Irreproducibility of transgenerational learned pathogen-aversion response in C. elegans

**Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
**
Summary:

The authors report an inability to reproduce a transgenerational memory of avoidance of the pathogen PA14 in C. elegans. Instead, the authors demonstrate intergenerational inheritance for a single F1 generation, in embryos of mothers exposed to OP50 and PA14, where embryos isolated from these mothers by bleaching are capable of remembering to avoid PA14 in a manner that is dependent on systemic RNAi proteins sid-1 and sid-2. This could reflect systemic sRNAs generated by neuronal daf-7 signaling that are transmitted to F1 embryos. The authors note that transgenerational memory of PA14 was reported by the Murphy group at Princeton, but that environmental or strain variation (worms or bacteria) might explain the single generation of inheritance observed at Harvard. The Hunter group tried different bacterial growth conditions and different worm growth temperatures for independent PA14 strains, which they showed to be strongly pathogenic. However, the authors could not reproduce a transgenerational effect at Harvard. This important data will allow members of the scientific community to focus on the robust and reproducible inheritance of PA14 avoidance transmitted to F1 embryos of mothers exposed to PA14, which the authors demonstrate depends on small RNAs in a manner that is downstream of or in parallel to daf-7. This paper honestly and importantly alters expectations and questions the model that avoidance of PA14 is mediated by a bacterial ncRNA whose siRNAs target a C. elegans gene. Instead, endogenous C. elegans sRNAs that affect pathogen response may be the culprit that explains sRNA-mediated avoidance.

Overall, this is an important paper that demonstrates that one model for transgenerational inheritance in C. elegans is not reproducible. This is important because it is not clear how many of the reported models of transgenerational inheritance reported in C. elegans are reproducible. The authors do demonstrate a memory for F1 embryos that could be a maternal effect, and the authors confirm that this is mediated by a systemic small RNA response. There are several points in the manuscript where a more positive tone might be helpful.

Strengths:

The authors note that the high copy number daf-7::GFP transgene used by the Murphy group displayed variable expression and evidence for somatic silencing or transgene breakdown in the Hunter lab, as confirmed by the Murphy group. The authors nicely use single copy daf-7::GFP to show that neuronal daf-7::GFP is elevated in F1 but not F2 progeny with regards to the memory of PA14 avoidance, speaking to an intergenerational phenotype.

The authors nicely confirm that sid-1 and sid-2 are generally required for intergenerational avoidance of F1 embryos of moms exposed to PA14. However, these small RNA proteins did not affect daf-7::GFP elevation in the F1 progeny. This result is unexpected given previous reports that single copy daf-7::GFP is not elevated in F1 progeny of sid mutants. Because the Murphy group reported that daf-7 mutation abolishes avoidance for F1 progeny, this means that the sid genes function downstream of daf-7 or in parallel, rather than upstream as previously suggested.

The authors studied antisense small RNAs that change in Murphy data sets, identifying 116 mRNAs that might be regulated by sRNAs in response to PA14. Importantly, the authors show that the maco-1 gene, putatively targeted by piRNAs according to the Kaletsky 2020 paper, displays few siRNAs that change in response to PA14. The authors conclude that the P11 ncRNA of PA14, which was proposed to promote interkingdom RNA communication by the Murphy group, is unlikely to affect maco-1 expression by generating sRNAs that target maco-1 in C. elegans. The authors define 8 genes based on their analysis of sRNAs and mRNAs that might promote resistance to PA14, but they do not further characterize these genes' role in pathogen avoidance. The Murphy group might wish to consider following up on these genes and their possible relationship with P11.

Weaknesses:

This very thorough and interesting manuscript is at times pugnacious.

