A Vibrio cholerae viral satellite maximizes its spread and inhibits phage by remodeling hijacked phage coat proteins into small capsids

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper describes the discovery, functional analysis and structure of TcaP, a protein encoded by the Vibrio phage satellite PLE that forms a size-determining scaffold around PLE procapsids made from helper phage ICP1 structural proteins. The system displays a fascinating similarity to the P2/P4 system, which had previously been unique in its use of a size-determining external scaffolding protein, Sid. The work is interesting, comprehensive and of high quality. The presentation could be improved as listed in the suggestions below.

An interesting observation is that PLE appears to be dependent on small capsids for efficient transduction. This is not completely surprising if the element uses a cos site type mechanism for packaging, since this requires an integer number of genomes to be packaged when the capsid is full, and this might be more difficult to accomplish when the helper capsid is much larger than the satellite, as is the case with ICP1. The authors mention in a few places that this is the first known satellite to have this requirement. However, this is not quite correct: a similar defect was seen in phi12/SaPIbov5, where the large phi12 capsid was not quite the right size for either two or three copies of the wild-type ("unevolved") SaPIbov5 (Carpena et al. 2016).

The authors present several micrographs showing capsids formed in the presence or absence of wildtype or mutant TcaP and CP (Fig. 1, Fig 2., Fig 3). However, each micrograph shows only a handful of particles of the "correct" size, in addition to a few shells that are aberrant or of a different size. I miss a more statistically rigorous enumeration of shells of different size (PLE or ICP1 sized, or different), empty vs. full, aberrant shells etc. This could be presented as a size distribution graph, a histogram or in table form.

In the abstract, the term "divergent satellite P4" is vague and unclear. Divergent from what? Probably they mean distinct from or unrelated to PLE. Please clarify.

How do they know that gp123 is a decoration protein? Was this previously determined, does it have (sequence) similarity to other known decoration proteins, or is it simply the most likely designation based on its position in the genome?

Although the reconstruction and modeling statistics are good, it is difficult to assess the quality of the map and the model from the presented figures. Details of the density and FSC curves (half-map and model-to-map) should be shown. It is also difficult to see the TcaP structure and how it compares to Sid from the figures presented.

Introduction, Paragraph 3: "...which is the number of coat proteins divided by 60" is not strictly speaking the definition of T number. The T number corresponds to the number of subtriangles that one triangular face of the icosahedron is divided into. It corresponds to the number of coat proteins divided by 60 in the canonical case, but in tailed phages, 5 copies are removed to make way for the portal protein. (Other viruses could be described as having architecture corresponding to a specific T number, but with divergent numbers of subunits, e.g. adenoviruses or polyomaviruses.)

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Phage satellites are fascinating elements that have evolved to hijack phages for induction, packaging, and transfer, promoting their widespread dissemination in nature. It is remarkable how different satellites use conserved strategies of parasitism, utilising unrelated proteins that perform similar roles in their cognate elements. In the current manuscript, Dr. Seed and coworkers elucidated the mechanism used by one family of satellites, the PLEs, to produce small capsids, a process that inhibits phage reproduction while increasing PLE transmission. The work is presented beautifully, and the results are astonishing. The authors identified the gene responsible for generating the small capsids, characterised its role in the PLE transfer and phage inhibition, and determined the structure of the PLE-sized small capsids. It is a truly impressive piece of work.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Boyd and co-authors "A Vibrio cholerae viral satellite maximizes its spread and inhibits phage by remodelling hijacked phage coat proteins into small capsids" reports important results related to self-defending mechanisms that bacteria are used against phages that infect them. It has been shown previously that bacteria produce phage-inducible chromosomal island-like elements (PLE) that encode proteins that are integrated into bacterial genome. These proteins are used by bacteria to amend the phage capsids and to create phage-like particles (satellites) that move between cells and transfer the genetic material of PLE to another bacteria. That study highlights the interactions between a PLE-encoded protein, TcaP, and capsid proteins of the phage ICP1.

The manuscript is well written, provides a lot of new information and the results are supported by biochemical analysis.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewers for their careful and overall positive assessment of our work.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper describes the discovery, functional analysis and structure of TcaP, a protein encoded by the Vibrio phage satellite PLE that forms a size-determining scaffold around PLE procapsids made from helper phage ICP1 structural proteins. The system displays a fascinating similarity to the P2/P4 system, which had previously been unique in its use of a size-determining external scaffolding protein, Sid. The work is interesting, comprehensive and of high quality. The presentation could be improved as listed in the suggestions below.

