The Importance of Methods in Assessing Conservation Status of Abundant Fish Species through Genetic Diversity Estimates

Abstract

This study compares the accuracy of two genomic approaches in estimating genetic diversity levels, which could be useful for informing species conservation assessments of abundant, exploited fish species. The first approach (SNP-calling-based) is the commonly used pipeline of SNP calling followed by SNP filtering at a determined Minor Allele Frequency (MAF). The second approach (genotype-likelihood-based) does not perform SNP calling but estimates the Site Spectrum Frequency (SFS) based on alignment quality and sample size. The results show up to two-fold differences in the magnitude of the estimated nucleotide diversities among the analyzed datasets. The SNP-calling-based approach produces overestimates when missing data are considered in the analysis and shows pronounced deviations of the SFS towards high-frequency SNPs when filtering by MAF > 5%. The genotype likelihood-based approach showed that nucleotide diversity estimates significantly deviated from neutral expectations, as expected based on the known history of the case-study fish population analyzed here, regardless of whether missing data were considered. In contrast, the SNP-calling-based approach only shows this expected difference when no missing data are included and no MAF filtering is performed. Overall, the results indicate that using the SNP-calling-based approach may hide the effects of population size declines in abundant exploited fish species, while genotype-likelihood-based estimates of nucleotide diversity can effectively contribute to informing conservation assessments.

Keywords

Adaptive potential / Population genetics / Genomics / Fisheries / Climate change / Conservation

Acknowledgments

NPM was supported by MSCA-PF 101066785 (FISHADAPT).

Ethics Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

This study re-use data from NCBI SRA Bioproject PRJNA556115.

Funding

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Grant agreement ID: 101066785 (FISHADAPT).

Declaration of Competing Interest

The author declare that she has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] IUCN. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3. 1, 2nd ed.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 2012; iv + 32p. Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/10315. (accessed on 1 March 2025).

[2] Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E6089-E6096. doi:10.1073/pnas.1704949114.

[3] Spielman D, Brook BW, Frankham R. Most Species are Not Driven to Extinction Before Genetic Factors Impact Them. Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 15261-15264. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403809101.

[4] Frankham R. Where are we in conservation genetics and where do we need to go? Conserv. Genet. 2010, 11, 661-663. doi:10.1007/s10592-009-0010-2.

[5] Allendorf FW, Hohenlohe PA, Luikart G. Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11, 697-709. doi:10.1038/nrg2844.

[6] DeWoody JA, Harder AM, Mathur S, Willoughby JR. The long‐standing significance of genetic diversity in conservation. Mol. Ecol. 2021, 30, 4147-4154. doi:10.1111/mec.16051.

[7] Díez-del-Molino D, Sánchez-Barreiro F, Barnes I, Gilbert MTP, Dalén L. Quantifying Temporal Genomic Erosion in Endangered Species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2018, 33, 176-185. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.12.002.

[8] Petit‐Marty N, Liu M, Tan IZ, Chung A, Terrasa B, Guijarro B, et al. Declining Population Sizes and Loss of Genetic Diversity in Commercial Fishes: A Simple Method for a First Diagnostic. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 872537. doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.872537.

[9] Petit‐Marty N, Vázquez‐Luis M, Hendriks IE. Use of the nucleotide diversity in COI mitochondrial gene as an early diagnostic of conservation status of animal species. Conserv. Lett. 2021, 14, e12756. doi:10.1111/conl.12756.

[10] Jeon JY, Black AN, Heenkenda EJ, Mularo AJ, Lamka GF, Janjua S, et al. Genomic Diversity as a Key Conservation Criterion: Proof-of-Concept From Mammalian Whole-Genome Resequencing Data. Evol. Appl. 2024, 17, e70000. doi:10.1111/eva.70000.

[11] United Nations.Outcomes of the 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15). 2022. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/cop15/. (accessed on 15 June 2025 ).