Please explain more clearly what is High Growth media for E. coli in the text and methods, conveying why it was used by the Murphy lab, and if Normal Growth or High Growth is better for intergenerational heritability assays.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This paper examines the reproducibility of results reported by the Murphy lab regarding transgenerational inheritance of a learned avoidance behavior in C. elegans. It has been well established by multiple labs that worms can learn to avoid the pathogen pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA14) after a single exposure. The Murphy lab has reported that learned avoidance is transmittable to 4 generations and dependent on a small RNA expressed by PA14 that elicits the transgenerational silencing of a gene in C. elegans. The Hunter lab now reports that although they can reproduce inheritance of the learned behavior by the first generation (F1), they cannot reproduce inheritance in subsequent generations.

This is an important study that will be useful for the community. Although they fail to identify a "smoking gun", the study examines several possible sources for the discrepancy, and their findings will be useful to others interested in using these assays. The preference assay appears to work in their hands in as much as they are able to detect the learned behavior in the P0 and F1 generations, suggesting that the failure to reproduce the transgenerational effect is not due to trivial mistakes in the protocol. An obvious reason, however, to account for the differing results is that the culture conditions used by the authors are not permissive for the expression of the small RNA by PA14 that the MUrphy lab identified as required for transgenerational inheritance. It would seem prudent for the authors to determine whether this small RNA is present in their cultures, or at least acknowledge this possibility. The authors should also note that their protocol was significantly different from the Murphy protocol (see comments below) and therefore it remains possible that protocol differences cumulatively account for the different results.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

It has been previously reported in many high-profile papers, that C. elegans can learn to avoid pathogens. Moreover, this learned pathogen avoidance can be passed on to future generations - up to the F5 generation in some reports. In this paper, Gainey et al. set out to replicate these findings. They successfully replicated pathogen avoidance in the exposed animals, as well as a strong increase in daf-7 expression in ASI neurons in F1 animals, as determined by a daf-7::GFP reporter construct. However, they failed to see strong evidence for pathogen avoidance or daf-7 overexpression in the F2 generation. The failure of replication is the major focus of this work.

Given their failure to replicate these findings, the authors embark on a thorough test of various experimental confounders that may have impacted their results. They also re-analyze the small RNA sequencing and mRNA sequencing data from one of the previously published papers and draw some new conclusions, extending this analysis.

Strengths:

(1) The authors provide a thorough description of their methods, and a marked-up version of a published protocol that describes how they adapted the protocol to their lab conditions. It should be easy to replicate the experiments.

(2) The authors test the source of bacteria, growth temperature (of both C. elegans and bacteria), and light/dark husbandry conditions. They also supply all their raw data, so that the sample size for each testing plate can be easily seen (in the supplementary data). None of these variations appears to have a measurable effect on pathogen avoidance in the F2 generation, with all but one of the experiments failing to exhibit learned pathogen avoidance.

(3) The small RNA seq and mRNA seq analysis is well performed and extends the results shown in the original paper. The original paper did not give many details of the small RNA analysis, which was an oversight. Although not a major focus of this paper, it is a worthwhile extension of the previous work.

(4) It is rare that negative results such as these are accessible. Although the authors were unable to determine the reason that their results differ from those previously published, it is important to document these attempts in detail, as has been done here. Behavioral assays are notoriously difficult to perform and public discourse around these attempts may give clarity to the difficulties faced by a controversial field.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although the "standard" conditions have been tested over multiple biological replicates, many of the potential confounders that may have altered the results have been tested only once or twice. For example, changing the incubation temperature to 25{degree sign}C was tested in only two biological replicates (Exp 5.1 and 5.2) - and one of these experiments actually resulted in apparent pathogen avoidance inheritance in the F2 generation (but not in the F1). An alternative pathogen source was tested in only one biological replicate (Exp 3). Given the variability observed in the F2 generation, increasing biological replicates would have added to the strengths of the report.

(2) A key difference between the methods used here and those published previously, is an increase in the age of the animals used for training - from mostly L4 to mostly young adults. I was unable to find a clear example of an experiment when these two conditions were compared, although the authors state that it made no difference to their results.

