Defensive symbionts provide high protection against natural enemies at low cost to hosts: a meta-analysis

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Cesar, Santos & Cogni use a meta-analysis to report on the direction and magnitude of three fundamental fitness components in defensive symbioses. Specifically, the work focuses on interactions between three arthropod host families (Aphididae, Culicidae, Drosophilidae, and others) and common bacterial endosymbionts (Wolbachia, Serratia, Hamiltonella, Spiroplasma, Rickettsia, Regiella X-type and Arsenophonus). The results of the overall analysis confirm common assumptions and previous work on such fitness components, showing that defensive symbionts provide strong protection to hosts and cause detectable costs to both hosts and the enemy. The analysis provides insight into the extent of the cost/benefit tradeoff for hosts, reporting that the cost is six times lower than the protective effect. The confirmation that natural enemies attacking hosts infected with symbionts have a reduction in their fitness is also an interesting one, as this shows that the majority of defensive symbionts provide protection by resisting enemy infection, as opposed to tolerating it. This finding has important consequences for evolutionary counter-responses in the enemy species. Of course, this result has less relevance for certain types of enemies (such as parasitoids) where successful infection is dependent upon host killing.

Interesting results also emerge from the subgroup analysis. For the full dataset, both natural and introduced symbionts were similarly effective in positively influencing the fitness of hosts. However, in the Wolbachia-specific analysis, the artificially introduced symbionts caused costs to the hosts where the natural strain did not. These findings have potentially important ramifications for schemes that use endosymbionts for biocontrol or vector competence, suggesting that (in some cases) natural strains may be the more stable choice for deploying (as they are associated with lower costs).

The analysis draws from an impressively large dataset, but the interpretation of the full impact of the results would be helped by greater detail on the species/strain level systems included, the data extraction approach, and inclusion criteria. Accounting for phylogenetic nonindependence and alternative coding of one of the moderator variables could also strengthen the biological relevance of the models. Suggestions and thoughts are outlined below.

Strengths & Potential Improvements:

An impressively large number of effect sizes (3000) from only 226 studies is collected, robustly confirming common assumptions on the magnitude of fundamental fitness components. However the paper would benefit from a clear breakdown in the main text of the specificities of each system included (e.g. a table at the host species/symbiont strain level, where it is possible). Currently, there is not enough detail for those who want a deep dive to understand what data was extracted for the analysis from these 226 studies, or those who want to understand the underlying diversity in the dataset.

Currently, when the 'natural enemy group' is tested as a moderator it is coded broadly by type of organism (e.g. virus, bacterium, fungi, parasitoid). But this doesn't adequately capture the mode of killing/fitness reduction by the enemy, which would be the much more biologically relevant categorisation for your questions. For example, parasitoid infection is dependent upon host death (thus host fecundity is not relevant, because the host either survived or did not). Among bacterial and viral pathogens antagonists there is scope for both fecundity and survival to be affected. This in turn may be a very influential factor for the outcome. You could consider recoding this enemy moderator.

The analysis is restricted to arthropod hosts and defensive symbionts that are also classed as endosymbionts. This focus should be made clear early on in the paper, as there are many systems (that are classed by many as defensive symbioses) that are not part of the analysis.

There is fairly minimalistic testing of moderators/sub-groups (which probably has its statistical strengths) but perhaps there are also some missed opportunities for testing other ecological contributors to variance, including coinfection (although perhaps limited by power) and other approaches to coding enemy group (as detail above).

Looking at the overview of systems included, there's likely a high degree of phylogenetic non-independence in the dataset. Where it is possible, using phylogenetically controlled models could strengthen this analysis.

Looking at your included systems (Table S5), you might be able to test the effect of coinfection on the 3 variables of interest. For example, it would be particularly important to see if the effects of two symbionts are additive or not.

No code for the analysis is provided for review at this stage and full details of the dataset are also not available. This slightly limits the ability to assess the full scope and robustness of the study. It would be helpful to have an extensive table in the supplementary detailing (minimum) the reference, study, experiment, host species, symbiont strain, and a description of the exact data extraction source (e.g.table/figure/in text), and method of extraction.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this exciting study, Cesar and co-authors perform a meta-analysis on the influence of arthropod symbionts on the fitness of their hosts when they are exposed or not to natural enemies. These so-called defensive symbionts are increasingly recognized as key elements in arthropod survival against natural enemies, with effects that ripple through entire terrestrial ecosystems. The topic is timely, the approach is sound, and the manuscript is well-written. I believe this manuscript will attract the attention of entomologists and of microbiologists interested in symbiosis. This study builds on a previous meta-analysis that I was involved in, which was based on phloem-feeding insects. This novel data set is much larger and includes flies (including the model system Drosophila) and mosquitoes (a group of high medical interest). While the previous meta-analysis considered only parasitoids as natural enemies, this study also includes fungi, bacteria, and viruses.

