The capsule and genetic background, rather than specific loci, strongly influence pneumococcal growth kinetics

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript uses a diverse isolate collection of Streptococcus pneumoniae from hospital patients in the Netherlands to understand the population-level genetic basis of growth rate variation in this pathogen, which is a key determinant of S. pneumoniae within-host fitness. Previous efforts have studied this phenomenon in strain-specific comparisons, which can lack the statistical power and scope of population-level studies. The authors collected a rigorous set of in vitro growth data for each S. pneumoniae isolate and subsequently paired growth curve analysis with whole-genome analyses to identify how phylogenetics, serotype, and specific genetic loci influence in vitro growth. While there were noticeable correlations between capsular serotype and phylogeny with growth metrics, they did not identify specific loci associated with altered in vitro growth, suggesting that these phenotypes are controlled by the collective effect of the entire genetic background of a strain. This is an important finding that lays the foundation for additional, more highly-powered studies that capture more S. pneumoniae genetic diversity to identify these genetic contributions.

Strengths:

(1) The authors were able to completely control the experimental and genetic analyses to ensure all isolates underwent the same analysis pipeline to enhance the rigor of their findings.

(2) The isolate collection captures an appreciable amount of S. pneumoniae diversity and, importantly, enables disentangling the contributions of the capsule and phylogenetic background to growth rates.

(3) This study provides a population-level, rather than strain-specific, view of how genetic background influences the growth rate in S. pneumoniae. This is an advance over previous studies that have only looked at smaller sets of strains.

(4) The methods used are well-detailed and robust to allow replication and extension of these analyses. Moreover, the manuscript is very well written and includes a thoughtful and thorough discussion of the strengths and limitations of the current study.

Weaknesses:

(1) As acknowledged by the authors, the genetic diversity and sample size of this newly collected isolate set are still limited relative to the known global diversity of S. pneumoniae, which evidently limits the power to detect loci with smaller/combinatorial contributions to growth rate (and ultimately infection).

(2) The in vitro growth data is limited to a single type of rich growth medium, which may not fully reflect the nutritional and/or selective pressures present in the host.

(3) The current study does not use genetic manipulation or in vitro/in vivo infection models to experimentally test whether alteration of growth rates as observed in this study is linked to virulence or successful infection. The availability of a naturally diverse collection with phylogenetic and serotype combinations already identified as interesting by the authors provides a strong rationale for wet-lab studies of these phenotypes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Chaguza et al. presents a novel perspective on pneumococcal growth kinetics, suggesting that the overall genetic background of Streptococcus pneumoniae, rather than specific loci, plays a more dominant role in determining growth dynamics. Through a genome-wide association study (GWAS) approach, the authors propose a shift in how we understand growth regulation, differing from earlier findings that pinpointed individual genes, such as wchA or cpsE, as key regulators of growth kinetics. This study highlights the importance of considering the cumulative impact of the entire genetic background rather than focusing solely on individual genetic loci.

The study emphasizes the cumulative effects of genetic variants, each contributing small individual impacts, as the key drivers of pneumococcal growth. This polygenic model moves away from the traditional focus on single-gene influences. Through rigorous statistical analyses, the authors persuasively advocate for a more holistic approach to understanding bacterial growth regulation, highlighting the complex interplay of genetic factors across the entire genome. Their findings open new avenues for investigating the intricate mechanisms underlying bacterial growth and adaptation, providing fresh insights into bacterial pathogenesis.

Strengths:

This study exemplifies a holistic approach to unraveling key factors in bacterial pathogenesis. By analyzing a large dataset of whole-genome sequences and employing robust statistical methodologies, the authors provide strong evidence to support their main findings. Which is a leap forward from previous studies focused on a relatively smaller number of strains. Their integration of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) highlights the cumulative, polygenic influences on pneumococcal growth kinetics, challenging the traditional focus on individual loci. This comprehensive strategy not only advances our understanding of bacterial growth regulation but also establishes a foundation for future research into the genetic underpinnings of bacterial pathogenesis and adaptation. The amount of data generated and corresponding approaches to analyze the data are impressive as well as convincing. The figures are convincing and comprehensible too.

Weaknesses:

Despite the strong outcomes of the GWAS approach, this study leaves room for differing interpretations. A key point of contention lies in the title, which initially gives the impression that the research addresses growth kinetics under both in vitro and in vivo conditions. However, the study is limited to in vitro growth kinetics, with the assumption that these findings are equally applicable to in vivo scenarios-a premise that is not universally valid. To more accurately reflect the study's scope and avoid potential misrepresentation, the title should explicitly specify "in vitro" growth kinetics. This clarification would better align the title with the study's actual focus and findings.

This study suggests that the entire genetic background significantly influences bacterial growth kinetics. However, to transform these predictions into established facts, extensive experimental validation is necessary. This would involve "bench experiments" focusing on generating and studying mutant variants of serotypes or strains with diverse genomic variations, such as targeted deletions. The growth phenotypes of these mutants should be analyzed, complemented by complementation assays to confirm the specific roles of the deleted regions. These efforts would provide critical empirical evidence to support the findings from the GWAS approach and enhance understanding of the genetic basis of bacterial growth kinetics.

In the discussion section, the authors state that "the influence of serotype appeared to be higher than the genetic background for the average growth rate" (lines 296-298). Alongside references 13-15, this emphasizes the important role of capsular variability, which is a key determinant of serotypes, in influencing growth kinetics. However, this raises the question: why isn't a specific locus like cps, which is central to capsule biogenesis, considered a strong influencer of growth kinetics in this study?

One plausible explanation could be the absence of "elevated signals" for cps in the GWAS analysis. GWAS relies on identifying loci with statistically significant associations to phenotypes. The lack of such signals for cps may indicate that its contribution, while biologically important, does not stand out genome-wide. This might be due to the polygenic nature of growth kinetics, where the overall genetic background exerts a cumulative effect, potentially diluting the apparent influence of individual loci like cps in statistical analyses.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This study provides insights into the growth kinetics of a diverse collection of Streptococcus pneumoniae, identifying capsule and lineage differences. It was not able to identify any specific loci from the genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that were associated with the growth features. It does provide a useful study linking phenotypic data with large-scale genomic population data. The methods for the large part were appropriately written in sufficient detail, and data analysis was performed with rigour. The interpretation of the results was supported by the data, although some additional explanation of the significance of e.g. ancestral state reconstruction would be useful. Efforts were made to make the underlying data fully accessible to the readers although some of the supplementary material could be formatted and explained a bit better.