(3) The original paper reports a transgenerational avoidance effect up to the F5 generation. Although in this work the authors failed to see avoidance in the F2 generation, it would have been prudent to extend their tests for more generations in at least a couple of their experiments to ensure that the F2 generation was not an aberration (although this reviewer acknowledges that this seems unlikely to be the case).

Author response:

eLife assessment

This important study reports numerous attempts to replicate reports on transgenerational inheritance of a learned behavior, pathogen avoidance, in C. elegans. While the authors observe parental effects that are limited to a single generation (also called intergenerational inheritance), the authors failed to find any evidence for transmission over multiple generations, or transgenerational inheritance. The experiments presented are meticulously described, making for compelling evidence that in the authors' hands transgenerational inheritance cannot be observed, although there remains the possibility that subtle differences in culture conditions or lab environment explain the failure to reproduce previous observations. Given the prominence of the original reports of transgenerational inheritance, the present study is of broad interest to anyone studying genetics, epigenetics, or learned behavior.

Thank you for your considered reviews and advice on how to improve our manuscript. We appreciate that the editors and reviewers felt that our manuscript addressed an important issue and acknowledged the difficulty of publishing negative results. We will revise the manuscript and consider all the concerns raised by the editor and referees.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors report an inability to reproduce a transgenerational memory of avoidance of the pathogen PA14 in C. elegans. Instead, the authors demonstrate intergenerational inheritance for a single F1 generation, in embryos of mothers exposed to OP50 and PA14, where embryos isolated from these mothers by bleaching are capable of remembering to avoid PA14 in a manner that is dependent on systemic RNAi proteins sid-1 and sid-2. This could reflect systemic sRNAs generated by neuronal daf-7 signaling that are transmitted to F1 embryos. The authors note that transgenerational memory of PA14 was reported by the Murphy group at Princeton, but that environmental or strain variation (worms or bacteria) might explain the single generation of inheritance observed at Harvard. The Hunter group tried different bacterial growth conditions and different worm growth temperatures for independent PA14 strains, which they showed to be strongly pathogenic. However, the authors could not reproduce a transgenerational effect at Harvard. This important data will allow members of the scientific community to focus on the robust and reproducible inheritance of PA14 avoidance transmitted to F1 embryos of mothers exposed to PA14, which the authors demonstrate depends on small RNAs in a manner that is downstream of or in parallel to daf-7. This paper honestly and importantly alters expectations and questions the model that avoidance of PA14 is mediated by a bacterial ncRNA whose siRNAs target a C. elegans gene. Instead, endogenous C. elegans sRNAs that affect pathogen response may be the culprit that explains sRNA-mediated avoidance.

Overall, this is an important paper that demonstrates that one model for transgenerational inheritance in C. elegans is not reproducible. This is important because it is not clear how many of the reported models of transgenerational inheritance reported in C. elegans are reproducible. The authors do demonstrate a memory for F1 embryos that could be a maternal effect, and the authors confirm that this is mediated by a systemic small RNA response. There are several points in the manuscript where a more positive tone might be helpful.

We would like to correct the statement made in the second to last sentence. The demonstration of an F1 response to PA14 was first reported by Moore et al., (2019) and then by Pereira et al., (2020) using a different behavioral assay. We merely confirmed these results in our hands, and confirmed the observation, first reported by Kaletsky et al., (2020), that sid-1 and sid-2 are required for this F1 response; although we did find that sid-1 and sid-2 are not required for the PA14-induced increase in daf-7p::gfp expression in ASI neurons in the F1 progeny of trained adults, which had not been addressed in the published work.

Yes, the intergenerational F1 response could be a maternal effect, but the in utero F1 embryos and their precursor germ cells were directly exposed to PA14 metabolites and toxins (non-maternal effect) as well as any parental response, whether mediated by small RNAs, prions, hormones, or other unknown information carriers. While the F1 aversion response does require sid-1 and sid-2, we would not presume that the substrate is therefore an RNA molecule, particularly because the systemic RNAi response supported by sid-1 and sid-2 is via long double-stranded RNA. To date, no evidence suggests that either protein transports small RNAs, particularly single-stranded RNAs.