An interesting observation is that PLE appears to be dependent on small capsids for efficient transduction. This is not completely surprising if the element uses a cos site type mechanism for packaging, since this requires an integer number of genomes to be packaged when the capsid is full, and this might be more difficult to accomplish when the helper capsid is much larger than the satellite, as is the case with ICP1. The authors mention in a few places that this is the first known satellite to have this requirement. However, this is not quite correct: a similar defect was seen in phi12/SaPIbov5, where the large phi12 capsid was not quite the right size for either two or three copies of the wildtype ("unevolved") SaPIbov5 (Carpena et al. 2016).

We thank the reviewer for bringing up this point. First, we agree that for cos type packaging systems, this would not be surprising. However, ICP1 is a pac type phage and we have evidence that PLE is also a pac rather than a cos type packaging satellite; therefore, PLE is the first headful satellite to show such a defect. For cos packaging elements, both SaPIbov5 and P4, non-integer genome lengths have been shown to pack less efficiently into capsids as pointed out above and shown in Carpena et al 2016 and Shore 1978. However, in both of these cases, the genomes were manipulated to change their size, suggesting that naturally occurring cos satellites maintain their genome sizes to be proportional to their capsid sizes or in integer proportion to their helper capsids. We will include a short summary of these previous findings in the main text to provide context for the rare decreases in transduction efficiency reported in the cos satellites.

The authors present several micrographs showing capsids formed in the presence or absence of wildtype or mutant TcaP and CP (Fig. 1, Fig 2., Fig 3). However, each micrograph shows only a handful of particles of the "correct" size, in addition to a few shells that are aberrant or of a different size. I miss a more statistically rigorous enumeration of shells of different size (PLE or ICP1 sized, or different), empty vs. full, aberrant shells etc. This could be presented as a size distribution graph, a histogram or in table form.

We thank the reviewer for this recommendation and agree that it would add to the manuscript. We will quantify these particles and present the data in the main text.

In the abstract, the term "divergent satellite P4" is vague and unclear. Divergent from what? Probably they mean distinct from or unrelated to PLE. Please clarify.

Yes, we did mean unrelated to PLE, and we will clarify in the text.

How do they know that gp123 is a decoration protein? Was this previously determined, does it have (sequence) similarity to other known decoration proteins, or is it simply the most likely designation based on its position in the genome?

Gp123 was annotated based on its position. While there is sequence similarity to other annotated Vibrio phages’ decoration proteins, we will clarify in the text that Gp123 is a putative decoration protein.

Although the reconstruction and modeling statistics are good, it is difficult to assess the quality of the map and the model from the presented figures. Details of the density and FSC curves (half-map and model-to-map) should be shown. It is also difficult to see the TcaP structure and how it compares to Sid from the figures presented.

We will address this concern in the revised manuscript.

Introduction, Paragraph 3: "...which is the number of coat proteins divided by 60" is not strictly speaking the definition of T number. The T number corresponds to the number of subtriangles that one triangular face of the icosahedron is divided into. It corresponds to the number of coat proteins divided by 60 in the canonical case, but in tailed phages, 5 copies are removed to make way for the portal protein. (Other viruses could be described as having architecture corresponding to a specific T number, but with divergent numbers of subunits, e.g. adenoviruses or polyomaviruses.)

We agree that our simplified explanation of the T number is not entirely accurate and will modify the sentence appropriately.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Phage satellites are fascinating elements that have evolved to hijack phages for induction, packaging, and transfer, promoting their widespread dissemination in nature. It is remarkable how different satellites use conserved strategies of parasitism, utilising unrelated proteins that perform similar roles in their cognate elements. In the current manuscript, Dr. Seed and coworkers elucidated the mechanism used by one family of satellites, the PLEs, to produce small capsids, a process that inhibits phage reproduction while increasing PLE transmission. The work is presented beautifully, and the results are astonishing. The authors identified the gene responsible for generating the small capsids, characterised its role in the PLE transfer and phage inhibition, and determined the structure of the PLE-sized small capsids. It is a truly impressive piece of work.

We thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation of our work.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Boyd and co-authors "A Vibrio cholerae viral satellite maximizes its spread and inhibits phage by remodelling hijacked phage coat proteins into small capsids" reports important results related to self-defending mechanisms that bacteria are used against phages that infect them. It has been shown previously that bacteria produce phage-inducible chromosomal island-like elements (PLE) that encode proteins that are integrated into bacterial genome. These proteins are used by bacteria to amend the phage capsids and to create phage-like particles (satellites) that move between cells and transfer the genetic material of PLE to another bacteria. That study highlights the interactions between a PLE-encoded protein, TcaP, and capsid proteins of the phage ICP1.

The manuscript is well written, provides a lot of new information and the results are supported by biochemical analysis.

We thank the reviewer for their supportive evaluation of our work.