and South America and the Caribbean islands characterized by a significant reduction of the shell [19]. This group of semi-slugs is frequently found in backwater areas, on riparian vegetation, with some species considered to be a pest of some crops (e.g., Nymphoides indica, Pennisetum purpureum) [19, 21–23]. They are also natural and potential intermediate hosts for parasites of the genus Leucochloridium Carus, 1835 (Trematoda) and Angiostrongylus Kamensky, 1905 (Nematoda), respectively [24-27]. Based on morphological characteristics of the reproductive system, six species are currently recognized within Omalonyx [28, 29], including Omalonyx unguis (d’Orbigny, 1836) which inhabits the Paraná River basin [28, 30].

To date, phylogenetic studies in mollusks based on morphological and molecular data support Stylommatophora as a monophyletic group, and agree to distinguish two groups, “achatinoid” and “non-achatinoid” [31–33 and references therein]. Within the non-achatinoid group, the taxonomic position and phylogenetic affinities of succinids has been variable and still remains contentious [19, 31–35].

In this study we present the mitogenome of Omalonyx unguis from Argentina, the first mitogenome of a South American representative of Succineidae available for comparison, increasing the taxon sampling of succinids in the ongoing phylogenetic reconstructions of Stylommatophora based on complete mitogenomes. We provide structural and compositional features of the newly sequenced mitochondrial genome, as well as an update of Stylommatophora phylogenetic relationships inferred from complete mitochondrial genomes.

Materials and methods

Sample and DNA extraction

Five adult specimens of Omalonyx unguis were collected from Garupá Stream, Misiones Province, Argentina (-27.4786, -055.7933) at the Paraná River basin in 2017. Permission for collection was granted by Ministerio de Ecología y Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Provincia de Misiones (Disp. No. 027/2018). The individuals were relaxed in water with menthol crystals for 6 h, preserved in ethanol 96%, and deposited in the malacological collection at the Instituto de Biología Subtropical, CONICET–UNaM, Misiones Province, Argentina (IBS-Ma 073). The specimens were identified using morphological characters of the reproductive system [30, 36, 37]. Additionally, molecular data were used to confirm the taxonomic identity following Guzmán et al. [30]. For the mitochondrial genome amplification and sequencing, total genomic DNA was extracted from a portion of pedal muscle of a single specimen (IBS-Ma 073–3) using a cetyltrimethyl-ammonium bromide (CTAB) protocol [38].

Amplification and sequencing

Two strategies were combined to obtain the mitochondrial genome of Omalonyx unguis. Firstly, short PCR products (less than ~1.5 kb) were amplified and sequenced by Sanger sequencing, using pulmonate-specific primers pairs [39] and individual-specific primers pairs designed from previously sequenced regions (S1 Table). PCR reactions were performed in a total volume of 30 μl, containing 50–100 ng of template DNA, 0.4 M of each primer, 1× Dream Taq Green Buffer (ThermoScientific), 2 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM dNTPs, 0.32 mg/ml BSA, and 1.25 U Dream Taq DNA polymerase (ThermoScientific). PCR reactions were run on a T21 thermocycler (Ivema Desarrollos) with cycling conditions as follows: 5 cycles of initial denaturation at 94°C for 2 min, denaturing at 94°C for 40 s, annealing at 40°C for 45 s, and extension at 72°C for 1 min; followed by 30 cycles of denaturing at 94°C for 40 s, annealing at 40–60°C for 40 s (based on gradient PCR profile), and extension at 72°C for a time set at 1 minute per kb of expected product, with a final extension at 72°C for 3 min. PCR products were purified from solution by means of an AccuPrep PCR Purification Kit (Bioneer, Korea), and from 1.5% (w/v) agarose gels using an ADN PuriPrep-GP Kit (Inbio Highway, Argentina) in cases of co-amplification of nonspecific fragments. Finally, both DNA strands of the PCR products were directly cycle sequenced (Macrogen Inc., Seoul, Korea). Secondly, NGS was used for sequencing of the mitogenomic fragments. Paired-end sequencing (2x150 bp, 350 bp insert size) of total genomic DNA was performed by Novogene Corporation (Sacramento, CA, USA) using a HiSeq platform (Illumina).

Genome assembly and annotation

All fragments obtained by Sanger sequencing were edited and compared with reference sequences in GenBank using the BLASTn algorithm [40] to confirm the amplicons to be the target sequences. Then, sequences were assembled manually into two large contigs in a stepwise manner by concatenating the sequences and trimming off overlapping regions with the help of Bioedit 7.0.5 software [41]. Finally, the complete mitogenome was assembled from about 10 Gb raw data obtained by NGS with the software NOVOPlasty 3.8.2 (https://github.com/ndierckx/NOVOPlasty) [42] using the previously obtained contigs as starting seeds.

The mitogenome was annotated with MITOS Web Server [5] employing the invertebrate mitochondrial genetic code and corrected manually by comparison with the available mitochondrial genome for the confamilial species Succinea putris (Linnaeus, 1758) (JN627206). The tRNA genes were detected using MITOS, and manually checked. Additionally, their secondary structures were inferred with ARWEN 1.2 [43]. The protein-coding genes (PCGs) were validated using the NCBI ORF Finder resource (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/orffinder/). Finally, the limits of rRNAs were extend to the boundaries of adjacent genes following Cameron [6]. Secondary structure of the 16S-rRNA and 12S-rRNA genes was predicted from previous models for mollusks [44] and arthropods [14, 45], respectively, with the help of RNAStructure 6.0.2 (https://rna.urmc.rochester.edu/RNAstructureWeb) [46]. Additionally, the potential origin of DNA replication (POR) folding was performed using RNAStructure. The annotated mitogenome was deposited in GenBank under accession number MT449229. The nucleotide composition and relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) for PCGs were calculated by means of MEGA X [47]. The AT- and GC- skew values were calculated using the equations AT-skew = (A-T)/(A+T), and GC-skew = (G-C)/(G+C) [48]. The circular mitochondrial genome was generated using Mtviz online tool (http://pacosy.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/mtviz/).