[12] Hoban S, Bruford M, Jackson JDU, Lopes-Fernandes M, Heuertz M, Hohenlohe PA, et al. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 248, 108654. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108654.

[13] Hoban S, Paz-Vinas I, Shaw RE, Castillo-Reina L, da Silva JM, DeWoody JA, et al. DNA-based studies and genetic diversity indicator assessments are complementary approaches to conserving evolutionary potential. Conserv. Genet. 2024, 25, 1147-1153. doi:10.1007/s10592-024-01632-8.

[14] McLaughlin CM, Hinshaw C, Sandoval-Arango S, Zavala-Paez M, Hamilton JA. Redlisting genetics: Towards inclusion of genetic data in IUCN Red List assessments. Conserv. Genet. 2025, 26, 213-223. doi:10.1007/s10592-024-01671-1.

[15] Cook CN, Sgrò CM. Poor understanding of evolutionary theory is a barrier to effective conservation management. Conserv. Lett. 2019, 12, e12619. doi:10.1111/conl.12619.

[16] Kimura M. The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Sci. Am. 1979, 241, 98-129. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1179-98.

[17] Watterson GA. On the Number of Segregating Sites in Genetical Models without Recombination. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1975, 7, 256-276. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(75)90020-9.

[18] Nei M. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987.

[19] Korneliussen TS, Moltke I, Albrechtsen A, Nielsen R. Calculation of Tajima’s D and other neutrality test statistics from low depth next-generation sequencing data. BMC Bioinform. 2013, 14, 289. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-14-289.

[20] Tajima F. Statistical Method for Testing the Neutral Mutation Hypothesis by DNA Polymorphism. Genetics 1989, 123, 585-595. doi:10.1093/genetics/123.3.585.

[21] Hudson RR. Generating samples under a Wright-Fisher neutral model. Bioinformatics 2002, 18, 337-338. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/18.2.337.

[22] Bazin E, Glémin S, Galtier N. Population Size Does Not Influence Mitochondrial Genetic Diversity in Animals. Science 2006, 312, 570-572. doi:10.1126/science.1122033.

[23] Konopiński MK. Average weighted nucleotide diversity is more precise than pixy in estimating the true value of π from sequence sets containing missing data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2023, 23, 348-354. doi:10.1111/1755-0998.13707.

[24] Samuk K. Average nucleotide diversity should be weighted by per‐site sample size. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2023, 23, 355-358. doi:10.1111/1755-0998.13738.

[25] Bailey N, Stevison L, Samuk K. Correcting for Bias in Estimates of θw and Tajima’s D From Missing Data in Next‐Generation Sequencing. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2025, 25, e14104. doi:10.1111/1755-0998.14104.

[26] Leone A, Álvarez P, García D, Saborido-Rey F, Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N. Genome-wide SNP based population structure in European hake reveals the need for harmonizing biological and management units. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2019, 76, 2260-2266. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsz161.

[27] Díaz‐Arce N, Gagnaire PA, Richardson DE, Walter JF III, Arnaud‐Haond S, Fromentin JM, et al. Unidirectional trans‐Atlantic gene flow and a mixed spawning area shape the genetic connectivity of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Mol. Ecol. 2024, 33, e17188. doi:10.1111/mec.17188.

[28] Fish JJ, Dudgeon C, Barnett A, Butcher PA, Holmes BJ, Huveneers C, et al. Evidence of Fine‐Scale Genetic Structure in Tiger Sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) Highlights the Importance of Stratified Sampling Regimes. Evol. Appl. 2025, 18, e70117. doi:10.1111/eva.70117.

[29] Pinsky ML, Eikeset AM, Helmerson C, Bradbury IR, Bentzen P, Morris C, et al. Genomic stability through time despite decades of exploitation in cod on both sides of the Atlantic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2025453118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2025453118.

[30] Antoniou A, Manousaki T, Ramírez F, Cariani A, Cannas R, Kasapidis P, et al. Sardines at a junction: Seascape genomics reveals ecological and oceanographic drivers of variation in the NW Mediterranean Sea. Mol. Ecol. 2023, 32, 1608-1628. doi:10.1111/mec.16840.

