Bacteria Are a Major Determinant of Orsay Virus Transmission and Infection in Caenorhabditis elegans

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
This manuscript explores the importance of food type on virus infection dynamics using a nematode virus as a model system. The authors demonstrate that susceptibility to viral infection can change by several orders of magnitude based on the type of bacterial food that potential hosts consume. They go on to show that, for the bacterial food source that reduces susceptibility, the effect is modulated by quorum sensing molecules that the bacteria produce.

Strengths:
This manuscript shows convincingly that nematode susceptibility to viral infection changes by several orders of magnitude (i.e. doses must be increased by several orders of magnitude to infect the same fraction of the population) depending on the bacterial food source on which hosts are reared. The authors then focus on the bacteria that reduce host susceptibility to viral infection and demonstrate that certain bacterial quorum-sensing compounds are required to see this effect of reduced susceptibility. Overall, sample sizes are large, methods are generally rigorous, experiments are repeated, and patterns are clear.

Weaknesses:
Although the molecular correlate of reduced susceptibility is identified (i.e. quorum sensing compounds) the mechanisms underlying this effect are missing. For example, there are changes in susceptibility due to altered nutrition, host condition, the microbiome, feeding rate, mortality of infected hosts, etc. In addition, the authors focus almost entirely on the reduction in susceptibility even though I personally find the increased susceptibility generated when reared on Ochrobactrum to be much more exciting.

I was a bit surprised that there was no data on basic factors that could have led to reductions in susceptibility. In particular, data on feeding rates and mortality rates seem really important. I would expect that feeding rates are reduced in the presence of Pseudomonas. Reduced feeding rates would translate to lower consumed doses, and so even though the same concentration of virus is on a plate, it doesn't mean that the same quantity of virus is consumed. Likewise, if Pseudomonas is causing mortality of virus-infected hosts, it could give the impression of lower infection rates. Perhaps mortality rates are too small in the experimental setup to explain this pattern, but that isn't clear in the current version of the manuscript. Is mortality greatly impacted by knocking out quorum-sensing genes? Also, the authors explored susceptibility to infection, but completely ignored variation in virus shedding.

I was also curious why the authors did not further explore the mechanism behind the quorum-sensing effect. Not sure whether this is possible, but would it be possible to add spent media to the infection plates where the spent media was from Pseudomonas that produce the quorum sensing compound but the plates contain OOP50, Pseudomonas, or the quorum sensing knockout of Pseudomonas? That would reveal whether it is the compound itself vs. something that the compound does.

In addition, I was surprised by how much focus there was on the attenuation of infection and how little there was on the enhancement of infection. To me, enhancement seems like the more obvious thing to find a mechanism for -- is the bacteria suppressing immunity, preventing entry to gut cells, etc?

I was a bit concerned about the "arbitrary units", which were used without any effort to normalize them. David Wang and Hongbing Jiang have developed a method based on tissue culture infectious dose 50 (TCID50) that can be used to measure infectious doses in a somewhat repeatable way. Without some type of normalization, it is hard to imagine how this study could be repeated. The 24-hour time period between exposure and glowing suggests very high doses, but it is still unclear precisely how high. Also, it is clear that multiple batches of virus were used in this study, but it is entirely unclear how variable these batches were.

The authors in several places discuss high variability or low variability in incidence as though it is a feature of the virus or a feature of the host. It isn't. For infection data (or any type of binomial data) results are highly variable in the middle (close to 50% infection) and lowly variable at the ends (close to 0% or 100% infection). This is a result that is derived from a binomial distribution and it should not be taken as evidence that the bacteria or the host affect randomness. If you were to conduct dose-response experiments, on any of your bacterial food source treatments, you would find that variability is lowest at the extremely high and extremely low doses and it is most variable in the middle when you are at doses where about 50% of hosts are infected.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary and Major Findings/Strengths:

Across diverse hosts, microbiota can influence viral infection and transmission. C. elegans is naturally infected by the Orsay virus, which infects intestinal cells and is transmitted via the fecal-oral route. Previous work has demonstrated that host immune defense pathways, such as antiviral RNAi and the intracellular pathogen response (IPR), can influence host susceptibility to virus infection. However, little is known about how bacteria modulate viral transmission and host susceptibility.

In this study, the authors investigate how diverse bacterial species influence Orsay virus transmission and host susceptibility in C. elegans. When C. elegans is grown in the presence of two Ochrobactrum species, the authors find that animals exhibit increased viral transmission, as measured by the increased proportion of newly infected worms (relative to growth on E. coli OP50). The presence of the two Ochrobactrum species also resulted in increased host susceptibility to the virus, which is reflected by the increased fraction of infected animals following exposure to the exogenous Orsay virus. In contrast, the presence of Pseudomonas lurida MYb11, as well as Pseudomonas PA01 or PA14, attenuates viral transmission and host susceptibility relative to E. coli OP50. For growth in the presence of P. aeruginosa PA01 and PA14, the attenuated transmission and susceptibility are suppressed by mutations in regulators of quorum sensing and the gacA two-component system. The authors also identify six virulence genes in P. aeruginosa PA14 that modulate host susceptibility to virus and viral transmission, albeit to a lesser extent. Based on the findings in P. aeruginosa, the authors further demonstrate that deletion of the gacA ortholog in P. lurida results in loss of the attenuation of viral transmission and host susceptibility.

Taken together, these findings provide important insights into the species-specific effects that bacteria can have on viral infection in C. elegans. The authors also describe a role for Pseudomonas quorum sensing and virulence genes in influencing viral transmission and host susceptibility.

Major weaknesses:

The manuscript has several issues that need to be addressed, such as insufficient rigor of the experiments performed and questions about the reproducibility of the data presented in some places. In addition, confounding variables complicate the interpretations that can be made from the authors' findings and weaken some of the conclusions that are stated in the manuscript.

1. The authors sometimes use pals-5p::GFP expression to indicate infection, however, this is not necessarily an accurate measure of the infection rate. Specifically, in Figures 4-6, the authors should include measurements of viral RNA, either by FISH staining or qRT-PCR, to support the claims related to differences in infection rate.

2. In several instances, the experimental setup and presentation of data lack sufficient rigor. For example, Fig 1D and Fig 2B only display data from one experimental replicate. The authors should include information from all 3 experimental replicates for more transparency. In Fig 3B, the authors should include a control that demonstrates how RNA1 levels change in the presence of E. coli OP50 for comparison with the results showing replication in the presence of PA14. In order to support the claim that "P. aeruginosa and P. lurida MYb11 do not eliminate Orsay virus infection", the authors should also measure RNA1 fold change in the presence of PA01 and P. lurida in the context of exogenous Orsay virus. Additionally, the authors should standardize the amount of bacteria added to the plate and specify how this was done in the Methods, as differing concentrations of bacteria could be the reason for species-specific effects on infection.

3. The authors should be more careful about conclusions that are made from experiments involving PA14, which is a P. aeruginosa strain (isolated from humans), that can rapidly kill C. elegans. To eliminate confounding factors that are introduced by the pathogenicity of PA14, the authors should address how PA14 affects the health of the worms in their assays. For example, the authors should perform bead-feeding assays to demonstrate that feeding rates are unaffected when worms are grown in the presence of PA14. Because Orsay virus infection occurs through feeding, a decrease in C. elegans feeding rates can influence the outcome of viral infection. The authors should also address whether or not the presence of PA14 affects the stability of viral particles because that could be another trivial reason for the attenuation of viral infection that occurs in the presence of PA14.