Sequence alignments and phylogenetic analyses

Phylogenetic analyses were based on the 13 PCGs of O. unguis and 37 species of Stylommatophora available in GenBank (Table 1). Galba pervia (Martens, 1867) (Hygrophila), Platevindex mortoni Britton, 1984 (Systellommatophora) and Carychium tridentatum (Risso, 1826) (Ellobioidea) were used as outgroups (Table 1). All sequences were downloaded from NCBI with the R package AnnotationBustR [49]. Nucleotide sequences were translated into amino acid sequences in EMBOSS Transeq [50] with invertebrate mitochondrial code; subsequently, sequences of each protein-coding gene were aligned separately using Muscle as implemented in MEGA X [47]. Ambiguously aligned positions were removed using Gblocks 0.91b under relaxed settings [51]. Exceptionally, atp8 and nad4L sequences were manually cleaned. Finally, the single alignments were concatenated into a final dataset consisting of 2,877 positions (71% of the original alignment).

Table 1

Information of the mitochondrial genomes of Stylommatophora analyzed in present paper.

Species	Family	NCBI	Mitogenome size (bp)	References
Stylommatophora
Omalonyx unguis	Succineidae	MT449229	13,984	This study
Succinea putris	Succineidae	NC016190	14,092	White et al. [39]
Achatinella fulgens	Achatinellidae	MG925058	15,346	Price et al. [62]
Achatinella mustelina	Achatinellidae	NC030190	16,323	Price et al. [91]
Achatinella sowerbyana	Achatinellidae	KX356680	15,374	Price et al. [92]
Partulina redfieldi	Achatinellidae	MG925057	16,879	Price et al. [62]
Achatina fulica	Achatinidae	KM114610	15,057	He et al. [93]
Deroceras reticulatum	Agriolimacidae	NC035495	14,048	Ahn et al. [94]
Arion vulgaris	Arionidae	MN607980	14,548	Doğan et al. [7]
Arion rufus	Arionidae	KT626607	14,321	Romero et al. [95]
Aegista aubryana	Bradybaenidae	NC029419	14,238	Yang et al. [96]
Aegista diversifamilia	Bradybaenidae	NC027584	14,039	Huang et al. [97]
Dolicheulota formosensis	Bradybaenidae	NC027493	14,237	Huang et al. [97]
Mastigeulota kiangsinensis	Bradybaenidae	NC024935	14,029	Deng et al. [68]
Camaena cicatricosa	Camaenidae	NC025511	13,843	Wang et al. [98]
Camaena poyuensis	Camaenidae	KT001074	13,798	Unpublished
Cerion incanum	Cerionidae	NC025645	15,177	González et al. [69]
Cerion tridentatum	Cerionidae	KY249249	15,409	Unpublished
Cerion uva	Cerionidae	KY124261	15,043	Harasewych et al. [99]
Ryssota otaheitana	Chronidae	NC044784	13,888	Damatac and Fontanilla [88]
Albinaria caerulea	Clausiliidae	NC001761	14,130	Hatzoglou et al. [100]
Gastrocopta cristata	Gastrocoptidae	NC026043	14,060	Unpublished
Cernuella virgata	Geomitridae	NC030723	14,147	Lin et al. [70]
Helicella itala	Geomitridae	KT696546	13,967	Romero et al. [95]
Cepaea nemoralis	Helicidae	NC001816	14,100	Yamazaki et al. [77]
Cylindrus obtusus	Helicidae	NC017872	14,610	Groenenberg et al. [101]
Cornu aspersum	Helicidae	NC021747	14,050	Gaitán-Espitia et al. [4]
Helix pomatia	Helicidae	NC041247	14,072	Korábek et al. [102]
Orcula dolium	Orculidae	NC034782	14,063	Groenenberg et al. [103]
Oreohelix idahoensis	Oreohelicidae	NC043790	14,213	Linscott and Parent [89]
Naesiotus nux	Orthalicidae	NC028553	15,197	Hunter et al. [104]
Meghimatium bilineatum	Philomycidae	NC035429	13,972	Xie et al. [86]
Philomycus bilineatus	Philomycidae	MG722906	14,347	Yang et al. [105]
Polygyra cereolus	Polygyridae	NC032036	14,008	Unpublished
Praticolella mexicana	Polygyridae	KX240084	14,153	Minton et al. [106]
Pupilla muscorum	Pupillidae	NC026044	14,149	Unpublished
Microceramus pontificus	Urocoptidae	NC036381	14,275	Unpublished
Vertigo pusilla	Vertiginidae	NC026045	14,078	Unpublished
Ellobiida*
Carychium tridentatum	Ellobiidae	KT696545	13,908	Romero et al. [95]
Hygrophila*
Galba pervia	Lymnaeidae	NC018536	13,768	Liu et al. [13]
Systellommatophora*
Platevindex mortoni	Onchidiidae	GU475132	13,991	Sun et al. [107]

* denotes outgroups.

Phylogenetic trees were inferred using Bayesian Inference (BI) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) following Uribe et al. [52] with some modifications. BI analysis was performed using MrBayes on XSEDE 3.2.6 [53] implemented in the CIPRES Science Gateway [54]. The substitution model was determined by PartitionFinder 1.1.1 [55] according to the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) using a greedy approach. The phylogenetic analysis was performed under the site-homogeneous mtREV+I+G model. Two independent runs with four Markov chains were set to run simultaneously for 106 generations, sampling every 1,000 generations, with a final burn-in of 25% [56]. Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) were used as branch support values. ML analysis was conducted using IQ-TREE 1.6.12 [57]. The substitution models were estimated using ModelFinder [58] implemented in IQ-TREE. ML analysis was performed under the site-homogeneous mtZOA+F+R7 model. Additionally, nodal support values were evaluated with 10,000 replicates of ultrafast likelihood bootstrap (UFBoot) [59]. Finally, as particular Heterobranchia lineages are known to experience an acceleration of evolutionary rates that may lead to long-branch attraction artifacts (LBA) in phylogenies, an additional BI analysis using the site-heterogeneous CAT-GTR model was performed in PhyloBayes MPI 1.7b [60] implemented in the CIPRES Science Gateway following Uribe et al. [61]. The phylogenetic trees were visualized using FigTree 1.4.4 (http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/).