[31] Blanco‐Fernandez C, Rodriguez‐Roche J, Mateo JL, Erzini K, Garcia‐Vazquez E, Machado‐Schiaffino G. Hybridization and Introgression in Black Hakes (Merluccius polli and M. senegalensis): Evolutionary Dynamics and Conservation Implications in the Contact Zone Exploited by Multi‐Species Fisheries. Mol. Ecol. 2025, 34, e17654. doi:10.1111/mec.17654.

[32] Puritz JB, Gold JR, Portnoy DS. Fine-scale partitioning of genomic variation among recruits in an exploited fishery: causes and consequences. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 36095. doi:10.1038/srep36095.

[33] Leone A, Arnaud‐Haond S, Babbucci M, Bargelloni L, Coscia I, Damalas D, et al. Population Genomics of the Blue Shark, Prionace glauca, Reveals Different Populations in the Mediterranean Sea and the Northeast Atlantic. Evol. Appl. 2024, 17, e70005. doi:10.1111/eva.70005.

[34] í Kongsstovu S, Mikalsen SO, í Homrum E, Jacobsen JA, Als TD, Gislason H, et al. Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) population structure in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Fish. Res. 2022, 249, 106231. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2022.106231.

[35] Korneliussen TS, Albrechtsen A, Nielsen R. ANGSD: analysis of next generation sequencing data. BMC Bioinform. 2014, 15, 356. doi:10.1186/s12859-014-0356-4.

[36] Rochette NC, Rivera‐Colón AG, Catchen JM. Stacks 2: Analytical methods for paired‐end sequencing improve RADseq‐based population genomics. Mol. Ecol. 2019, 28, 4737-4754. doi:10.1111/mec.15253.

[37] Pita A, Pérez M, Velasco F, Presa P. Trends of the genetic effective population size in the Southern stock of the European hake. Fish. Res. 2017, 191, 108-119. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2017.02.022.

[38] Fernández-Míguez M, Pita A, Gomez A, Presa P. Temporal uncoupling between demographic and genetic metrics in fisheries assessment: the European hake case study. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 1214469. doi:10.3389/fmars.2023.1214469.

[39] Etter PD, Bassham S, Hohenlohe PA, Johnson EA, Cresko WA. SNP discovery and genotyping for evolutionary genetics using RAD sequencing. Methods Mol. Biol. 2011, 772, 157-178. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-228-1_9.

[40] Li H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv 2013, arXiv:1303.3997v2.

[41] Danecek P, Auton A, Abecasis G, Albers CA, Banks E, DePristo MA, et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2156-2158. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr330.

[42] R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2024.

[43] Frankham R. Relationship of genetic variation to population size in wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10, 1500-1508. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10061500.x.

[44] DeWoody YD, DeWoody JA. On the estimation of genome-wide heterozygosity using molecular markers. J. Hered. 2005, 96, 85-88. doi:10.1093/jhered/esi017.

[45] Pinsky ML, Palumbi SR. Meta-Analysis Reveals Lower Genetic Diversity in Overfished Populations. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23, 29-39. doi:10.1111/mec.12509.

[46] Sopniewski J, Catullo RA. Estimates of heterozygosity from single nucleotide polymorphism markers are context‐dependent and often wrong. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2024, 24, e13947. doi:10.1111/1755-0998.13947.

[47] Conover DO, Clarke LM, Munch SB, Wagner GN. Spatial and Temporal Scales of Adaptive Divergence in Marine Fishes and the Implications for Conservation. J. Fish Biol. 2006, 69, 21-47. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2006.01274.x.

[48] Bernatchez L, Wellenreuther M, Araneda C, Ashton DT, Barth JM, Beacham TD, et al. Harnessing the Power of Genomics to Secure the Future of Seafood. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2017, 32, 665-680. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2017.06.010.