Prophage regulation of Shewanella fidelis 3313 motility and biofilm formation: implications for gut colonization dynamics in Ciona robusta

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript aims to elucidate the impact of a prophage within the genome of Shewanella fidelis on its interaction with the marine tunicate Ciona robusta. The authors made a deletion mutant of S. fidelis that lacks one of its two prophages. This mutant exhibited an enhanced biofilm phenotype, as assessed through crystal violet staining, and showed reduced motility. The authors examined the effect of prophage deletion on several genes that could modulate cyclic-diGMP levels. While no significant changes were observed under in vitro conditions, the gene for one protein potentially involved in cyclic-diGMP hydrolysis was overexpressed during microbe-host interactions. The mutant was retained more effectively within a one-hour timeframe, whereas the wild-type (WT) strain became more abundant after 24 hours. Fluorescence microscopy was used to visualize the localization patterns of the two strains, which appeared to differ. Additionally, a significant difference in the expression of one immune protein was noted after one hour, but this difference was not evident after 23 hours. An effect of VCBC-C addition on the expression of one prophage gene was also observed.

Strengths:

I appreciate how the authors integrate diverse expertise and methods to address questions regarding the impact of prophages on gut microbiome-host interactions. The chosen model system is appropriate, as it allows for high-throughput experimentation and the application of simple imaging techniques.

Weaknesses:

My primary concern is that the manuscript primarily describes observations without providing insight into the molecular mechanisms underlying the observed differences. It is particularly unclear how the presence of the prophage leads to the phenotypic changes related to bacterial physiology and host-microbe interactions. Which specific prophage genes are critical, or is the insertion at a specific site in the bacterial genome the key factor? While significant effects on bacterial physiology are reported under in vitro conditions, there is no clear attribution to particular enzymes or proteins. In contrast, when the system is expanded to include the tunicate, differences in the expression of a cyclic-diGMP hydrolase become apparent. Why do we not observe such differences under in vitro conditions, despite noting variations in biofilm formation and motility? Furthermore, given that the bacterial strain possesses two prophages, I am curious as to why the authors chose to target only one and not both.

Regarding the microbe-host interaction, it is not clear why the increased retention ability of the prophage deletion strain did not lead to greater cell retention after 24 hours, especially since no differences in the immune response were observed at that time point.

Concerning the methodological approach, I am puzzled as to why the authors opted for qPCR instead of transcriptomics or proteomics. The latter approaches could have provided a broader understanding of the prophage's impact on both the microbe and the host.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript, "Prophage regulation of Shewanella fidelis 3313 motility and biofilm formation: implications for gut colonization dynamics in Ciona robusta", the authors are experimentally investigating the idea that integrated viruses (prophages) within a bacterial colonizer of the host Ciona robusta affect both the colonizer and the host. They found a prophage within the Ciona robusta colonizing bacterium Shewanella fidelis 3313, which affected both the bacteria and host. This prophage does so by regulating the phosphodiesterase gene pdeB in the bacterium when the bacterium has colonized the host. The prophage also regulates the activity of the host immune gene VCBP-C during early bacterial colonization. Prophage effects on both these genes affect the precise localization of the colonizing bacterium, motility of the bacterium, and bacterial biofilm formation on the host. Interestingly, VCBP-C expression also suppressed a prophage structural protein, creating a tripartite feedback loop in this symbiosis. This is exciting research that adds to the emerging body of evidence that prophages can have beneficial effects not only on their host bacteria but also on how that bacteria interacts in its environment. This study establishes the evolutionary conservation of this concept with intriguing implications of prophage effects on tripartite interactions.

Strengths:

This research effectively shows that a prophage within a bacterium colonizing a model ascidian affects both the bacterium and the host in vivo. These data establish the prophage effects on bacterial activity and expand these effects to the natural interactions within the host animal. The effects of the prophage through deletion on a suite of host genes are a strength, as shown by striking microscopy.

Weaknesses:

Unfortunately, there are abundant negative data that cast some limitations on the interpretation of the data. That is, examining specific gene expression has its limitations, which could be avoided by global transcriptomics of the bacteria and the host during colonization by the prophage-containing and prophage-deleted bacteria (1 hour and 24 hours). In this way, the tripartite interactions leading to mechanism could be better established.

Impact:

The authors are correct to speculate that this research can have a significant impact on many animal microbiome studies, since bacterial lysogens are prevalent in most microbiomes. Screening for prophages, determining whether they are active, and "curing" the host bacteria of active prophages are effective tools for understanding the effects these mobile elements have on microbiomes. There are many potential effects of these elements in vivo, both positive and negative, this research is a good example of why this research should be explored.

Context:

The research area of prophage effects on host bacteria in vitro has been studied for decades, while these interactions in combination with animal hosts in vivo have been recent. The significance of this research shows that there could be divergent effects based on whether the study is conducted in vitro or in vivo. The in vivo results were striking. This is particularly so with the microscopy images. The benefit of using Ciona is that it has a translucent body which allows for following microbial localization. This is in contrast to mammalian studies where following microbial localization would either be difficult or near impossible.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Natarajan and colleagues report on the role of a prophage, termed SfPat, in the regulation of motility and biofilm formation by the marine bacterium Shewanella fidelis. The authors investigate the in vivo relevance of prophage carriage by studying the gut occupation patterns of Shewanella fidelis wild-type and an isogenic SfPat- mutant derivative in a model organism, juveniles of the marine tunicate Ciona robusta. The role of bacterial prophages in regulating bacterial lifestyle adaptation and niche occupation is a relatively underexplored field, and efforts in this direction are appreciated.