Results

Genome organization and features

The complete mitochondrial genome of Omalonyx unguis was 13,984 bp in length, and contained 13 PCGs, 22 tRNAs, and two RNA genes (Fig 1). Most genes (9 PCGs, 12 tRNAs, 1 rRNA) were found on the plus strand, while the remaining genes (4 PCGs, 10 tRNAs, 1 rRNA) were on the minus strand (Fig 1, Table 2). We identified 17 intergenic regions (113 bp in total) ranging from 1 to 49 bp. The largest one was located between cox3 and tRNA-Ile genes with an AT content of 98% (Table 2). This sequence was identified as POR and its secondary structure is shown in S1 Fig. Additionally, there were 13 overlapping regions with 4–60 bp size, and six genes pairs were directly adjacent to one another. The base composition of this genome (33.38% A, 44.07% T, 10.59% C, 11.96% G) showed a high AT content (77.5%), with a negative AT-skew value (-0.14) and positive GC-skew value (0.06). The protein-coding genes accounted for 77.1% of the mitochondrial genome of O. unguis, with nad5 and atp8 being the longest and shortest genes, respectively (Table 2). The PCGs were initiated with ATG and the alternative initiation codons TTG, ATT or ATA, and terminated with stop codons TAA, TAG or incomplete stop codon T (Table 2). In total, PCGs consisted of 3,607 codons (not including start and stop codons), among which UUU (Phe, counted 393 times), UUA (Leu, counted 397 times) and AUU (Ile, counted 360 times) were the most frequently used, while CCG (Pro, counted 1 time), GCG (Ala, counted 2 times) ACG, CGG, and AGC (Thr, Arg and Ser1, respectively, counted 3 times) were the least used (S2 Table). The RSCU values are shown in Fig 2 and S2 Table. All 22 tRNAs were identified by both ARWEN and MITOS, and their length ranged from 57 to 75 bp. The tRNA genes in O. unguis showed a classical clover-leaf secondary structure with exception of tRNA-Leu, tRNA-Lys, and tRNA-Ser. The tRNA structures are shown in Fig 3. Twenty of the 22 tRNAs presented the standard anticodons, while tRNA-Trp and tRNA-Lys were identified with the anticodons UCA and UUU, respectively. In addition, seven tRNAs (tRNA-Ala, tRNA-Asp, tRNA-His, tRNA-Leu, tRNA-Lys, tRNA-Pro and tRNA-Tyr) showed mismatched base pairs in the acceptor stem and three (tRNA-Val, tRNA-Trp and tRNA-Gly) in the anticodon stem, while three tRNAs (tRNA-Asp, tRNA-Gly and tRNA-Pro) showed G·U wobble base pairs in the acceptor stem, and another two (tRNA-Ile and tRNA-Ser) in the anticodon stem. Finally, the lengths of the 12S-rRNA and 16S-rRNA genes were 771 and 1,013 bp, respectively, with the first located on the minus strand and the second on the plus strand. The inferred secondary structure models for 12S-rRNA and 16S-rRNA are provided in Figs 4 and 5, respectively.

Fig 1

Organization of the mitogenome of Omalonyx unguis.

Black lines outside and inside the circle indicate the plus and minus strands, respectively. The types of genes are represented by different colors. Transfer RNAs are designated by the single-letter code of their cognate amino acid.

Table 2

Organization of the mitochondrial genome of Omalonyx unguis.

Name	Position	Length (bp)	Strand	Start Codon	Stop Codon	Anticodon	ISR (bp)
cox1	1–1,530	1,530	+	TTG	TAA		+8
tRNAVal	1,539–1,604	66	+			TAC	0
16S-rRNA	1,605–2,617	1,013	+				0
tRNAPro	2,618–2,680	63	+			TGG	-4
tRNALeu1	2,677–2,740	64	+			TAG	+2
tRNAAla	2,743–2,805	63	+			TGC	-14
nad6	2,792–3,268	477	+	ATT	TAA		-11
nad5	3,258–4,940	1,683	+	ATG	TAA		-60
nad1	4,880–5,827	948	+	TTG	TAA		+9
nad4L	5,837–6,110	274	+	ATA	T*		-3
cob	6,108–7,202	1,095	+	ATT	TAG		-10
tRNAPhe	7,193–7,257	65	+			GAA	+4
tRNAAsp	7,262–7,324	63	+			GTC	-5
tRNACys	7,320–7,385	66	+			GCA	+1
cox2	7,387–8,035	649	+	ATG	T*		0
tRNAGly	8,036–8,110	75	+			TCC	-21
tRNAHis	8,090–8,155	66	+			GTG	+1
tRNAGln	8,157–8,221	65	-			TTG	+7
tRNALeu2	8,229–8,287	59	-			TAA	-15
atp8	8,273–8,402	130	-	TTG	T*		+1
tRNAAsn	8,404–8,466	63	-			GTT	-10
atp6	8,457–9,122	666	-	ATG	TAG		+2
tRNAArg	9,125–9,189	65	-			TCG	+8
tRNAGlu	9,198–9,270	73	-			TTC	0
12S-rRNA	9,271–10,041	771	-				0
tRNAMet	10,042–10,107	66	-			CAT	+4
nad3	10,112–10,465	354	-	TTG	TAA		+1
tRNASer2	10,467–10,523	57	-			TGA	-6
tRNATyr	10,518–10,584	67	-			GTA	+5
tRNATrp	10,590–10,655	66	-			TCA	0
tRNASer1	10,654–10,716	63	+			GCT	+1
nad4	10,718–12,028	1,311	+	TTG	TAA		-8
tRNAThr	12,021–12,084	64	-			TGT	+1
cox3	12,086–12,865	780	-	ATG	TAG		+49
tRNAIle	12,915–12,984	70	+			GAT	+16
nad2	13,001–13,958	958	+	TTG	T*		-33
tRNALys	13,926–13,983	58	+			TTT	+1

+ and—denote plus and minus strands, respectively. ISR denotes the length of the intergenic spacer region, for which negative numbers indicate nucleotide overlapping between adjacent genes. The anticodons of tRNAs are reported in the 5’ - 3’ direction.

* denotes incomplete stop codon.

Fig 2

Relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) of the mitogenome of Omalonyx unguis.