Strengths:

The authors compile a very large dataset and provide a broad quantitative overview of the effects of defensive symbionts in insects. By measuring symbiont effects in the presence and absence of natural enemies, the authors are able to infer whether a trade-off between defense and the costs of mutualism in the absence of enemy pressure exists. Defensive symbioses are an important research topic that had its initial "momentum" a decade ago, so the timing for such a systematic review is very appropriate.

Weaknesses:

I think the manuscript could be improved by clarifying several sections, particularly the introduction and methods. The introduction section is too specific and heavily reliant on particular examples. In my view, the theoretical background of the study could be made clearer, and the knowledge gap identified more explicitly. A focus on how widespread defensive symbioses are, along with a brief, up-to-date review of the groups possessing such symbionts, would help. This lack of focus is also observed in the methods section, where more details are needed in many instances to better understand how data was collected and analyzed. Regarding the analyses, the multi-level analysis contains many moderators, but it's unclear why these moderators were included. While this may seem a minor issue, it highlights a disconnection between the analyses, the conceptual background, and the hypotheses tested. Another important weakness is that the analyses are too general, and much-hidden information is not immediately apparent. For instance, readers cannot easily identify which species of symbionts are studied (and the effects they have), or which natural enemies are involved. Although this information is found in the supplementary material, including it in the main body would significantly improve the manuscript.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Cesar, Santos & Cogni use a meta-analysis to report on the direction and magnitude of three fundamental fitness components in defensive symbioses. Specifically, the work focuses on interactions between three arthropod host families (Aphididae, Culicidae, Drosophilidae, and others) and common bacterial endosymbionts (Wolbachia, Serratia, Hamiltonella, Spiroplasma, Rickettsia, Regiella X-type and Arsenophonus). The results of the overall analysis confirm common assumptions and previous work on such fitness components, showing that defensive symbionts provide strong protection to hosts and cause detectable costs to both hosts and the enemy. The analysis provides insight into the extent of the cost/benefit tradeoff for hosts, reporting that the cost is six times lower than the protective effect. The confirmation that natural enemies attacking hosts infected with symbionts have a reduction in their fitness is also an interesting one, as this shows that the majority of defensive symbionts provide protection by resisting enemy infection, as opposed to tolerating it. This finding has important consequences for evolutionary counter-responses in the enemy species. Of course, this result has less relevance for certain types of enemies (such as parasitoids) where successful infection is dependent upon host killing.

Interesting results also emerge from the subgroup analysis. For the full dataset, both natural and introduced symbionts were similarly effective in positively influencing the fitness of hosts. However, in the Wolbachia-specific analysis, the artificially introduced symbionts caused costs to the hosts where the natural strain did not. These findings have potentially important ramifications for schemes that use endosymbionts for biocontrol or vector competence, suggesting that (in some cases) natural strains may be the more stable choice for deploying (as they are associated with lower costs).

The analysis draws from an impressively large dataset, but the interpretation of the full impact of the results would be helped by greater detail on the species/strain level systems included, the data extraction approach, and inclusion criteria. Accounting for phylogenetic nonindependence and alternative coding of one of the moderator variables could also strengthen the biological relevance of the models. Suggestions and thoughts are outlined below.

We sincerely thank Reviewer #1 for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. The suggestions provided are highly constructive and will greatly assist us in improving both our analyses and the manuscript overall.

Strengths & Potential Improvements:

An impressively large number of effect sizes (3000) from only 226 studies is collected, robustly confirming common assumptions on the magnitude of fundamental fitness components. However the paper would benefit from a clear breakdown in the main text of the specificities of each system included (e.g. a table at the host species/symbiont strain level, where it is possible). Currently, there is not enough detail for those who want a deep dive to understand what data was extracted for the analysis from these 226 studies, or those who want to understand the underlying diversity in the dataset.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion, and we will add this information to our revised manuscript.