While the research question is interesting, the work presented lacks clarity in its support for several major claims, and, at times, the authors do not adequately explain their data.

Major concerns:

(1) Prophage deletion renders the SfPat- mutant derivative substantially less motile and with a higher biofilm formation capacity than the WT (Fig. 2a-b). The authors claim the mutant is otherwise isogenic to the WT strain upon sequence comparison of draft genome sequences (I'll take the opportunity to comment here that GenBank accessions are preferable to BioSample accessions in Table 1). Even in the absence of secondary mutations, complementation is needed to validate functional associations (i.e., phenotype restoration). A strategy for this could be phage reintegration into the mutant strain (PMID: 19005496).

(2) The authors claim that the downshift in motility (concomitant with an upshift in biofilm formation) is likely mediated by the activity of c-di-GMP turnover proteins. Specifically, the authors point to the c-di-GMP-specific phosphodiesterase PdeB as a key mediator, after finding lower transcript levels for its coding gene in vivo (lines 148-151, Fig. 2c), and suggesting higher activity of this protein in live animals (!)(line 229). I have several concerns here:
(2.1) Findings shown in Fig. 2a-b are in vitro, yet no altered transcript levels for pdeB were recorded (Fig. 2c). Why do the authors base their inferences only on in vivo data?
(2.2) Somewhat altered transcript levels alone are insufficient for making associations, let alone solid statements. Often, the activity of c-di-GMP turnover proteins is local and/or depends on the activation of specific sensory modules - in the case of PdeB, a PAS domain and a periplasmic sensor domain (PMID: 35501424). This has not been explored in the manuscript, i.e., specific activation vs. global alterations of cellular c-di-GMP pools (or involvement of other proteins, please see below). Additional experiments are needed to confirm the involvement of PdeB. Gaining such mechanistic insights would greatly enhance the impact of this study.
(2.3) What is the rationale behind selecting only four genes to probe the influence of the prophage on Ciona gut colonization by determining their transcript levels in vitro and in vivo? If the authors attribute the distinct behavior of the mutant to altered c-di-GMP homeostasis, as may be plausible, why did the authors choose those four genes specifically and not, for example, the many other c-di-GMP turnover protein-coding genes or c-di-GMP effectors present in the S. fidelis genome? This methodological approach seems inadequate to me, and the conclusions on the potential implication of PdeB are premature.

(3) The behavior of the WT strain and the prophage deletion mutant is insufficiently characterized. For instance, how do the authors know that the higher retention capacity reported for the WT strain with respect to the mutant (Fig. 3b) is not merely a consequence of, e.g., a higher growth rate? It would be worth investigating this further, ideally under conditions reflecting the host environment.

(4) Related to the above, sometimes the authors refer to "retention" (e.g., line 162) and at other instances to "colonization" (e.g., line 161), or even adhesion (line 225). These are distinct processes. The authors have only tracked the presence of bacteria by fluorescence labeling; adhesion or colonization has not been assessed or demonstrated in vivo. Please revise.

(5) The higher CFU numbers for the WT after 24 h (line 161) might also indicate a role of motility for successful niche occupation or dissemination in vivo. The authors could test this hypothesis by examining the behavior of, e.g., flagellar mutants in their in vivo model.

(6) The endpoint of experiments with a mixed WT-mutant inoculum (assumedly 1:1? Please specify) was set to 1 h, I assume because of the differences observed in CFU counts after 24 h. In vivo findings shown in Fig. 3c-e are, prima facie, somewhat contradictory. The authors report preferential occupation of the esophagus by the WT (line 223), which seems proficient from evidence shown in Fig. S3. Yet, there is marginal presence of the WT in the esophagus in experiments with a mixed inoculum (Fig. 3d) or none at all (Fig. 3e). Likewise, the authors claim preferential "adhesion to stomach folds" by the mutant strain (line 225), but this is not evident from Fig. 3e. In fact, the occupation patterns by the WT and mutant strain in the stomach in panel 3e appear to differ from what is shown in panel 3d. The same holds true for the claimed "preferential localization of the WT in the pyloric cecum," with Fig. 3d showing a yellow signal that indicates the coexistence of WT and mutant.

(7) In general, and especially for in vivo data, there is considerable variability that precludes drawing conclusions beyond mere trends. One could attribute such variability in vivo to the employed model organism (which is not germ-free), differences between individuals, and other factors. This should be discussed more openly in the main text and presented as a limitation of the study. Even with such intrinsic factors affecting in vivo measurements, certain in vitro experiments, which are expected, in principle, to yield more reproducible results, also show high variability (e.g., Fig. 5). What do the authors attribute this variability to?

(8) Line 198-199: Why not look for potential prophage excision directly rather than relying on indirect, presumptive evidence based on qPCR?