The codons that compose each family are shown below the x-axis, and the colors correspond to those of the stacked columns. The RSCU values are shown on the y-axis. The biased codon for each amino acid family is highlighted in bold.

Fig 3

Putative secondary structure of the 22 tRNA genes identified in the mitogenome of Omalonyx unguis.

The tRNAs are labeled with the abbreviations of their corresponding amino acids. Watson-Crick base pairings are indicated by dashes (−), and G·T(U) wobble base pairings are indicated by dots (·).

Fig 4

Secondary structure of the 12S-rRNA gene of Omalonyx unguis.

Domains are indicated with Roman numbers. Watson-Crick base pairings are indicated by dashes (−), and G·U wobble base pairings are indicated by dots (·). Adjacent genes are labelled at the 5’ and 3’ ends.

Fig 5

Secondary structure of the 16S-rRNA gene of Omalonyx unguis.

Domains are indicated with Roman numbers. Watson-Crick base pairings are indicated by dashes (−), and G·U wobble base pairings are indicated by dots (·). Adjacent genes are labelled at the 5’ and 3’ ends.

Phylogenetic analyses, gene order and rearrangements

The results of the phylogenetic reconstructions under the ML and BI approaches from concatenated amino acid sequences of the 13 PCGs and carried out using site-homogeneous models are shown in Fig 6. The topology of both trees was not entirely identical and nodal support values were generally higher in BI than in ML. Both approaches recovered all superfamilies as monophyletic groups with high support values and distinguished the “non-achatinoid” group from the “achatinoid” one represented by Achatina fulica Bowdich, 1822 (the only mitogenome available for achatinoids). In this study, the Succineoidea (represented by the succinids Omalonyx unguis and Succinea putris) showed a sister group relationship to Helicoidea + Urocoptoidea with relatively high nodal support (UFBootS 78, PP 0.98). Although Naesiotus nux (Broderip, 1832) and Oreohelix idahoensis (Newcomb, 1866) grouped together with high support values (Orthalicoidea + Punctoidea), the position of this group differed between the two approaches. On the other hand, there were differences in the relationships established among families within Helicoidea when comparing both trees. Helicidae grouped together with Geomitridae in both approaches, however, Polygyridae grouped together with Camaenidae in the BI tree (Camaenidae + Polygyridae) + (Helicidae + Geomitridae), but they grouped outside of Camaenidae + (Helicidae + Geomitridae) in the ML tree. The phylogenetic tree of the BI analysis performed under the site-heterogeneous model is shown in S2 Fig. The tree topology obtained using the CAT-GTR model, with branches showing high support values, was similar to that of the BI tree under the site-homogeneous MTREV+I+G model (Fig 6B).

Fig 6

Phylogenetic trees under site-homogeneous models based on the 13 PCGs dataset for stylommatophoran mollusks.

A. Maximum Likelihood tree. B. Bayesian consensus tree. The trees were rooted with three outgroups (Carychium tridentatum, Platevindex mortoni and Galba pervia). The scale (0.3) shows evolutionary distances. The ultrafast bootstrap (ML) and posterior probability (BI) support values are shown in the nodes. The GenBank accession numbers of the species are shown in Table 1. Omalonyx unguis was sequenced in this study.

Regarding the order and orientation of mitochondrial genes, some differences were observed among the species of the different stylommatophoran families (Fig 7). In particular, O. unguis presented a gene arrangement identical to that reported for S. putris. Both succinids differed from the other stylommatophoran by exhibiting the following rearrangements: tRNA-Pro–tRNA-Leu–tRNA-Ala, tRNA-Phe–tRNA-Asp–tRNA-Cys, and tRNA-Ser–tRNA-Tyr–tRNA-Trp–tRNA-Ser (with tRNA-Tyr and tRNA-Trp on the minus strand).

Fig 7

Linear representation of the gene order in Stylommatophora species used in this study.

Tree topology is from Maximum Likelihood analysis. Genes encoded by the minus strand are shaded. tRNAs are designated by the single-letter code of their cognate amino acid: A, Ala; C, Cys; D, Asp; E, Glu; F, Phe; G, Gly; H, His; I, Ile; K, Lys; L1 and L2, Leu; M, Met; N, Asn; P, Pro; Q, Gln; R, Arg; S1 and S2, Ser; T, Thr; V, Val; W, Trp; Y, Tyr.

Discussion

The mitogenome of the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis obtained in this study presented a size of 13,984 bp and constitutes the second complete mitochondrial genome available for Succineidae worldwide. The reduced size of this genome is consistent with that reported for Stylommatophora, which account for 38 mitogenomes to date with sizes ranging from 13,978 bp for Camaena poyuensis Zhou et al., 2016 to 16,879 bp for Partulina redfieldi (Newcomb, 1853) [2, 3, 62]. The 37 typical genes (13 PCGs, 22 tRNAs and 2 rRNAs) were present, and contained 17 intergenic spacer regions and 13 overlapping regions. Origins of mitochondrial replication are reported to be characterized by high AT content and stem-loop structures [63, 64]. These features were observed in the longest intergenic region (49 bp) of the O. unguis mitogenome located between cox3 and tRNA-Ile genes. The location of a potential origin of DNA replication (POR) in this region is in line with what has been observed in S. putris and other heterobranchs [3, 4, 39]. The compositional approach showed a high AT content (77.5%) in O. unguis, with a value close to that described for the mitochondrial genome of S. putris (76.7%). This high content fits well with the expectations for Stylommatophora, which stand out for having the highest values of AT among the pulmonate gastropods [4]. Generally, the plus chain is characterized by a higher A and C content [65]. Within Mollusca, two groups have been characterized based on their compositional asymmetries. On one hand, cephalopods and some gastropod species with positive AT and negative GC biases, and on the other hand, bivalves, and most gastropods with inverse values [65]. In agreement with most gastropods and other animal groups such as fish and arthropods, O. unguis showed a strong inversion of its asymmetries (AT-skew = -0.14, GC-skew = 0.06) [64, 66]. Some authors have suggested that one of the reasons for this finding could be related to a reversal of the origin of the replication [64, 66, 67].