Currently, when the 'natural enemy group' is tested as a moderator it is coded broadly by type of organism (e.g. virus, bacterium, fungi, parasitoid). But this doesn't adequately capture the mode of killing/fitness reduction by the enemy, which would be the much more biologically relevant categorisation for your questions. For example, parasitoid infection is dependent upon host death (thus host fecundity is not relevant, because the host either survived or did not). Among bacterial and viral pathogens antagonists there is scope for both fecundity and survival to be affected. This in turn may be a very influential factor for the outcome. You could consider recoding this enemy moderator.

We agree, and we will implement this in the analysis to our revised manuscript.

The analysis is restricted to arthropod hosts and defensive symbionts that are also classed as endosymbionts. This focus should be made clear early on in the paper, as there are many systems (that are classed by many as defensive symbioses) that are not part of the analysis.

We agree, and we will implement this to our revised manuscript.

There is fairly minimalistic testing of moderators/sub-groups (which probably has its statistical strengths) but perhaps there are also some missed opportunities for testing other ecological contributors to variance, including coinfection (although perhaps limited by power) and other approaches to coding enemy group (as detail above).

We agree, and we will implement this in the analysis to our revised manuscript.

Looking at the overview of systems included, there's likely a high degree of phylogenetic non-independence in the dataset. Where it is possible, using phylogenetically controlled models could strengthen this analysis.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We will explore the possibility of using phylogenetically controlled models in our analyses, although we recognize the challenges associated with their implementation, particularly in the case of the natural enemies, given the great diversity of distant related groups included in our study - viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoans, nematodes and parasitoids wasps.

Looking at your included systems (Table S5), you might be able to test the effect of coinfection on the 3 variables of interest. For example, it would be particularly important to see if the effects of two symbionts are additive or not.

We agree, and we will implement this in the analysis to our revised manuscript.

No code for the analysis is provided for review at this stage and full details of the dataset are also not available. This slightly limits the ability to assess the full scope and robustness of the study. It would be helpful to have an extensive table in the supplementary detailing (minimum) the reference, study, experiment, host species, symbiont strain, and a description of the exact data extraction source (e.g.table/figure/in text), and method of extraction.

The code for the analysis and the full raw data with the suggested information are available at https://github.com/cassiasqr/MetaSymbiont (The link is available at the end of the manuscript).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this exciting study, Cesar and co-authors perform a meta-analysis on the influence of arthropod symbionts on the fitness of their hosts when they are exposed or not to natural enemies. These so-called defensive symbionts are increasingly recognized as key elements in arthropod survival against natural enemies, with effects that ripple through entire terrestrial ecosystems. The topic is timely, the approach is sound, and the manuscript is well-written. I believe this manuscript will attract the attention of entomologists and of microbiologists interested in symbiosis. This study builds on a previous meta-analysis that I was involved in, which was based on phloem-feeding insects. This novel data set is much larger and includes flies (including the model system Drosophila) and mosquitoes (a group of high medical interest). While the previous metaanalysis considered only parasitoids as natural enemies, this study also includes fungi, bacteria, and viruses.

Strengths:

The authors compile a very large dataset and provide a broad quantitative overview of the effects of defensive symbionts in insects. By measuring symbiont effects in the presence and absence of natural enemies, the authors are able to infer whether a trade-off between defense and the costs of mutualism in the absence of enemy pressure exists. Defensive symbioses are an important research topic that had its initial "momentum" a decade ago, so the timing for such a systematic review is very appropriate.

We sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for dedicating their time and effort to reviewing our manuscript. The suggestions are very insightful and will significantly contribute to improving our manuscript.

Weaknesses:

I think the manuscript could be improved by clarifying several sections, particularly the introduction and methods. The introduction section is too specific and heavily reliant on particular examples. In my view, the theoretical background of the study could be made clearer, and the knowledge gap identified more explicitly. A focus on how widespread defensive symbioses are, along with a brief, up-to-date review of the groups possessing such symbionts, would help. This lack of focus is also observed in the methods section, where more details are needed in many instances to better understand how data was collected and analyzed. Regarding the analyses, the multi-level analysis contains many moderators, but it's unclear why these moderators were included. While this may seem a minor issue, it highlights a disconnection between the analyses, the conceptual background, and the hypotheses tested.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions, and we will try to make the introduction and the methods section clearer.

Another important weakness is that the analyses are too general, and much-hidden information is not immediately apparent. For instance, readers cannot easily identify which species of symbionts are studied (and the effects they have), or which natural enemies are involved. Although this information is found in the supplementary material, including it in the main body would significantly improve the manuscript.

We agree, and we will implement this to our revised manuscript.