Strengths:

The authors note that the high copy number daf-7::GFP transgene used by the Murphy group displayed variable expression and evidence for somatic silencing or transgene breakdown in the Hunter lab, as confirmed by the Murphy group. The authors nicely use single copy daf-7::GFP to show that neuronal daf-7::GFP is elevated in F1 but not F2 progeny with regards to the memory of PA14 avoidance, speaking to an intergenerational phenotype.

The authors nicely confirm that sid-1 and sid-2 are generally required for intergenerational avoidance of F1 embryos of moms exposed to PA14. However, these small RNA proteins did not affect daf-7::GFP elevation in the F1 progeny. This result is unexpected given previous reports that single copy daf-7::GFP is not elevated in F1 progeny of sid mutants. Because the Murphy group reported that daf-7 mutation abolishes avoidance for F1 progeny, this means that the sid genes function downstream of daf-7 or in parallel, rather than upstream as previously suggested.

The authors studied antisense small RNAs that change in Murphy data sets, identifying 116 mRNAs that might be regulated by sRNAs in response to PA14. Importantly, the authors show that the maco-1 gene, putatively targeted by piRNAs according to the Kaletsky 2020 paper, displays few siRNAs that change in response to PA14. The authors conclude that the P11 ncRNA of PA14, which was proposed to promote interkingdom RNA communication by the Murphy group, is unlikely to affect maco-1 expression by generating sRNAs that target maco-1 in C. elegans. The authors define 8 genes based on their analysis of sRNAs and mRNAs that might promote resistance to PA14, but they do not further characterize these genes' role in pathogen avoidance. The Murphy group might wish to consider following up on these genes and their possible relationship with P11.

Weaknesses:

This very thorough and interesting manuscript is at times pugnacious.

We reiterate that we never claimed that Moore et al., (2019) did not obtain their reported results. We simply stated that we could not replicate their results using the published methods and then failed in our search to identify variable(s) that might account for our results. We will do better when revising the manuscript to make clear, unmuddied statements of facts and state that future investigations may provide independent evidence that supports the original claims and explains our divergent results.

Please explain more clearly what is High Growth media for E. coli in the text and methods, conveying why it was used by the Murphy lab, and if Normal Growth or High Growth is better for intergenerational heritability assays.

We used the standard recipes as described in Moore et al., (2021), and will include the recipes and some of the relevant commentary from the paragraphs below to the methods and text as appropriate.

Normal Growth (NG) media minimally supports OP50 growth, resulting in a thin lawn that minimally obscures viewing larvae and embryos. High Growth (HG) media contains 8X more peptone, which supports much higher OP50 growth, resulting in a thick bacterial lawn that supports larger worm populations. The thicker bacterial lawn can also compromise agar integrity, and the higher worm density encourages worm burrowing behavior, thus the HG plates also have 75% more agar to inhibit worm burrowing.

Our results (Figure 4) show that worms grown on OP50 seeded NG or HG plates show different choice responses (PA14 vs OP50). As for experimental “advice”, we would caution our colleagues to not assume that OP50 is a neutral food and to be aware that how you grow and store OP50 (or any bacterial culture that is to be used as food for worms) may have a significant effect on the phenotype you are studying.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This paper examines the reproducibility of results reported by the Murphy lab regarding transgenerational inheritance of a learned avoidance behavior in C. elegans. It has been well established by multiple labs that worms can learn to avoid the pathogen pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA14) after a single exposure. The Murphy lab has reported that learned avoidance is transmittable to 4 generations and dependent on a small RNA expressed by PA14 that elicits the transgenerational silencing of a gene in C. elegans. The Hunter lab now reports that although they can reproduce inheritance of the learned behavior by the first generation (F1), they cannot reproduce inheritance in subsequent generations.