The size of the protein-coding genes in O. unguis conformed well to the expected pattern for Eupulmonata, with nad5 being the longest gene (1,683 bp) and atp8 the shortest one (130 bp) [4]. The start and stop codons of the cox2, cox3 and nad5 genes corresponded to those identified for S. putris [39]. For the remaining genes, some start or stop codons matched with those of S. putris, while others corresponded to those informed for other pulmonate gastropods [3, 4, 39, 68–70]. Exceptionally, the nad4L, cox2, nad2 and atp8 genes showed a truncated stop codon (T—). This type of codon has been widely documented for mollusks and it was suggested that it is completed to TAA by post-transcriptional polyadenylation [71, 72]. In relation with mitogenomes that exhibited a high AT content, some Metazoa revealed a strong impact on the use of codons with this composition, even leading to the extinction of codons with GC content [73]. Accordingly, the analysis of codon uses in O. unguis revealed a higher use of those with high AT content, such as TTT (393), TTA (397), ATT (360), while those less represented had high GC content. Despite this, all possible codons were present at least once, as was the case with the CCG codon. The two most represented codon families were Ser2 and Leu2 with RSCU values of 4.77 and 4.65 respectively, while the least prevalent was Leu1 with a value of 1.35. The compositional bias in O. unguis was reflected in the RSCU values that showed no random use among families of codon synonyms, since a preferential use of codons with A or T in their third position was observed. It is known that codon bias influences the folding and differential regulation of proteins, as well as the efficiency of translation [74], however, to our knowledge the impact it has on gastropods mitogenomes and how it varies among its taxa is still unknown.

Recurrently, the variability in the sequence of tRNA genes generates difficulties for sequence annotation, so secondary structures are especially useful accessory tools [75]. tRNAs are generally characterized by a cloverleaf-shaped secondary structure that adopts an L-shaped tertiary structure to perform its function [76]. Most of the tRNAs of O. unguis showed the typical shape except for tRNA-Leu and tRNA-Lys which showed the TΨC arm truncated, and tRNA-Ser which showed the DHU arm truncated. However, loss of arms (TΨC or DHU) has been described as structural variation for Metazoa, including some species of mollusks, and is suggested to be the result from selection pressure to reduce the size of mitochondrial genomes [3, 18, 77, 78]. Most of the characterized structures showed preserved sizes for the acceptor stem and the anticodon stem (7 bp and 5 bp, respectively), as expected for metazoans in general [70, 79]. However, the acceptor stem of the tRNA-Ala, tRNA-Asp, tRNA-His, tRNA-Leu, tRNA-Lys, tRNA-Pro and tRNA-Tyr, and the anticodon stem of the tRNA-Val, tRNA-Trp and tRNA-Gly showed mismatched base pairs. Exceptionally, tRNA-Ser showed a longer length than conventional in the anticodon stem (6 bp). These types of alterations have been frequently observed in other animal species involving diverse mitochondrial tRNAs [72, 77, 80]. Particularly for mollusks, Yamazaki et al. [77] concluded that tRNAs that overlap nucleotides with adjacent genes may have a lack of mating in the acceptor stem. This was observed in O. unguis (e.g., tRNA-Ala, tRNA-Tyr and tRNA-Leu), although most tRNAs overlapping nucleotides were unmodified. To ensure the functionality of tRNAs that show modifications in their pairings, some authors proposed that post-transcriptional editing is responsible for rectifying these disappearances by Watson-Crick pairings [3, 77, 81, 82]. Despite the results provided here, more mitochondrial genomes of mollusks including secondary structures of these genes are required. These will allow comparative studies to help establish patterns of mitochondrial evolution, as well as to understand the functional importance of these structures.

The sizes of the large (16S-rRNA) and small (12S-rRNA) rRNA subunits in O. unguis were similar to those reported for other mollusks [39]. The 16S-rRNA structure model showed a relatively conserved secondary structure in relation to the available models for mollusks, and presented the six typical domains [44]. However, a stem-loop structure was not present in neither domain II or III, nor a bulge-stem-loop structure was present in domain V. These features are known to represent synapomorphies described for Heterobranchia and explain some reduction in mitochondrial size [44, 83]. Additionally, we generated the secondary structure model for the 12S-rRNA gene which, to our knowledge, represents the first complete model available for Mollusca. It was developed based on available models for arthropods and presented the four typical domains into which this gene is structurally divided [14, 72, 84]. This model is expected to contribute to further comparative studies aimed to investigate evolutionary questions among mollusks.

The BI and ML phylogenetic trees based on amino acid sequences of 13 PCGs recovered Stylommatophora as a monophyletic group. Both analyses showed a basal dichotomy within the order Stylommatophora that separated “non-achatinoid” (suborder Helicina) and “achatinoid” (suborder Achatinina), the latter represented only by Achatina fulica. This finding agrees well with previous studies in the literature based on mitochondrial genomes as well as individual genes, and represent widely accepted taxonomic clades [34, 85, 86]. Within Helicina, both trees reconstructed under site-homogeneous models recovered 11 superfamilies as monophyletic groups (UFBootS = 100, PP = 1.0), with similar topologies to studies carried out so far with mitogenome-based phylogenies. One of the previous mitogenomic studies grouped Succineoidea together with Arionoidea, which was interpreted as an artifact attributed to a scarce sampling of taxa [86]. Our results located Succineoidea as a sister group of Helicoidea + Urocoptoidea with Arionoidea grouping outside. These findings are consistent with the most recent results from Doğan et al. [7]. However, earlier phylogenies based on individual genes showed close relationships between Arionoidea and Limacoidea, while they failed to clarify the relationships of Elasmognatha (Succineidae + Athoracophoridae) within “achatinoids” [32]. Previous phylogenetic studies in Stylommatophora, performed on individual genes, also showed a close relationship between Polygyridae and Camaenidae within the superfamily Helicoidea [32, 87]. However, some phylogenies based on mitochondrial genomes showed Polygyridae in the basal division of Helicoidea (Polygyridae + (Camaenidae (Helicidae + Geomitridae))) [7, 86, 88]. Our results are consistent with both Helicoidea topologies depending on the phylogenetic approach used, although with some low support values. Although Xie et al. [86] suggest that the topology that places Polygyridae in a basal position would make more sense from a biogeographic perspective, the topological location of this group and the relationships among helicoids remain unclear. In this study, we observed different positions of the group formed by N. nux (Orthalicoidea) and O. idahoensis (Punctoidea) within “non-achatinoids”, with low support values in both cases. The most recent phylogenetic studies with stylommatophoran mitogenomes were not concordant with respect to the relationships deduced between these groups. While the results of Xie et al. [86] grouped Orthalicoidea with Limacoidea, the results of Damatac and Fontanilla [88] grouped them with Succineoidea. The results of Linscott and Parent [89] grouped Orthalicoidea as follows: Punctoidea + (Orthalicoidea + (Succineoidea + Achatinelloidea)); however, the results of Doğan et al. [7] grouped Orthalicoidea + Arionoidea. Thus, this variation in the evolutionary affinities evidences an insufficient representativeness of the different taxonomic levels within Stylommatophora since the proposed relations are changing as new mitogenomes are made available. In addition, the BI analysis performed under the site-heterogeneous CAT-GTR model did not improve the resolution of the trees inferred under the site-homogeneous models. Despite recovering all 11 superfamilies of Stylommatophora involved in this work as monophyletic groups, two nodes remained unresolved. Consequently, further research based on increased taxon sampling of Stylommatophora species is required to a better understanding of the evolutionary relationships within this group.

