Avian-restrict Salmonella transition to endemicity is accompanied by localized resistome adaptation

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The investigators in this study analyzed the dataset assembly from 540 Salmonella isolates, and those from 45 recent isolates from Zhejiang University of China. The analysis and comparison of the resistome and mobilome of these isolates identified a significantly higher rate of cross-region dissemination compared to localized propagation. This study highlights the key role of the resistome in driving the transition and evolutionary history of S. Gallinarum.

Strengths:

The isolates included in this study were from 16 countries in the past century (1920 to 2023). While the study uses S. Gallinarun as the prototype, the conclusion from this work will likely apply to other Salmonella serotypes and other pathogens.

Weaknesses:

While the isolates came from 16 countries, most strains in this study were originally from China.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors sequence 45 new samples of S. Gallinarum, a commensal Salmonella found in chickens, which can sometimes cause disease. They combine these sequences with around 500 from public databases, determine the population structure of the pathogen, and coarse relationships of lineages with geography. The authors further investigate known anti-microbial genes found in these genomes, how they associate with each other, whether they have been horizontally transferred, and date the emergence of clades.

Strengths:

(1) It doesn't seem that much is known about this serovar, so publicly available new sequences from a high-burden region are a valuable addition to the literature.

(2) Combining these sequences with publicly available sequences is a good way to better contextualise any findings.

Weaknesses:

There are many issues with the genomic analysis that undermine the conclusions, the major ones I identified being:

(1) Recombination removal using gubbins was not presented fully anywhere. In this diversity of species, it is usually impossible to remove recombination in this way. A phylogeny with genetic scale and the gubbins results is needed. Critically, results on timing the emergence (fig2) depend on this, and cannot be trusted given the data presented.

(2) The use of BEAST was also only briefly presented, but is the basis of a major conclusion of the paper. Plot S3 (root-to-tip regression) is unconvincing as a basis of this data fitting a molecular clock model. We would need more information on this analysis, including convergence and credible intervals.

(3) Using a distance of 100 SNPs for a transmission is completely arbitrary. This would at least need to be justified in terms of the evolutionary rate and serial interval.

(4) The HGT definition is non-standard, and phylogeny (vertical inheritance) is not controlled for.
The cited method:
'In this study, potentially recently transferred ARGs were defined as those with perfect identity (more than 99% nucleotide identity and 100% coverage) in distinct plasmids in distinct host bacteria using BLASTn (E-value {less than or equal to}10−5)'
This clearly does not apply here, as the application of distinct hosts and plasmids cannot be used. Subsequent analysis using this method is likely invalid, and some of it (e.g. Figure 6c) is statistically very poor.

(5) Associations between lineages, resistome, mobilome, etc do not control for the effect of genetic background/phylogeny. So e.g. the claim 'the resistome also demonstrated a lineage-preferential distribution' is not well-supported.

(6) The invasiveness index is not well described, and the difference in means is not biologically convincing as although it appears significant, it is very small.

(7) 'In more detail, both the resistome and mobilome exhibited a steady decline until the 1980s, followed by a consistent increase from the 1980s to the 2010s. However, after the 2010s, a subsequent decrease was identified.'
Where is the data/plot to support this? Is it a significant change? Is this due to sampling or phylogenetics?

(8) It is not clear what the burden of disease this pathogen causes in the population, or how significant it is to agricultural policy. The article claims to 'provide valuable insights for targeted policy interventions.', but no such interventions are described.

(9) The abstract mentions stepwise evolution as a main aim, but no results refer to this.

(10) The authors attribute changes in population dynamics to normalisation in China-EU relations and hen fever. However, even if the date is correct, this is not a strongly supported causal claim, as many other reasons are also possible (for example other industrial processes which may have changed during this period).

(11) No acknowledgment of potential undersampling outside of China is made, for example, 'Notably, all bvSP isolates from Asia were exclusively found in China, which can be manually divided into three distinct regions (southern, eastern, and northern).'. Perhaps we just haven't looked in other places?

(12) Many of the conclusions are highly speculative and not supported by the data.

(13) The figures are not always the best presentation of the data:
a. Stacked bar plots in Figure 1 are hard to interpret, the total numbers need to be shown. Panel C conveys little information.
b. Figure 4B: stacked bars are hard to read and do not show totals.
c. Figure 5 has no obvious interpretation or significance.

In summary, the quality of analysis is poor and likely flawed (although there is not always enough information on methods present to confidently assess this or provide recommendations for how it might be improved). So, the stated conclusions are not supported.