This is an important study that will be useful for the community. Although they fail to identify a "smoking gun", the study examines several possible sources for the discrepancy, and their findings will be useful to others interested in using these assays. The preference assay appears to work in their hands in as much as they are able to detect the learned behavior in the P0 and F1 generations, suggesting that the failure to reproduce the transgenerational effect is not due to trivial mistakes in the protocol. An obvious reason, however, to account for the differing results is that the culture conditions used by the authors are not permissive for the expression of the small RNA by PA14 that the MUrphy lab identified as required for transgenerational inheritance. It would seem prudent for the authors to determine whether this small RNA is present in their cultures, or at least acknowledge this possibility.

We note that Kaletsky et al., (2020) (Figure 3L) showed that PA14 ΔP11 bacteria failed to induce an F1 avoidance response. Thus, the fact that we observed F1 avoidance implies that our culture conditions successfully induced P11 expression. We believe that this addresses the concern raised here. We thank the reviewer for raising this issue and we will add a statement to this effect in the revised manuscript.

The authors should also note that their protocol was significantly different from the Murphy protocol (see comments below) and therefore it remains possible that protocol differences cumulatively account for the different results.

We disagree. Our adjustments to the core protocol were minor and, where possible, were explicitly tested in side-by-side experiments. To discover the source(s) of discrepancy between our results and the published results we subsequently introduced variations to this core protocol to exclude likely variables (worm and bacteria growth temperatures, assay conditions, worm handling methods, bacterial culture and storage conditions, and some minor developmental timing issues). To substantiate these assertions, we will, upon revision, add the precise protocol we followed for the aversion assay to the supplemental documents, provide some additional experimental results supporting these claims, and further clarify which presented experiments included protocol variations (e.g. sodium azide or cold immobilization). It remains possible that we misunderstood the published protocol, but we were highly motivated to replicate the results and read every published version with extreme care.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

It has been previously reported in many high-profile papers, that C. elegans can learn to avoid pathogens. Moreover, this learned pathogen avoidance can be passed on to future generations - up to the F5 generation in some reports. In this paper, Gainey et al. set out to replicate these findings. They successfully replicated pathogen avoidance in the exposed animals, as well as a strong increase in daf-7 expression in ASI neurons in F1 animals, as determined by a daf-7::GFP reporter construct. However, they failed to see strong evidence for pathogen avoidance or daf-7 overexpression in the F2 generation. The failure of replication is the major focus of this work.

Given their failure to replicate these findings, the authors embark on a thorough test of various experimental confounders that may have impacted their results. They also re-analyze the small RNA sequencing and mRNA sequencing data from one of the previously published papers and draw some new conclusions, extending this analysis.

Strengths:

(1) The authors provide a thorough description of their methods, and a marked-up version of a published protocol that describes how they adapted the protocol to their lab conditions. It should be easy to replicate the experiments.

(2) The authors test the source of bacteria, growth temperature (of both C. elegans and bacteria), and light/dark husbandry conditions. They also supply all their raw data, so that the sample size for each testing plate can be easily seen (in the supplementary data). None of these variations appears to have a measurable effect on pathogen avoidance in the F2 generation, with all but one of the experiments failing to exhibit learned pathogen avoidance.

(3) The small RNA seq and mRNA seq analysis is well performed and extends the results shown in the original paper. The original paper did not give many details of the small RNA analysis, which was an oversight. Although not a major focus of this paper, it is a worthwhile extension of the previous work.

(4) It is rare that negative results such as these are accessible. Although the authors were unable to determine the reason that their results differ from those previously published, it is important to document these attempts in detail, as has been done here. Behavioral assays are notoriously difficult to perform and public discourse around these attempts may give clarity to the difficulties faced by a controversial field.