Among the additional phylogenetic markers provided by mitogenomes, several authors have mentioned the resolving potential of gene rearrangements [9, 90]. In this work we found the mitochondrial genome of Omalonyx unguis to present the same genetic arrangement as reported for Succinea putris [39]. To date and within Stylommatophora, Succineoidea is the only superfamily presenting the tRNA arrangements tRNA-Pro–tRNA-Leu–tRNA-Ala and tRNA-Phe–tRNA-Asp–tRNA-Cys. In addition, an inversion and transposition of tRNA-Tyr–tRNA-Trp was observed, and they were located between tRNA-Ser and tRNA-Ser1 (tRNA-Ser–tRNA-Tyr–tRNA-Trp–tRNA-Ser), with both genes encoded on the minus strand instead of the plus strand. While only two mitogenomes are available for the group, the reported changes seem to represent conserved arrangements that may constitute synapomorphies for Succineoidea. Further research based on more succinids are required to test and validate this assumption.

Conclusions

This study provides the complete mitochondrial genome of the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis (Gastropoda: Succineidae), consisting of 13,984 bp and with a typical gene content. Genomic features were similar with those of other stylommatophoran mollusks. Additionally, we present, to our knowledge, the first structural model of the complete 12S-rRNA (small-subunit rRNA) within Mollusca. The gene rearrangement was identical to that reported for Succinea putris. Both BI and ML analyses supported Stylommatophora monophyly with Achatina fulica at the basal bifurcation. The reconstructions within Stylommatophora were similar to those reconstructed in earlier studies. The arrangements tRNA-Pro–tRNA-Leu–tRNA-Ala, tRNA-Phe–tRNA-Asp–tRNA-Cys and tRNA-Ser–tRNA-Tyr–tRNA-Trp–tRNA-Ser (with tRNA-Tyr and tRNA-Trp on the minus strand) were present only in Succineoidea, and these arrangements are suggested to represent synapomorphies for the superfamily. Further research based in increased taxon sampling of succinids is required to confirm this hypothesis.

The putative stem-loop structure that is found in the longest non-coding region, located between cox3 and tRNA-Ile genes.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Bayesian Inference tree under the site-heterogeneous CAT-GTR model based on the 13 PCGs dataset for stylommatophoran mollusks.

The trees were rooted with three outgroups (Carychium tridentatum, Platevindex mortoni and Galba pervia). The scale (0.6) shows evolutionary distances. Posterior probability support values are shown in the nodes. The GenBank accession numbers of the species are shown in Table 1; Omalonyx unguis was sequenced in this study.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Individual-specific primers of Omalonyx unguis.

Primer sequences are in the 5’ to 3’ direction. The primers naming system follows that of White et al. [39]. The genes encoded in the minus strand are underlined.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Codon usage in Omalonyx unguis.

RSCU: relative synonymous codon usage.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-05532

The mitochondrial genome of the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis (Gastropoda: Succineidae) and the phylogenetic relationships within Stylommatophora

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guzmán,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers were both impressed by the overall quality of the manuscript. That being said, they each provide useful and substantive feedback and suggestions that would improve the final product. Please pay particular attention to the phylogenetics suggestions, especially concerning model choice and LBA, and the issues with taxonomy. I agree with the reviewers that some of the figures are too difficult to interpret, so please try to improve the readability and descriptions thereof.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael Scott Brewer, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments for the author

The paper reports the sequencing and annotation of the mitogenome of a semi-slug Omalonyx unguis for the first time. The authors describe general features of the mitogenome, such as gene content and arrangements, nucleotide compositions and codon usage, secondary structures of the tRNA and rRNA genes as well as non-coding region. Additionally, the authors reconstructed the phylogeny of Stylommatophora using the concatenated amino acid sequences of mitochondrial PCGs of 38 species. The paper provides a valuable resource for understanding of the mitogenome structure of O. unguis and mitogenome evolution in the stylommatophoran species. The manuscript is also valuable in that the authors predict the secondary structure of 12S rRNA in Mollusca for the first time. The manuscript is clearly written, however I found some minor problems that would be better if solved:

• Line 141: The authors stated they performed Gblocks under relaxed settings and cited Castresana, 2000. However, in this article Castresana does not state which settings are accepted as relaxed. In my opinion, it would be better if they cite Talavera and Castresana, 2007 (doi: 10.1080/10635150701472164) or explain which parameters they used for “relaxed”.

• Line 237-239: The display of the rearrangements with the phylogenetic tree is nice and descriptive; however, I didn’t understand why they give this one sentence here. When reading, the pass between two subject had come abrupt to me and seem to be irrelevant. This part should be enriched.

• I could not understand why the author have preferred the ML phylogeny in Figure 7.

• I would prefer if the authors choose a sorting strategy in Table 1. It has categorized neither alphabetically nor by family. And, also it would be better, if they give the main species of the manuscript at the top of the table and categorize remainings up to families.