Thank you for your support. Choosing to pursue publication of these negative results was not an easy decision, and we thank members of the community for their support and encouragement.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although the "standard" conditions have been tested over multiple biological replicates, many of the potential confounders that may have altered the results have been tested only once or twice. For example, changing the incubation temperature to 25{degree sign}C was tested in only two biological replicates (Exp 5.1 and 5.2) - and one of these experiments actually resulted in apparent pathogen avoidance inheritance in the F2 generation (but not in the F1). An alternative pathogen source was tested in only one biological replicate (Exp 3). Given the variability observed in the F2 generation, increasing biological replicates would have added to the strengths of the report.

We agree that our study was not exhaustive in our exploration of variables that might be interfering with our ability to detect F2 avoidance. We also note that some of these variables also failed (with many more independent experiments) to induce elevated daf-7p::gfp expression in ASI neurons in F2 progeny. Our goal was not to show that variation in some growth or assay condition would generate reproducible negative results, the exploration was designed to tweak conditions to enable detection of a robust F2 response. Given the strength of the data presented in Moore et al., (2019) we expected that adjustment of the problematic variable would produce positive results apparent in a single replicate, which could then be followed up. If we had succeeded, then we would have documented the conditions that enabled robust F2 inheritance and would have explored molecular mechanisms that support this important but mysterious process.

(2) A key difference between the methods used here and those published previously, is an increase in the age of the animals used for training - from mostly L4 to mostly young adults. I was unable to find a clear example of an experiment when these two conditions were compared, although the authors state that it made no difference to their results.

We can state firmly that the apparent time delay did not affect P0 learned avoidance or, as documented in Table S1, daf-7p::gfp expression in ASI neurons. In our experience, training mostly L4’s on PA14 frequently failed to produce sufficient F1 embryos for both F1 avoidance assays or daf-7p::gfp measurements in ASI neurons and collection of F2 progeny. Indeed, in early attempts to detect heritable PA14 aversion, trained P0 and F1 progeny were not assayed in order to obtain sufficient F2’s for a choice assay. These animals failed to display aversion, but without evidence of successful P0 training or an F1 intergenerational response this was deemed a non-fruitful trouble-shooting approach. We will add to our supplemental figures P0 choice results from experiments using younger trained animals that failed to produce sufficient F1’s to continue the inheritance experiments.

The different timing between the two protocols may reflect the age of the recovered bleached P0 embryos. It is reasonable to assume that bleaching day 1 adults vs day 2 adults from the P-1 population could shift the average age of recovered P0 embryos by several hours. The Murphy protocol only states that P0 embryos were obtained by bleaching healthy adults. Regardless, if the hypothesis entertained here is true, that a several hour difference in larval/adult age during 24 hours of training affects F2 inheritance of learned aversion but does not affect P0 learned avoidance, then we would argue that this paradigm for heritable learned avoidance, as described in Moore et al, (2019, 2021), is not sufficiently robust for mechanistic investigations.

(3) The original paper reports a transgenerational avoidance effect up to the F5 generation. Although in this work the authors failed to see avoidance in the F2 generation, it would have been prudent to extend their tests for more generations in at least a couple of their experiments to ensure that the F2 generation was not an aberration (although this reviewer acknowledges that this seems unlikely to be the case).

Citations

Moore, R.S., Kaletsky, R., and Murphy, C.T. (2019). Piwi/PRG-1 Argonaute and TGF-beta Mediate Transgenerational Learned Pathogenic Avoidance. Cell 177, 1827-1841 e1812.

Pereira, A.G., Gracida, X., Kagias, K., and Zhang, Y. (2020). C. elegans aversive olfactory learning generates diverse intergenerational effects. J Neurogenet 34, 378-388.

Kaletsky, R., Moore, R.S., Vrla, G.D., Parsons, L.R., Gitai, Z., and Murphy, C.T. (2020). C. elegans interprets bacterial non-coding RNAs to learn pathogenic avoidance. Nature 586, 445-451.

Moore, R.S., Kaletsky, R., and Murphy, C.T. (2021). Protocol for transgenerational learned pathogen avoidance behavior assays in Caenorhabditis elegans. STAR Protoc 2, 100384.