• In general, I find the figure legends poor. Legends must be understandable by themselves.

• As to phylogenies, unfortunately, I could not read the node labels in Fig. 6 because of the resolution. Therefore, I could not to pass judgment on related parts when authors stated as low support or high support.

• Finally, there was a systematic mistake about superfamilies. The species of Polygyra cereolus and Praticolella mexicana (Polygyridae) classified under Polygyroidea superfamily rather than Helicoidea in current sources (please see Bouchet et al., 2017; NCBI Taxonomy Browser). The phylogeny should be discussed again considering this classification.

Reviewer #2: The authors sequenced the mitochondrial genome of Omalonyx unguis. They annotated it and show the mitogenome features and was compared with remain mitogenomes of Stylommatophora. Also, the authors assembled a phylogenomic dataset based on 13 mitochondrial protein coding genes using this new mitogenome, giving the phylogenetic status of this genus. The MS was well written, the methods well executed and the results supported by the data. The conclusions were very well conducted.

Overall, the message present in this paper is straightforward and deserves to be published. The mitogenome of Omalonyx unguis increase the taxon sampling of the family, confirm its monophyly, give phylogenetic status of the genus, and confirm a molecular synapomorphy of Succineoidea (mitogenome gene rearrangement). However, there are few comments that need to be addressed.

Given the well-known acceleration of mutations rates expressed by heterobranch clades (and other land clades, e.g., Helicinoidea and Hydrocenoidea), which confer long branches in the trees of these clades. These long branches generate, potentially, biases in the phylogenetic reconstruction (by e.g., LBA, amino-acid composition). I suggest to the authors run the phylogenetic analyses using (at least one of two) heterogeneous models, as is the case of CAT model (implemented in phylobayes) OR the mixture model C10-C60 (implemented in IQ-TREE). These last models require less computational effort (using ultra-fast bootstrap) and run faster than CAT. These kind of substitution models have shown well performance avoiding phylogenetic biases in gastropod phylogeny (Uribe et al., 2019. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 133, 12-23) and are become in an inevitable analysis that allow know if the analyses are biased.

Finally, the phylogenetic trees could be represented in just one tree collapsing the nodes with low support. This may improve the figure and the two topologies could be disscused in the text and be showed as SM.

Please, the authors should describe the abbreviation used, e.g., transfer (t)RNA, ribosomal (r)RNA.

Figure 2. To makes this figure more informative the authors could display the biased codon in bold.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

6 May 2021

May 3, 2021

Dear Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Ph.D. Brewer, Michael Scott

The MS was revised taking into account the comments suggested by you and the reviewers. The responses to the comments are detailed below.

Sincerely,

Lic. Leila B. Guzmán

----------

Academic Editor:

- Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The reviewers were both impressed by the overall quality of the manuscript. That being said, they each provide useful and substantive feedback and suggestions that would improve the final product. Please pay particular attention to the phylogenetics suggestions, especially concerning model choice and LBA, and the issues with taxonomy. I agree with the reviewers that some of the figures are too difficult to interpret, so please try to improve the readability and descriptions thereof.

*We thank the Editor for the comments on the manuscript. We have made changes in the revised manuscript for trying to address all the suggestions.

----------

Reviewer No. 1

*We thank Reviewer No. 1 for the positive comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We have worked on all the marked issues to improve the manuscript.

Comments:

- Line 141: The authors stated they performed Gblocks under relaxed settings and cited Castresana, 2000. However, in this article Castresana does not state which settings are accepted as relaxed. In my opinion, it would be better if they cite Talavera and Castresana, 2007 (doi: 10.1080/10635150701472164) or explain which parameters they used for “relaxed”.

*We agree. “Castresana, 2000” was replaced by “Talavera and Castresana, 2007”.

- Line 237-239: The display of the rearrangements with the phylogenetic tree is nice and descriptive; however, I didn’t understand why they give this one sentence here. When reading, the pass between two subject had come abrupt to me and seem to be irrelevant. This part should be enriched.

*We agree. We modified the manuscript for trying to address this point.

- I could not understand why the author have preferred the ML phylogeny in Figure 7.

*We choose to show the ML phylogeny in Fig 7 as the topology obtained from this analysis better agrees with the results published in previous works (e.g. Xie et al., 2019; Doğan et al., 2020) in comparison to the topology obtained from the BI analysis.

References:

Xie G, Köhler F, Huang XC, Wu RW, Zhou CH, Ouyang S, et al. A novel gene arrangement among the Stylommatophora by the complete mitochondrial genome of the terrestrial slug Meghimatium bilineatum (Gastropoda, Arionoidea). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2019;135: 177-184. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2019.03.002.7.

Doğan Ö, Schrödl M, Chen Z. The complete mitogenome of Arion vulgaris Moquin-Tandon, 1855 (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora): mitochondrial genome architecture, evolution and phylogenetic considerations within Stylommatophora. PeerJ. 2020;8: e8603. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8603.

- I would prefer if the authors choose a sorting strategy in Table 1. It has categorized neither alphabetically nor by family. And, also it would be better, if they give the main species of the manuscript at the top of the table and categorize remainings up to families.

*We have modified Table 1 as suggested.

- In general, I find the figure legends poor. Legends must be understandable by themselves.

*We have improved the figure legends as requested.

- As to phylogenies, unfortunately, I could not read the node labels in Fig. 6 because of the resolution. Therefore, I could not to pass judgment on related parts when authors stated as low support or high support.

*The figures were uploaded in high resolution, however, the .pdf file generated by the journal´s system for revision decreased the images quality. We have tested to download the figs from the links to each figure in the .pdf file, and we could obtain the .tif files in high quality for better visualization.

- Finally, there was a systematic mistake about superfamilies. The species of Polygyra cereolus and Praticolella mexicana (Polygyridae) classified under Polygyroidea superfamily rather than Helicoidea in current sources (please see Bouchet et al., 2017; NCBI Taxonomy Browser). The phylogeny should be discussed again considering this classification.

*We have carefully revised the taxonomy following the Reviewer No. 1 suggestions. The taxonomy used in our work agrees with that of Bouchet et al. (2017) and MolluscaBase (https://www.molluscabase.org/), where "Polygyridae" belongs to the superfamily "Helicoidea" (https://www.molluscabase.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=993919; Bouchet et al., 2017: page 367). We have also verified the current treatment of the taxon “Polygyroidea”. Polygyroidea Pilsbry, 1924 corresponds to a valid mollusk genus within the family Megomphicidae (https://www.molluscabase.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=995468). We think that the confusion regarding the classification of Polygyra cereolus and Praticolella mexicana is derived from the taxonomical treatment provided in the "NCBI Taxonomy Browser", as the classification presented there is different from that of Bouchet et al. (2017) and MolluscaBase.

- Polygyra cereolus:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Undef&id=339431&lvl=3&p=has_linkout&p=blast_url&p=genome_blast&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock

- Praticolella mexicana:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=882625&lvl=3&p=has_linkout&p=blast_url&p=genome_blast&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock

However, the NCBI taxonomy database clearly indicates on their site: "Disclaimer: The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification". For the aforementioned reasons, we have decided to maintain the taxonomy as originally presented in our manuscript.

Reference:

Bouchet P, Rocroi JP, Hausdorf B, Kaim A, Kano Y, Nützel A, et al. Revised classification, nomenclator and typification of gastropod and monoplacophoran families. Malacologia. 2017;61: 1-526. doi: 10.4002/040.061.0201.

----------

Reviewer No. 2

*We thank Reviewer No. 2 for the positive comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We have worked on all the marked issues to improve the manuscript.

Comments:

- Given the well-known acceleration of mutations rates expressed by heterobranch clades (and other land clades, e.g., Helicinoidea and Hydrocenoidea), which confer long branches in the trees of these clades. These long branches generate, potentially, biases in the phylogenetic reconstruction (by e.g., LBA, amino-acid composition). I suggest to the authors run the phylogenetic analyses using (at least one of two) heterogeneous models, as is the case of CAT model (implemented in phylobayes) OR the mixture model C10-C60 (implemented in IQ-TREE). These last models require less computational effort (using ultra-fast bootstrap) and run faster than CAT. These kind of substitution models have shown well performance avoiding phylogenetic biases in gastropod phylogeny (Uribe et al., 2019. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 133, 12-23) and are become in an inevitable analysis that allow know if the analyses are biased.

*We have performed the suggested analysis in PhyloBayes with the CAT model, and the results were incorporated into the manuscript as supplementary material, as the new analysis does not provide a higher resolution than the original trees. We have introduced all the information regarding this new analysis using a heterogeneous model in the main document.

- Finally, the phylogenetic trees could be represented in just one tree collapsing the nodes with low support. This may improve the figure and the two topologies could be disscused in the text and be showed as SM.

*We prefer to maintain the trees as originally presented for a better comparation of topologies obtained. Nonetheless, we have included the new tree derived from the BI analysis with the CAT model into supplementary material.

- Please, the authors should describe the abbreviation used, e.g., transfer (t)RNA, ribosomal (r)RNA.

*We agree, we have defined the abbreviations.

- Figure 2. To makes this figure more informative the authors could display the biased codon in bold.

*We have performed the modifications suggested in Fig 2 to improve clarity.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

1 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-05532R1

The mitochondrial genome of the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis (Gastropoda: Succineidae) and the phylogenetic relationships within Stylommatophora

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guzmán,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please pay particular attention to the minor issues raised by the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael Scott Brewer, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am happy to see the revised version of the manuscript and I think the authors made an excellent work with the revision of the manuscript. I’ve checked the revised version carefully. The authors answer and correct all the comments proposed by the reviewers in a clearly way. However, I just have a few minor suggestions, as I stated below which should be corrected.

-Lines 23-25: The sentence “Phylogenetic analyses based on the O. unguis mitogenome and 37 species of Stylommatophora were performed using amino acid sequences from the 13 protein-coding genes.” should be revised as “Phylogenetic analyses based on the mitogenomes of O. unguis and 37 other species of Stylommatophora were performed using amino acid sequences from the 13 protein-coding genes.” for the clarity.

-Line 32: “encodes 2 ribosomal RNAs” should be revised as “encodes two ribosomal RNAs”

-In the legend of Figure 7 at lines 273-274: I would prefer to see the first letter of three-letter coded amino acids in capital.

I hope my comments are clear and somehow helpful.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

1 Jun 2021

MS PONE-D-21-05532R1

Title: “The mitochondrial genome of the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis (Gastropoda: Succineidae) and the phylogenetic relationships within Stylommatophora”

June 1, 2021

Dear Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Ph.D. Brewer, Michael Scott

The MS was revised taking into account the comments suggested by you and the reviewers. The responses to the comments are detailed below.

Sincerely,

Lic. Leila B. Guzmán

---

Academic Editor:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please pay particular attention to the minor issues raised by the reviewer.

-We have introduced the suggested changes in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer No. 1:

-We thank Reviewer No. 1 for the positive comments on the revised manuscript and the suggestions provided.

Comments:

Lines 23-25: The sentence “Phylogenetic analyses based on the O. unguis mitogenome and 37 species of Stylommatophora were performed using amino acid sequences from the 13 protein-coding genes.” should be revised as “Phylogenetic analyses based on the mitogenomes of O. unguis and 37 other species of Stylommatophora were performed using amino acid sequences from the 13 protein-coding genes.” for the clarity.

-We agree. We have incorporated the corrected sentence.

Line 32: “encodes 2 ribosomal RNAs” should be revised as “encodes two ribosomal RNAs”.

-We agree. “2” was replaced by “two”.

In the legend of Figure 7 at lines 273-274: I would prefer to see the first letter of three-letter coded amino acids in capital.

-We agree. We have added the first letter of three-letter coded amino acids in capital.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

11 Jun 2021

The mitochondrial genome of the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis (Gastropoda: Succineidae) and the phylogenetic relationships within Stylommatophora

PONE-D-21-05532R2

Dear Dr. Guzmán,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michael Scott Brewer, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

18 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-05532R2

The mitochondrial genome of the semi-slug Omalonyx unguis (Gastropoda: Succineidae) and the phylogenetic relationships within Stylommatophora

Dear Dr. Guzmán:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michael Scott Brewer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE