Frequent intertrophic transmission of Wolbachia by parasitism but not predation

Zhi-Chao Yan; Lan-Da Qi; Han-Le Ji; Xiao-Xiang Wang; Xiao-Yue Hong; Yuan-Xi Li

doi:10.7554/eLife.97872.1

eLife assessment

Using experiments in the white fly, this manuscript provides evidence that the bacterial symbiont Wolbachia can be transmitted from parasitoid wasps to their insect hosts. Characterizing the transfer of Wolbachia between insect species is a valuable attempt to explain the widespread of this intracellular bacterium. This paper is incomplete as it does not furnish sufficient data to support several of its claims for which additional methods and data are necessary.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.97872.1.sa3

Significance of findings

valuable: Findings that have theoretical or practical implications for a subfield

landmark
fundamental
important
valuable
useful

Strength of evidence

incomplete: Main claims are only partially supported

exceptional
compelling
convincing
solid
incomplete
inadequate

During the peer-review process the editor and reviewers write an eLife assessment that summarises the significance of the findings reported in the article (on a scale ranging from landmark to useful) and the strength of the evidence (on a scale ranging from exceptional to inadequate). Learn more about eLife assessments

Abstract

Wolbachia is one of the most pervasive symbionts, estimated to infect ∼50% of arthropod species. It is primarily transmitted vertically, inducing a variety of fascinating reproductive manipulations to promote its spread within host populations. However, incongruences between host and Wolbachia phylogenies indicate substantial horizontal transmissions, the mechanisms of which are largely unexplored. By systematically analyzing Wolbachia surface protein (wsp) sequences on NCBI, we found that parasitism, not predation, is the primary route of intertropical Wolbachia transmission. This conclusion held after accounting sampling bias. One example of frequent Wolbachia transfers is between egg parasitoid wasps, Trichogramma, and their lepidopteran hosts. Moreover, both bioinformatics and experimental results showed that Wolbachia from the parasitoid wasp Encarsia formosa can be transmitted to its whitefly host Bemisia tabaci, through unsuccessful parasitism. Once En. formosa Wolbachia is transferred to whiteflies, it can be vertically transmitted within whiteflies and induce fitness costs. To our knowledge, this is the first compelling evidence that Wolbachia can be transmitted from parasitoid wasps to their hosts, revealing the bidirectional nature of Wolbachia transfers between parasitoids and their hosts. Overall, our findings enrich the current understanding of the horizontal transmission of Wolbachia and shed new light on its ecology and evolution.

Introduction

Symbiosis with microbes, ranging from parasitism to mutualism, is prevalent in both plants and animals (1, 2). The ubiquity of microbial symbionts is likely attributed to their profound impact on host biology, including host survival, development, immunity, reproduction, and even behavior (2, 3). The transmission mode of symbionts is a key factor in shaping the ecology and evolution of both symbionts and their hosts (4–6). In addition to vertical transmission, incongruence between symbionts and host phylogenies indicates a large number of horizontal symbiont transfers across species (1). These events are important, as they allow symbionts to expand their host range and enable hosts to acquire new symbionts and alter their fitness. However, the transmission of symbionts has been relatively little studied compared to their function (1).

Wolbachia (Rickettsiales, Alphaproteobacteria) is intracellular gram-negative bacteria and one of the most famous endosymbionts that infests ∼50% arthropod and several filarial nematode species (7–9). On the one hand, Wolbachia can induce a range of fascinating phenotypes, including a variety of reproductive manipulations, provision of nutrients, and alteration of host behavior, thus facilitating its spread among populations (7). On the other hand, although Wolbachia is primarily maternally transmitted, there are widespread and frequent horizontal transfers across hosts (10, 11). Together, these characteristics make Wolbachia the most infectious microbe on Earth in terms of the number of species it infects (7, 8).

Wolbachia has also received much attention for its applications in controlling pests and vector-borne diseases (8). Specific strains of Wolbachia are artificially transfected into target pests and subsequently released into the field to either suppress pest populations or replace populations to depress the spread of vector-borne diseases (12, 13). Understanding how Wolbachia spreads horizontally is critical in assessing its successful application and potential risks (14). This is because the released Wolbachia may leak into natural pest populations, frustrating population suppression strategies based on the cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI) of Wolbachia. It may also spread to nontarget organisms, potentially disrupting their population dynamics, reducing genetic diversity, and even leading to extinction. Therefore, the lack of a thorough understanding of Wolbachia transmission and its consequences could hinder its broader application (14).

Despite the extensive interest in the horizontal transmission of Wolbachia, our understanding of this subject remains incomplete (15). Similar to other symbionts, Wolbachia host shifts may occur through three main routes: parasitism, predation, and shared plant or other food sources (15). The relative contributions of these three routes to the transmission process remain unclear. Multiple surveys report a significant similarity in Wolbachia sequences between parasitoid wasps and their respective hosts, suggesting that parasitism may serve as a primary route for Wolbachia’s host shift (16–21). However, without quantitative tests, this observation could simply reflect a bias in research focus. For the intertrophic transmission of Wolbachia between parasitoid wasps and their hosts, experimental evidence has shown that parasitoid wasps can acquire hosts’ Wolbachia and vertically transmit them for several generations (22). However, it remains uncertain whether Wolbachia can be transferred from parasitoid wasps to their hosts. Some have argued that the transfer of Wolbachia between parasitoid wasps and their hosts is unidirectional, from host to wasp, as all parasitoid wasps emerge from their hosts, but parasitized hosts are eventually killed or castrated if not killed immediately (17, 23, 24).

In this study, our objective was to elucidate the role of parasitism and other potential routes in Wolbachia horizontal transmission and to investigate whether Wolbachia can be transferred from parasitoids to their hosts. We conducted a systematic survey of Wolbachia surface protein (wsp) sequences from the NCBI database and executed experiments using the whitefly Bemisia tabaci and its parasitoid wasp Encarsia formosa. Our study illuminates the crucial role of parasitism in Wolbachia intertrophic transmission, demonstrates the bidirectional nature of Wolbachia transfer between parasitoids and their hosts, and thus expands the current understanding of Wolbachia horizontal transmission.

Results

Wolbachia is frequently transmitted between parasitoid wasps and their hosts

To investigate potential horizontal transmission of Wolbachia, we retrieved 4685 wsp sequences from the NCBI database. Out of these 4685 sequences, 4253 could be assigned to 1377 species. We constructed a phylogenetic tree of wsp sequences (Fig. 1a) and extracted the minimum genetic distances of wsp between every species pair. Based on the relationships between species, we defined the species pairs into categories “Parasitism”, “Plant-sharing”, “Predation” and “Others” (for details, see Methods and Materials). Among these species pairs, 16.5% (53 out of 321) in “Parasitism” pairs had the minimum interspecific wsp distances less than 0.01 (i.e., > 99% identity). This proportion is significantly greater than the 6.3% (145 out of 2294) in “Plant-sharing” pairs, the 1.1% (13 out of 1146) in “Predation” pairs, and the 1.5% (14120 out of 943315) in “Others” pairs (χ² test; all comparisons: p < 1e^-5). Consistently, the minimum interspecific wsp distances in “Parasitism” relationships were significantly shorter than those in “Plant-sharing”, “Predation”, and “Other” relationships (Fig. 1b; Mann‒Whitney U test (MWUT); all comparisons: p < 1e-12). The minimum wsp distances in “Plant-sharing” were also significantly smaller than those in “Others” (Fig. 1b; MWUT; W = 730215564, p < 2.2e^-16). However, the minimum wsp distances showed no significant difference between “Predation” and “Others” (Fig. 1b; MWUT; W = 699285646, p = 0.096).

Parasitism facilitates interspecific horizontal transfer of *Wolbachia*.
**(a)** Phylogeny of *Wolbachia* surface protein (*wsp*) genes retrieved from NCBI. **(b)** Effect of parasitism, plant-sharing, and predation on the genetic distance of *wsp* between species. **(c)** Relationship between species divergence time and the genetic distance of *wsp* between species. **(d)** Phylogeny of representative *wsp* sequences from *Trichogramma* wasps and lepidopterans. Color red and black represent *wsp* sequences from *Trichogramma* wasp and lepidopterans, respectively.

To test whether these effects were merely due to sampling bias, we further obtained divergent times from TimeTree for 95.2% (901,615 out of 947,376) of the species pairs. As expected, the minimum interspecific wsp distance increased as the divergent time increased (Fig. 1c; Spearman’s correlation; ρ = 0.14, p < 2.2e^-16). Considering the impact of divergent time, linear regression analyses were conducted with the wsp distance as the dependent variable and divergent time as the independent variable. We found that both “Parasitism” and “Plant-sharing” had significant effects (both tests: p < 2e^-16). The estimated effect of “Parasitism” (-0.28) was more profound than that of “Plant-sharing” (-0.13) (p = 3.9e^-16). Given that we cannot obtain divergence times for all species pairs, especially for those closely related, we also classified the species pairs according to their last common ancestor. We divided all species pairs into six categories based on whether the two species belonged to the same genus, family, order, class, phylum, or kingdom. Similar results were observed (Supplementary Note 1). To further rule out potential influences of sampling bias, subsampling analyses were conducted using three methods: 1) shuffling species relationships, 2) subsampling by controlling divergent time, and 3) subsampling by controlling the last common ancestor (for details, see Methods and Materials). For all three methods, both “Parasitism” and “Plant-sharing”, but not “Predation”, exhibited significantly shorter minimum interspecific distances of wsp than randomly generated controls (Fig. S1; both “Parasitism” and “Plant-sharing”: p < 0.001; “Predation”: p > 0.05). These results confirmed that parasitism and plant-sharing promote interspecific transfers of Wolbachia, rather than being due to sampling bias.

An example of frequent Wolbachia transfers between parasitoids and their hosts is observed in Trichogramma wasps and their lepidopteran hosts (Fig. 1d). Trichogramma is a genus of generalist egg parasitoids, targeting mainly lepidopterans such as moths and butterflies (25). Fig. 1d displays representative wsp sequences from Trichogramma and lepidopterans, illustrating potential interspecific transitions of Wolbachia. In the analyzed dataset, 16 out of 23 (69.6%) Trichogramma species exhibited the minimum interspecific wsp distance of less than 0.01 with at least one lepidopteran species. Similarly, 79 out of 254 (31.1%) surveyed lepidopteran species displayed a minimum interspecific wsp distance of less than 0.01 with at least one Trichogramma species. These results suggest frequent Wolbachia transitions between Trichogramma wasps and lepidopterans.

Collectively, these findings support that Wolbachia are frequently transmitted between parasitoid wasps and their hosts.

Wsp phylogeny suggests transfer directions of Wolbachia between the whitefly B. tabaci and its parasitoid wasps

However, the interspecific identities of wsp between parasitoids and their hosts typically offer no clues about the direction of Wolbachia transmission. We noticed frequent Wolbachia transfers between the whitefly B. tabaci and its parasitoid wasps (Fig. 2a). Notably, one of the juvenile parasitoids of B. tabaci is En. formosa. Wolbachia induces parthenogenesis and has evolved into an obligate symbiont in En. formosa, exhibiting a 100% infection rate (26, 27). This system presents a unique opportunity to infer the directions of Wolbachia transmission between parasitoids and their hosts.

Transfer of *Wolbachia* from the parasitoid wasp, *Encarsia formosa*, to its host, *Bemisia tabaci*.
**(a)** Phylogenetic analysis of the *wsp* gene from *B. tabaci* and its parasitoid wasps. The colors black, red, purple, and gray represent *wsp* sequences from *B. tabaci*, *En. formosa*, other parasitoids of *B. tabaci*, and other species, respectively. **(b)** Scheme of the experimental design for studying the transmission of *Wolbachia* from *En. formosa* to *B. tabac*. **(c–d)** Effects of *En. formosa* on **(c)** the infection rate of *Wolbachia* and **(d)** the proportion of females in *B. tabaci* populations. Data are presented as the means ± standard errors (SE) (n = 3).

One clade of the wsp phylogeny contained 99 sequences from B. tabaci, 14 sequences from Encarsia and Eretmocerus parasitoid wasps of B. tabaci, and 8 other sequences (Fig. 2a). The prevalence of B. tabaci sequences interspersed with those of the parasitoids suggests that the transmission direction of Wolbachia in this clade may be primarily from B. tabaci to its parasitoid wasps. Notably, in another clade of wsp, nine En. formosa and five B. tabaci wsp sequences are clustered together, along with one wsp sequence detected in cotton and 12 sequences from other parasitoid wasps of B. tabaci, such as En. inaron, En. lutea, En. bimaculata, Er. mundus, and Aimtus hesperidum (Fig. 2a). Given that Wolbachia is obligate with a 100% infection rate in En. formosa, it is reasonable to infer that the transmission direction of Wolbachia in this clade was from En. formosa to B. tabaci.

Wolbachia can be transmitted from the parasitoid wasp En. formosa to its whitefly host in cage experiments

Bemisia tabaci is a species complex of at least 40 cryptic species (28). Infection rates of Wolbachia reported across multiple populations within these cryptic species exhibit dramatic fluctuations, ranging from 0% to 100% (28–31). To investigate whether Wolbachia can be transmitted from parasitoid wasps to their whitefly hosts, we first established a Wolbachia-free iso-female line of B. tabaci Q biotype. Subsequently, we conducted outdoor cage experiments using the Wolbachia-free B. tabaci and its parasitoid En. formosa, which was 100% infected with Wolbachia (Fig. 2b). After introducing En. formosa, the Wolbachia infection rate in whiteflies increased from zero to 4.17% after 20 days and reached 10.83% after 100 days (Fig. 2c; ANOVA; F_5,17=11.44, p < 0.001). Correspondingly, the female ratio of whiteflies decreased from 69.17% to 60.08% (Fig. 2d; ANOVA; F_5,17=3.14, p = 0.048). In contrast, the whitefly population with no exposure to wasps maintained a zero infection rate of Wolbachia (Fig. 2c), and the female ratio showed no significant changes (Fig. 2d; ANOVA; F_5,17 = 0.076, p = 0.99). Additionally, the Sanger sequencing results showed that wsp sequences from both whitefly and En. formosa were identical (Fig. S2). These results indicate that Wolbachia from En. formosa can be rapidly transmitted to its whitefly host.

Parasitism failure transmits Wolbachia from the parasitoid wasp En. formosa to its whitefly host

We hypothesized that Wolbachia was transmitted from parasitoid wasps to their hosts through unsuccessful parasitism. To test this hypothesis, we performed parasitism experiments on wasp individuals and applied irradiation treatment to wasps to reduce their parasitism success rate. After 60 Gy irradiation, the fecundity of En. formosa in 12 h significantly decreased (Fig. 3a; Student’s t test; t = 12.91, p < 0.001), and the parasitism success rate on whiteflies drastically declined from 78.8% to 9.9% (Fig. 3b; Student’s t test; t = 13.09, p < 0.001). Correspondingly, the Wolbachia infection rate increased from 7.5% to 78.3% in whiteflies survived from parasitism (Fig. 3c; Student’s t test; t = 6.61, p < 0.001), despite a decrease in the Wolbachia titer in En. formosa post irradiation (Fig. S3). More details can be found for irradiation treatments at different dosages (Supplementary Note 2). Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays further showed that Wolbachia was injected into the host nymphs along with En. formosa eggs (Fig. 3 d-f and S4). These results indicate that parasitism failure can transfer Wolbachia from the parasitoid wasps En. formosa to their whitefly hosts.

Parasitism failure mediates *Wolbachia* transfer from *En. formosa* to *B. tabaci*.
**(a–c)** Effects of 60 Gy radiation on **(a)** the fecundity of *En. formosa* over a 12-hour period, **(b)** the rate of successful parasitism, and **(c)** the *Wolbachia* infection rate in surviving whiteflies. Data are presented as the means + SEs (n = 20). ***: p < 0.001. **(d–f)** Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) visualization of *Wolbachia* in nonparasitized and parasitized 3^rd instar nymphs, as well as parasitized 2nd instar nymphs of *B. tabaci*. The images present a combination of bright field and fluorescence. E: injected eggs from *En. formosa*.

Vertical transmission and fitness cost of Wolbachia in whiteflies after horizontal transfer from En. formosa

Next, we investigated the vertical transmission and fitness cost of Wolbachia in its new host, B. tabaci, following its horizontal transfer from En. formosa. The vertical transmission rate varied from 22.2% to 33.3% across generations in whiteflies, with a slight but statistically insignificant increase from G₁ to G₅ (Fig. 4b; ANOVA; F_4,40 = 2.09, p = 0.10). Moreover, Wolbachia was also detected in the G₃ whiteflies, specifically in the nymph’s bacteriocytes, the abdomen of male adults, and the ovaries of female adults (Fig. 4 and S5). MLST typing confirmed that the Wolbachia strain introduced into the whiteflies was identical to the strain from En. formosa (Fig. S6).

Vertical transmission of *Wolbachia* from *En. formosa* in *B. tabaci*.
**(a)** Scheme of the study design for *Wolbachia* vertical transmission in *B. tabaci*. Adult whiteflies that survived from *En. formosa* parasitism were denoted as G₀. After pairing and oviposition, the infection status of *Wolbachia* in the female parent was examined. Only the offsprings from *Wolbachia*-infected female whiteflies were maintained. **(b)** The vertical transmission rate of *Wolbachia* across five generations in *B. tabaci*. Data are presented as the means + SEs (n = 9). ns.: no significant differences. **(c–e)** FISH visualization of *Wolbachia* in G₃ *B. tabaci* **(c)** nymph, **(d)** male adult, and **(e)** female adult. The images present a combination of bright field and fluorescence. B: bacteriocyte; E: eggs in the ovary of a female whitefly.

We then examined the impact of the introduced Wolbachia on the fitness of whiteflies. Compared to uninfected females, Wolbachia-infected females showed decreased fecundity (Fig. 5a; Student’s t test; t = 8.51, p < 0.001). Moreover, offspring from infected mothers exhibited a diminished egg hatching rate (Fig. 5b; Student’s t test; t = 8.33, p < 0.001), a lower survival rate among nymphs (Fig. 5c; Student’s t test; t = 13.54, p < 0.001), and a decreased ratio of females in adults (Fig. 5d; Student’s t test; t = 12.29, p < 0.001), although there was no significant difference in the development time from egg to adult (Fig. 5e; Student’s t test; t = 1.51, p < 0.001). We also investigated the effects of paternal infection with Wolbachia. Regardless of whether the female was infected with Wolbachia, the infection status in males showed no significant influence on their fecundity, the hatching rate of their offspring’s eggs, the survival rate of their nymph offspring, or the female ratio of their adult offspring (Table 1; Student’s t test; all comparisons: p > 0.05).

Fitness costs in *B. tabaci* induced by *Wolbachia* from *En. formosa*.
**(a–e)** The effects of *En. formosa Wolbachia* on *B. tabaci* **(a)** female fecundity, **(b)** egg hatching rate, **(c)** immature survival rate, **(d)** female proportion, and **(e)** developmental time. Data are presented as the means + SEs (n = 60). ***: p < 0.001; ns.: no significant differences.

Fitness in *Bemisia tabaci* of different cross combinations

Collectively, these results indicate that Wolbachia from En. formosa, when shifted into the new host B. tabaci, exhibits a low rate of vertical transmission and a substantial fitness cost, without apparent reproductive manipulation phenotypes.

Discussion

The effect of parasitism on Wolbachia horizontal transmission

As with previous studies, we utilized the sequence similarities of wsp to infer potential horizontal transfers of Wolbachia. Here, we systematically investigated all wsp sequences in the NCBI database, enabling us to examine the effect of potential factors such as parasitism, plant-sharing, and predation. Our findings clearly indicate that parasitism exhibits shorter interspecific wsp distances than plant-sharing and predation.

Moreover, the fact that herbivores sharing plants have identical wsp sequences does not necessarily imply plant-mediated horizontal transfer of Wolbachia. This is because species that share the same plants often have recent divergent times (Fig. 1b), which increases the potential for hybridization and also sharing common parasitoid wasps. Therefore, the plant-sharing category overestimates the extent of plant-mediated Wolbachia horizontal transmission, further supporting the notion that parasitism is the primary route of Wolbachia horizontal transmission.

Directions of Wolbachia transmission between parasitoids and their hosts

However, investigations based on Wolbachia sequence similarity have significant limitations. First, determining the direction of transfer is challenging based solely on the identity of Wolbachia strains. In certain exceptional cases, inferences of transfer direction might be drawn from the prevalence of Wolbachia infection in the two species (15). For example, Wolbachia is obligate in En. formosa and exhibits a 100% infection rate across all populations (27). This unique instance of horizontal Wolbachia transfer between En. formosa and its whitefly hosts provides compelling evidence, suggesting that Wolbachia is likely transmitted from the parasitoid wasp to its host, rather than the reverse. Second, the PCR detection of wsp does not necessarily indicate horizontal transfer of Wolbachia (24). Instead, it could merely represent contamination that arises during predation or parasitism. The contamination can be Wolbachia-infected tissues or even just fragmented Wolbachia DNA, which could be found on the surface, within the gut, or inside the body cavity (as in the case of parasitized hosts).

To verify Wolbachia transmission from parasitoid wasps to their hosts, we conducted outdoor cage experiments and indoor tests using Wolbachia-free whitefly B. tabaci and its parasitoid En. formosa. Wolbachia was detected by nested PCR in whitefly adults (G₀) that survived parasitism. Encarsia formosa parasitizes B. tabaci nymphs, which undergo a pseudo-pupal stage to reach adulthood (26, 32). In our experiments, PCR detection of Wolbachia typically occurred 3∼7 days post-parasitism, minimizing risks of contamination from parasitism. Wolbachia was also detected by PCR in subsequent generations (G1–G5) of whiteflies and induced notable fitness costs. PCR sequencing confirmed that the Wolbachia strain in the B. tabaci matched that of En. formosa. Furthermore, FISH assays revealed a tissue-specific distribution of Wolbachia in both nymphs and adults of the whiteflies, matching previously reported patterns (33). Collectively, these findings provide compelling evidence that Wolbachia from En. formosa can be horizontally transmitted to B. tabaci, beyond mere DNA contamination.

Although previous research has demonstrated that parasitoids can acquire Wolbachia from their hosts, the reverse direction of transmission, from host to parasitoid, has been largely overlooked and lacks supportive experimental evidence. One possible reason for this oversight is that all parasitoids emerge from their hosts, but hosts are eventually killed by the parasitism of parasitoid wasps (17, 23, 24). However, parasitoid wasps’ success in parasitizing their hosts does not always reach 100% (34). Some hosts can manage to survive after parasitism. Various factors can influence the outcome of parasitoid-host interactions, including environmental conditions, the species and genotype of both wasps and hosts, the host’s age, and the presence of symbiotic bacteria within the host (35–37). Moreover, we used radiation to reduce the parasitism success rate, which notably enhanced the transfer of Wolbachia from En. formosa to its whitefly host.

Potential intertrophic transmission network of Wolbachia

A previous study reported that parasitoid wasps can act as vectors to transmit Wolbachia, without the necessity of being infected themselves (38). Through the probing actions of the Eretmocerus parasitoid, Wolbachia can be transmitted among whitefly hosts (38). This is often referred to as the ’dirty needle’ model. Conversely, hosts can also serve as vectors for Wolbachia transmission among parasitoid wasps. Wolbachia can be transferred from infected to noninfected Trichogramma wasps through superparasitism (39, 40). However, the Wolbachia transmission of these two modes is restricted within the same trophic level. In contrast, the transmission of Wolbachia between parasitoid wasps and hosts can cross trophic levels. Our findings, when combined with existing knowledge, suggest that the intertrophic transmission of Wolbachia is bidirectional between parasitoid wasps and their hosts. This greatly enhances our understanding of the horizontal transmission of Wolbachia.

Interestingly, we found on NCBI that a strain of Wolbachia detected in the cotton plant was identical to the Wolbachia from En. formosa, based on the wsp sequence and MSLT typing (Fig. 2 and S6). This Wolbachia strain was probably transmitted to the cotton plant from the feeding of whiteflies (41). Given that En. formosa is 100% infected with its obligate Wolbachia strain, a possible transmission route could be from En. formosa to whiteflies via parasitism and then to the cotton plant through the feeding of whiteflies. This finding indirectly supports our conclusion that Wolbachia can be transmitted from parasitoid wasps to their hosts. This suggests that once the Wolbachia of parasitoids is transmitted to herbivorous hosts, it may further spread to host plants. The reverse transmission route can also be possible. It is likely that Wolbachia’s widespread and complex horizontal transmission network is established through such bidirectional transmissions across multiple trophic levels, e.g., "plant-herbivore-parasitoid-hyperparasitoid". Further investigations are needed to test these hypotheses.

Wolbachia establishment after host transfers

Moreover, the physical transfer of Wolbachia often represents merely the first step of its establishment in a new host (15). Several subsequent steps are required for Wolbachia to establish itself within new species, e.g., entry into germ cells, vertical transmission, and mechanisms that promote its spread within the population (15). First, we found that Wolbachia from En. formosa was enriched in the ovaries of whiteflies and vertically transmitted after entering B. tabaci. However, the vertical transmission efficiency is low, ranging from 22.2% to 33.3%. We also noted an absence of reproductive manipulations by the newly introduced Wolbachia in whiteflies. The reduced female ratio after infection does not support the induction of parthenogenesis, feminization or male-killing by Wolbachia. We neither observed cytoplasmic incompatibility, where the mating of infected males and uninfected females resulted in reduced offspring hatching.

In contrast, the introduced Wolbachia from En. formosa reduced whiteflies’ egg laying and hatching, larval survival, and female proportion, demonstrating significant fitness costs in the new host. This is likely due to Wolbachia’s coevolution with its host in En. formosa, which may have led to the loss of its ability to colonize new host species. Given the low vertical transmission rate, high fitness cost, and lack of clear reproductive manipulations, it is reasonable to predict that the spread of Wolbachia in its new host population will be limited. Finally, these factors, together with the frequency of Wolbachia introductions by parasitoids and its spread via parasitoid or plant vectors, shape the dynamics and equilibrium of Wolbachia. These dynamics could shift with the emergence of reproductive manipulation or other beneficial phenotypes that promote Wolbachia spread, probably through gene mutation, recombination or horizontal gene transfer within Wolbachia (2). There are still many questions waiting to be further studied in these steps of Wolbachia host shifts.

Conclusions

By investigating wsp sequences from the NCBI database, we found frequent intertrophic transmission of Wolbachia by parasitism but not predation. Combining bioinformatics and experimental approaches, we demonstrated that Wolbachia can be transmitted from the parasitoid wasp En. formosa to the host B. tabaci. To our knowledge, this is the first compelling evidence that Wolbachia can be transmitted from parasitoid wasps to their hosts, thus revealing the bidirectional nature of Wolbachia transfers between parasitoids and their hosts. These findings enrich our knowledge of the Wolbachia transmission network and have significant implications for understanding the ecology of Wolbachia, as well as for evaluating the release of Wolbachia in pest control.

Materials and Methods

Wsp sequence retrieval and phylogenetic analyses

tblastn was conducted against the NCBI “nr/nt” database using the wsp protein AAS14719.1 from Wolbachia of Drosophila melanogaster (July 2023). Default settings were used with a maximum target sequence of 5000 and the organism limitation of Wolbachia (taxid:953). The sequences were filtered to remove those shorter than 300 bp or containing premature stop codons. Wsp sequences were translated into proteins, aligned using MAFFT v7.475 (42), and reverse translated into codons using PAL2NAL v14 (43). The phylogenetic trees were constructed using IQ-Tree v2.2.0 (44), with the best model selected by the built-in ModelFinder (45). The phylogenetic trees were visualized using iTOL v6 (46).

Statistics for genetic distances of wsp

Genetic distances of wsp sequences were extracted from the wsp phylogeny using a custom Python script. Species interaction relationships were extracted from the GloBI database (August 2023) (47). Parasitic associations were extracted using interaction types of “parasiteOf” or “parasitoidOf”, excluding social parasitism to focus on direct biological parasitism. Predation associations were extracted using interaction types of “preysOn” or “eats”. Given the relatively broad dietary range of predators, a genus-to-genus expansion was adopted for the predation relationships. Herbivorous interactions were extracted using the interaction types “hasHost” or “eats”, specifically targeting taxa within the kingdom Plantae. Extracted relationships were manually curated to verify the accuracy. Divergent times between species were extracted from TimeTree v5 via its application programming interface (API) (September 2023) (48). To test the effects of special features of sampled species pairs, three subsampling methods were employed using a custom Python script. For each method, 1000 replicates were randomly generated. For species pair shuffling, in every replication, the pairs of species were randomly rearranged to create new combinations. To control divergent time, pairs of species were randomly sampled from the background to match the divergent times in the tested category (i.e., parasitism, plant-sharing or predation). The sampling background pools were all species pairs excluding the specific tested category. A similar process was applied to control the last common ancestor. Linear model analyses, statistical tests, and data visualization were executed using R v4.3.1.

Insect rearing

Both whiteflies B. tabaci and the parasitoid wasps En. formosa were maintained in nylon cages at 25±1°C, 70±5% RH, and a L:D photoperiod of 16:8 h. Bemisia tabaci was originally collected from the campus of Nanjing Agricultural University in 2012 and determined to be the Q biotype. A Wolbachia-free iso-female line of B. tabaci was then established. En. formosa was initially acquired from Beijing Ecoman Biotechnology Co., Ltd. in 2013 and was maintained on B. tabaci on tomato plants.

PCR and Sanger sequencing

Bemisia tabaci or En. formosa were initially washed using ethanol and ultrapure water three times each. DNA was extracted from individuals using the STE method (49). To avoid false-negative results, a nest-PCR targeting the wsp gene was employed for detecting Wolbachia in whiteflies (Fig. S7) as previously described (49). PCRs were performed using DreamTaq Green PCR Master Mix (Thermo Scientific) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. To confirm whether the Wolbachia present in whiteflies and their parasitoid wasps belonged to the same strain, PCR and Sanger sequencing were performed on Wolbachia genes, namely, wsp, gatB, coxA, hcpA, ftsZ, and fbpA, for MSLT typing (50). The primers used for wsp nest-PCR and MSLT typing are listed in Table S1.

FISH detection of Wolbachia

The location of Wolbachia in whiteflies was determined using fluorescence in situ hybridization as previously reported (27). To enhance the detection signal, two 5’ rhodamine-labeled probes, W1: 5′-AATCCGGCCGARCCG ACCC-3′ and W2: 5′-CTTCTGTGAGTACCGTCATTATC-3′, were used to target Wolbachia 16S rRNA (51). Stained samples were examined under a Zeiss LSM 700 confocal microscope (Carl Zeiss, Germany). The specificity of the method was confirmed using Wolbachia-free whiteflies as negative controls.

Outdoor cage experiments for Wolbachia transmission

To assess the potential transmission of Wolbachia from En. formosa to B. tabaci, six cages (80 cm x 80 cm x 80 cm, enclosed with a 120 mesh nylon screen) were established on the Nanjing Agricultural University campus. Initially, six 20-cm tall tomato plants were placed in each cage, with two additional plants introduced at 30-day intervals. Each cage was populated with 100 female and 100 male Wolbachia-free whiteflies. After a 20-day period, ten En. formosa wasps were introduced into each of three randomly selected cages, following the random sampling of 40 adult whiteflies from each cage. Subsequently, an additional 40 adult whiteflies were sampled from each cage at 20-day intervals. These sampled whiteflies were sexed based on their morphologies and screened for Wolbachia infection using wsp nest PCR.

Wolbachia transmission from irradiated En. formosa to B. tabaci

To explore the possibility of Wolbachia transmission from En. formosa to B. tabaci due to unsuccessful parasitism, we subjected En. formosa wasps to radiation at the Nanjing Aerospace Irradiation Center. Wasps that had emerged within 24 h were exposed to Co⁶⁰ radiation at doses of 60, 80 and 100 Gy (dose rate of 2 Gy/min). A single irradiated wasp was subsequently introduced into a Petri dish, which contained a tomato leaf infested with Wolbachia-free 3^rd or 4^th instar whitefly nymphs. The parasitic behaviors of En. formosa were monitored under a Nikon SMZ800 stereomicroscope (Nikon Instrument Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Wasps were removed after 12 h of parasitism. Only whitefly nymphs that had been punctured by wasps were kept until the emergence of either parasitoid wasps or whiteflies. The newly emerged whiteflies were then collected for Wolbachia detection using wsp nested PCR. In each replication, five irradiated En. formosa were randomly selected for parasitization, with four replications performed in total. Nonirradiated wasps were used as controls.

Wolbachia transmission across generations in whiteflies

The parasitized and subsequently emerged whiteflies were denoted as the initial generation (G₀). To investigate the transmission rate of Wolbachia across whitefly generations, a pair of female and male newly emerged whitefly adults (G₀) were randomly chosen and introduced into a Petri dish containing a tomato leaf. After 5 d of oviposition, the whitefly adults (G₀) were removed and sampled for Wolbachia detection using wsp nested PCR. Only the eggs laid by Wolbachia-infected females were allowed to develop into adults. In a similar manner, upon the emergence of G₁ adults, whiteflies were paired and placed into individual Petri dishes to produce the G₂ generation and then sampled for Wolbachia detection. This procedure was repeated from the G₀ to G₅ generations. A parallel control experiment was conducted using Wolbachia-free whiteflies. Nine replications were conducted for each generation.

Effects of Wolbachia on whitefly fitness

Given the inability to obtain a whitefly strain with 100% Wolbachia infection, we selected individuals from the infected whitefly population, which initially acquired Wolbachia through parasitism of irradiated En. formosa and subsequently maintained for over five generations. Whitefly nymphs were individually isolated into PCR tubes at their 4^th instar stage. After emergence, female and male whitefly adults were paired and allowed to oviposit for five days within a Petri dish containing a tomato leaf. These adults were then removed for Wolbachia detection via PCR. For the Wolbachia-infected female adults, we recorded several fitness parameters. These included the total number of eggs laid, the number of first instar nymphs, the developmental time from egg to eclosion, and the number of eclosed male and female offspring. This procedure was replicated with 60 pairs, and whiteflies from the original Wolbachia-free population were used as controls. Additionally, we examined the effects of various paternal and maternal infection status combinations on whitefly fitness. A similar procedure was employed, with the exception that all whitefly adults were sourced from the infected population, and their infection status was determined through wsp nested PCR.

Statistics of the experimental data

Statistical analysis of experimental data was conducted using SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). The proportions were arcsine-square root transformed. Two independent samples were compared using Student’s T test. One-way ANOVA was performed for analysis of multiple samples. Means were then compared using Honest Student’s Tukey test. Data were visualized using GraphPad Prism 6 software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, USA).

Data and code availability

The alignment files, phylogenetic trees, and custom scripts can be accessed on FigShare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24718119).

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by “Shuangchuang Doctor” Foundation of Jiangsu Province (202030472), Nanjing Agricultural University startup fund (804018), the Hainan Major Science and Technology Project (ZDKJ2021007), and the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest of China (201303019). Bioinformatic analyses were supported by the high-performance computing platform of Bioinformatics Center, Nanjing Agricultural University.

Author contributions

Y.X.L., X.Y.H., and Z.C.Y. conceptualized and designed the research; Z.C.Y. carried out the bioinformatics analysis; L.D.Q., H.L.J., and X.X.W. conducted the experiments; Y.X.L. and Z.C.Y. interpreted the results; Z.C.Y. and L.D.Q. prepared the visualization; Z.C.Y. wrote the initial manuscript; Y.X.L. and X.Y.H revised the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Note 1.

We divided all species pairs into six categories based on whether the two species belonged to the same genus, family, order, class, phylum, or kingdom. These categories represent different divergent levels between species pairs. Considering the impact of the divergent level, linear regression analyses were conducted with the wsp distance as the dependent variable and the category of divergent levels as the independent variable. We found that both “Parasitism” and “Plant-sharing” had significant effects (both tests: p < 2e^-16 11 ), while “Predation” showed no significant effect (p = 0.58). The estimated effect of “Parasitism” (-0.28) was more profound than that of “Plant-sharing” (-0.14) (p = 1.32e^-15).

Supplementary Note 2.

Encarsia formosa wasps that had emerged within 24 h were exposed to Co⁶⁰ radiation at doses of 60, 80 and 100 Gy. On day 15 after irradiation treatments, the survival rate of adult wasps was 73.33 ± 3.33% in the nonirradiated group (Fig. S8). In contrast, the survival rates were 45.56 ± 1.92%, 7.78 ± 6.94%, and 3.33 ± 3.33% after exposure to 60 Gy, 80 Gy, and 100 Gy radiation, respectively. The survival rate of adult wasps decreased with increasing irradiation doses (Fig. S8; ANOVA; F3,8 = 34.18, p < 0.001). After irradiation, the ovaries were dissected, and changes in egg dimensions were recorded (Fig. S9). Following 80 and 100 Gy irradiation, almost no eggs were detected starting from day 4, while after 60 Gy irradiation, eggs were nearly absent starting from day 9. Fig. S10 shows the ovaries on days 1, 4, and 9 post-exposure to various irradiation doses. In the nonirradiated En. formosa, there were no obvious changes in the morphology of the ovarioles or oocytes from days 1 to 9 (Fig. S10). However, 4 days post-irradiation, the ovarioles of wasps exposed to 60 Gy appeared thinner, and some oocytes had dissolved (Fig. S10). In addition, the ovarioles of wasps exposed to 80 Gy and 100 Gy had become transparent, with the majority of the oocytes disappearing and becoming invisible (Fig. S10). Parasitism experiments demonstrated that the nonirradiated En. formosa laid 7.3 ± 1.1 eggs in 12 h. This number significantly dropped to 3.2 ± 0.9 eggs for wasps exposed to 60 Gy radiation (Fig. 3a; Student's t test; t = 12.91, p < 0.001). The wasps exposed to 80 Gy and 100 Gy radiation almost completely ceased egg laying, resulting in insufficient data collection.

Subsampling by (a) shuffling species pairs, (b) controlling divergent time or (c) last common ancestor.
For each method, 1000 replicates were randomly generated. Details are provided in the Methods and Materials. Red dots indicate the observed minimum interspecific distances of *wsp* for different species pair categories.

Alignment of wsp sequences detected from *En. formosa* and *B. tabaci* in the cage experiment.

Relative titer of *Wolbachia* in *En. formosa* after radiation.
Relative *Wolbachia* titer in radiated female adults of *En. formosa* were evaluated using qPCR of the *Wolbachia* *ftsZ* gene. The 28S rRNA gene of *En. formosa* was used as the reference. Data are presented as the means ± SEs (n = 5).

FISH visualization of *Wolbachia* in parasitized and nonparasitized nymphs of *B. tabaci*.
**(a–c)** Fluorescence **(a)**, bright field **(b)** and combined **(c)** images of parasitized 2nd instar nymph of B. tabaci. **(d–f)** Fluorescence **(d)**, bright field **(e)** and combined **(f)** images of parasitized 3rd instar nymph of *B. tabaci*. **(g–i)** Fluorescence **(g)**, bright field **(h)** and combined **(i)** images of nonparasitized 2nd instar nymphs of B. tabaci. The combined photos are identical to the photos shown in Fig. 3d–f. E: injected eggs from *En. formosa*.

FISH visualization of *Wolbachia* in G₃ *B. tabaci*.
**(a–c)** Fluorescence **(a)**, bright field **(b)** and combined **(c)** of G₃ whitefly nymph. **(d–f)** Fluorescence **(d)**, bright field **(e)** and combined **(f)** images of G₃ whitefly female adults. **(g–i)** Fluorescence **(g)**, bright field **(h)** and combined **(i)** images of G₃ whitefly male adults. The combined photos are identical to the photos shown in Fig. 4c–e. B: bacteriocyte; E: eggs in ovary of female whitefly.

Maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis of detected *Wolbachia* strains in *B. tabaci* and *En. formosa*.
**(a)** Phylogenetic tree constructed using five MLST genes (i.e., *coxA*, *fbpA*, *gatB*, *hcpA*, *ftsZ*). **(b)** Phylogenetic tree constructed using the *wsp* gene. The bootstrap values are represented at the nodes. Sequences obtained in this study are emphasized in bold.

PCR detection of *Wolbachia* in *B. tabaci*.
M: DNA marker; lane 1: *Wolbachia*-positive whitefly; lane 2: *Wolbachia*-negative whitefly; lane 3: *En. formosa* as a positive control; lane 4: ddH₂O as a negative control.

Survival of *En. formosa* after radiation at various doses.
Data are presented as the means ± SEs (n = 8).

Lengths (a) and widths (b) of *En. formosa* eggs after irradiation at various doses.
Data are presented as the means ± SEs. The sample sizes are typically 10, with the exception of day 3 post-irradiation at 80 Gy and 100 Gy, where the sample sizes are 3 and 2, respectively. This reduction in sample size is due to the scarcity of eggs resulting from irradiation.

Morphologies of dissected *En. formosa* ovaries at 1, 4 and 9 days after radiation at various doses.

References

1.
1. Bright M.
2. Bulgheresi S.
2010A complex journey: transmission of microbial symbiontsNat. Rev. Microbiol 8:218–230
2.
1. Perreau J.
2. Moran N. A.
2022Genetic innovations in animal-microbe symbiosesNat. Rev. Genet 23:23–39
3.
1. Douglas A. E.
2015Multiorganismal insects: diversity and function of resident microorganismsAnnu. Rev. Entomol 60:17–34
4.
1. Mestre A.
2. Poulin R.
3. Hortal J.
2020A niche perspective on the range expansion of symbiontsBiol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc 95:491–516
5.
1. Sachs J. L.
2. Skophammer R. G.
3. Regus J. U.
2011Evolutionary transitions in bacterial symbiosisProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108:10800–10807
6.
1. Fisher R. M.
2. Henry L. M.
3. Cornwallis C. K.
4. Kiers E. T.
5. West S. A.
2017The evolution of host-symbiont dependenceNat. Commun 8
7.
1. Werren J. H.
2. Baldo L.
3. Clark M. E.
2008Wolbachia: master manipulators of invertebrate biologyNat. Rev. Microbiol 6:741–751
8.
1. Kaur R.
2. et al.
2021Living in the endosymbiotic world of Wolbachia: a centennial reviewCell Host Microbe 29:879–893
9.
1. Porter J.
2. Sullivan W.
2023The cellular lives of WolbachiaNat. Rev. Microbiol 21:750–766
10.
1. Scholz M.
2. et al.
2020Large scale genome reconstructions illuminate Wolbachia evolutionNat. Commun 11
11.
1. Vancaester E.
2. Blaxter M.
2023Phylogenomic analysis of Wolbachia genomes from the Darwin Tree of Life biodiversity genomics projectPLoS Biol 21
12.
1. Zheng X.
2. et al.
2019Incompatible and sterile insect techniques combined eliminate mosquitoesNature 572:56–61
13.
1. Hoffmann A. A.
2. et al.
2011Successful establishment of Wolbachia in Aedes populations to suppress dengue transmissionNature 476:454–457
14.
1. Loreto E. L.
2. Wallau G. L.
2016Risks of Wolbachia mosquito controlScience 351
15.
1. Sanaei E.
2. Charlat S.
3. Engelstadter J.
2021Wolbachia host shifts: routes, mechanisms, constraints and evolutionary consequencesBiol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc 96:433–453
16.
1. Noda H.
2. et al.
2001Infection shared among planthoppers (Homoptera: Delphacidae) and their endoparasite (Strepsiptera: Elenchidae): a probable case of interspecies transmissionMol. Ecol 10:2101–2106
17.
1. Vavre F.
2. Fleury F.
3. Lepetit D.
4. Fouillet P.
5. Bouletreau M.
1999Phylogenetic evidence for horizontal transmission of Wolbachia in host-parasitoid associationsMol. Biol. Evol 16:1711–1723
18.
1. Kittayapong P.
2. Jamnongluk W.
3. Thipaksorn A.
4. Milne J. R.
5. Sindhusake C.
2003Infection complexity among insects in the tropical rice-field communityMol. Ecol 12:1049–1060
19.
1. Hou H.
2. Zhao G.
3. Su C.
4. Zhu D.
2020Wolbachia prevalence patterns: horizontal transmission, recombination, and multiple infections in chestnut gall wasp-parasitoid communitiesEntomol. Exp. Appl 168:752–765
20.
1. Morrow J. L.
2. Frommer M.
3. Shearman D. C. A.
4. Riegler M.
2014Tropical tephritid fruit fly community with high incidence of shared strains as platform for horizontal transmission of endosymbiontsEnviron. Microbiol 16:3622–3637
21.
1. Kageyama D.
2. Narita S.
3. Imamura T.
4. Miyanoshita A.
2010Detection and identification of Wolbachia endosymbionts from laboratory stocks of stored-product insect pests and their parasitoidsJ. Stored. Prod. Res 46:13–19
22.
1. Heath B. D.
2. Butcher R. D. J.
3. Whitfield W. G. F.
4. Hubbard S. F.
1999Horizontal transfer of between phylogenetically distant insect species by a naturally occurring mechanismCurr. Biol 9:313–316
23.
1. Aboumourad M.
2. zu Dohna H.
2023Unidirectional and heterogenous Wolbachia transfer rates among insect host orders
24.
1. Hughes D. P.
2. Pamilo P.
3. Kathirithamby J.
2004Horizontal transmission of Wolbachia by strepsipteran endoparasites? A response to Noda et al., 2001Mol. Ecol 13:507–509
25.
1. Smith S. M.
1996Biological control with Trichogramma: advances, successes, and potential of their useAnnu. Rev. Entomol 41:375–406
26.
1. Hoddle M. S.
2. Van Driesche R. G.
3. Sanderson J. P.
1998Biology and use of the whitefly parasitoid Encarsia formosaAnnu. Rev. Entomol 43:645–669
27.
1. Wang X. X.
2. Qi L. D.
3. Jiang R.
4. Du Y. Z.
5. Li Y. X.
2017Incomplete removal of with tetracycline has two-edged reproductive effects in the thelytokous wasp (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae)Sci. Rep 7
28.
1. Andreason S. A.
2. et al.
2020Whitefly Endosymbionts: Biology, Evolution, and Plant Virus InteractionsInsects 11
29.
1. Bing X. L.
2. et al.
2014Diversity and evolution of the Wolbachia endosymbionts of Bemisia (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) whitefliesEcol. Evol 4:2714–2737
30.
1. Zchori-Fein E.
2. Lahav T.
3. Freilich S.
2014Variations in the identity and complexity of endosymbiont combinations in whitefly hostsBMC Microbiol 5
31.
1. Gueguen G.
2. et al.
2010Endosymbiont metacommunities, mtDNA diversity and the evolution of the Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) species complexMol. Ecol 19:4365–4376
32.
1. Weber I. D.
2. Czepak C.
3. Albernaz-Godinho K. C.
4. Borges K. M. B.
5. Coelho A. S. G.
2022Validation of a sampling method: using one square centimeter for sampling the immature stages of Bemisia tabaci in soybeanEntomol. Exp. Appl 170:488–494
33.
1. Shi P.
2. et al.
2016Wolbachia has two different localization patterns in whitefly Bemisia tabaci AsiaII7 SpeciesPLoS One 11
34.
1. Hassell M P
2. Waage J. K.
1984Host-parasitoid population interactionsAnnu. Rev. Entomol 29:89–114
35.
1. Oliver K. M.
2. Russell J. A.
3. Moran N. A.
4. Hunter M. S.
2003Facultative bacterial symbionts in aphids confer resistance to parasitic waspsProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:1803–1807
36.
1. Arunkumar R.
2. et al.
2023Natural selection has driven the recurrent loss of an immunity gene that protects against a major natural parasiteProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120
37.
1. Zhang J. J.
2. et al.
2014Effects of host-egg ages on host selection and suitability of four Chinese Trichogramma species, egg parasitoids of the rice striped stem borerChilo suppressalis. Biocontrol 59:159–166
38.
1. Ahmed M. Z.
2. et al.
2015The intracellular bacterium uses parasitoid wasps as phoretic vectors for efficient horizontal transmissionPLoS Pathog 11
39.
1. Huigens M. E.
2. et al.
2000Infectious parthenogenesisNature 405:178–179
40.
1. Huigens M. E.
2. de Almeida R. P.
3. Boons P. A.
4. Luck R. F.
5. Stouthamer R.
2004Natural interspecific and intraspecific horizontal transfer of parthenogenesis-inducing Wolbachia in Trichogramma waspsProc. Biol. Sci 271:509–515
41.
1. Li S. J.
2. et al.
2017Plant-mediated horizontal transmission of between whitefliesISME J 11:1019–1028
42.
1. Katoh K.
2. Standley D. M.
2013MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usabilityMol. Biol. Evol 30:772–780
43.
1. Suyama M.
2. Torrents D.
3. Bork P.
2006PAL2NAL: robust conversion of protein sequence alignments into the corresponding codon alignmentsNucleic Acids Res 34:W609–612
44.
1. Minh B. Q.
2. et al.
2020IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic eraMol. Biol. Evol 37:1530–1534
45.
1. Kalyaanamoorthy S.
2. Minh B. Q.
3. Wong T. K. F.
4. von Haeseler A.
5. Jermiin L. S.
2017ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimatesNat. Methods 14:587–589
46.
1. Letunic I.
2. Bork P.
2016Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v3: an online tool for the display and annotation of phylogenetic and other treesNucleic Acids Res 44:W242–245
47.
1. Poelen J. H.
2. Simons J. D.
3. Mungall C. J.
2014Global biotic interactions: An open infrastructure to share and analyze species-interaction datasetsEcol. Inform 24:148–159
48.
1. Kumar S.
2. et al.
2022TimeTree 5: an expanded resource for species divergence timesMol. Biol. Evol 39
49.
1. Ji H. L.
2. Qi L. D.
3. Hong X. Y.
4. Xie H. F.
5. Li Y. X.
2015Effects of host sex, plant species, and putative host species on the prevalence of Wolbachia in natural populations of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae): a modified nested PCR studyJ. Econ. Entomol 108:210–218
50.
1. Baldo L.
2. et al.
2006Multilocus sequence typing system for the endosymbiont Wolbachia pipientisAppl. Environ. Microb 72:7098–7110
51.
1. Heddi A.
2. Grenier A. M.
3. Khatchadourian C.
4. Charles H.
5. Nardon P.
1999Four intracellular genomes direct weevil biology: nuclear, mitochondrial, principal endosymbiont, and WolbachiaProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:6814–6819

Article and author information

Author information

Zhi-Chao Yan
Department of Entomology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9140-2926
Lan-Da Qi
Department of Entomology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
Han-Le Ji
Department of Entomology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
Xiao-Xiang Wang
Department of Entomology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
Xiao-Yue Hong
Department of Entomology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
- To whom correspondence should be addressed: Yuan-Xi Li (E-mail: yxli@njau.edu.cn), Xiao-Yue Hong (E-mail: xyhong@njau.edu.cn)
Yuan-Xi Li
Department of Entomology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4401-8830
- To whom correspondence should be addressed: Yuan-Xi Li (E-mail: yxli@njau.edu.cn), Xiao-Yue Hong (E-mail: xyhong@njau.edu.cn)

Version history

Preprint posted: March 20, 2024
Sent for peer review: March 20, 2024
Reviewed Preprint version 1: June 20, 2024

Copyright

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a provisional response from the authors.

Reviewing Editor
Bruno Lemaitre
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Senior Editor
Wendy Garrett
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States of America

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary and Strengths:

The ability of Wolbachia to be transmitted horizontally during parasitoid wasp infections is supported by phylogenetic data here and elsewhere. Experimental analyses have shown evidence of wasp-to-wasp transmission during coinfection (eg Huigins et al), host to wasp transmission (eg Heath et al), and mechanical ('dirty needle') transmission from host to host (Ahmed et al). To my knowledge this manuscript provides the first experimental evidence of wasp to host transmission. Given the strong phylogenetic pattern of host-parasitoid Wolbachia sharing, this may be of general importance in explaining the distribution of Wolbachia across arthropods. This is of interest as Wolbachia is extremely common in the natural world and influences many aspects of host biology.

Weaknesses:

The first observation of the manuscript is that the Wolbachia strains in hosts are more closely related to those in their parasitoids. This has been reported on multiple occasions before, dating back to the late 1990s. The introduction cites five such papers (the observation is made in other studies too that could be cited) but then dismisses them by stating "However, without quantitative tests, this observation could simply reflect a bias in research focus." As these studies include carefully collected datasets that were analysed appropriately, I felt this claim of novelty was rather strong. It is unclear why downloading every sequence in GenBank avoids any perceived biases, when presumably the authors are reanalysing the data in these papers.

I do not doubt the observation that host-parasitoid pairs tend to share related Wolbachia, as it is corroborated by other studies, the effect size is large, and the case study of whitefly is clearcut. It is also novel to do this analysis on such a large dataset. However, the statistical analysis used is incorrect as the observations are pseudo-replicated due to phylogenetic non-independence. When analysing comparative data like this it is essential to correct for the confounding effects of related species tending to be similar due to common ancestry. In this case, it is well-known that this is an issue as it is a repeated observation that related hosts are infected by related Wolbachia. However, the authors treat every pairwise combination of species (nearly a million pairs) as an independent observation. Addressing this issue is made more complex because there are both the host and symbiont trees to consider. The additional analysis in lines 123-124 (including shuffling species pairs) does not explicitly address this issue.

The sharing of Wolbachia between whitefly and their parasitoids is very striking, although this has been reported before (eg the authors recently published a paper entitled "Diversity and Phylogenetic Analyses Reveal Horizontal Transmission of Endosymbionts Between Whiteflies and Their Parasitoids"). In Lines 154-164 it is suggested that from the tree the direction of transfer between host and parasitoid can be inferred from the data. This is not obvious to me given the poor resolution of the tree due to low sequence divergence. There are established statistical approaches to test the direction of trait changes on a tree that could have been used (a common approach is to use the software BEAST).

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.97872.1.sa2

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The paper by Yan et al. aims to provide evidence for horizontal transmission of the intracellular bacterial symbiont Wolbachia from parasitoid wasps to their whitefly hosts. In my opinion, the paper in its current form consists of major flaws.

Weaknesses:

The dogma in the field is that although horizontal transmission events of Wolbachia occur, in most systems they are so rare that the chances of observing them in the lab are very slim.
For the idea of bacteria moving from a parasitoid to its host, the authors have rightfully cited the paper by Hughes, et al. (2001), which presents the main arguments against the possibility of documenting such transmissions. Thus, if the authors want to provide data that contradict the large volume of evidence showing the opposite, they should present a very strong case.

In my opinion, the paper fails to provide such concrete evidence. Moreover, it seems the work presented does not meet the basic scientific standards.

My main reservations are:

- I think the distribution pattern of bacteria stained by the probes in the FISH pictures presented in Figure 4 looks very much like Portiera, the primary symbiont found in the bacterium of all whitefly species. In order to make a strong case, the authors need to include Portiera probes along with the Wolbachia ones.

- If I understand the methods correctly, the phylogeny presented in Figure 2a is supposed to be based on a wide search for Wolbachia wsp gene done on the NCBI dataset (p. 348). However, when I checked the origin of some of the sequences used in the tree to show the similarity of Wolbachia between Bemisia tabaci and its parasitoids, I found that most of them were deposited by the authors themselves in the course of the current study (I could not find this mentioned in the text), or originated in a couple of papers that in my opinion should not have been published to begin with.

- The authors fail to discuss or even acknowledge a number of published studies that specifically show no horizontal transmission, such as the one claimed to be detected in the study presented.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.97872.1.sa1

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This is a very ordinary research paper. The horizontal of endosymbionts, including Wolbachia, Rickettsia etc. has been reported in detail in the last 10 years, and parasitoid vectored as well as plant vectored horizontal transmission is the mainstream of research. For example, Ahmed et al. 2013 PLoS One, 2015 PLoS Pathogens, Chiel et al. 2014 Enviromental Entomology, Ahmed et al. 2016 BMC Evolution Biology, Qi et al. 2019 JEE, Liu et al. 2023 Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, all of these reported the parasitoid vectored horizontal transmission of endosymbiont. While Caspi-Fluger et al. 2012 Proc Roy Soc B, Chrostek et al. 2017 Frontiers in Microbiology, Li et al. 2017 ISME Journal, Li et al. 2017 FEMS, Shi et al. 2024 mBio, all of these reported the plant vectored horizontal transmission of endosymbiont. For the effects of endosymbiont on the biology of the host, Ahmed et al. 2015 PLoS Pathogens explained the effects in detail.

Weaknesses:

In the current study, the authors downloaded the MLST or wsp genes from a public database and analyzed the data using other methods, and I think the authors may not be familiar with the research progress in the field of insect symbiont transmission, and the current stage of this manuscript lacking sufficient novelty.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.97872.1.sa0

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary and Strengths:

The ability of Wolbachia to be transmitted horizontally during parasitoid wasp infections is supported by phylogenetic data here and elsewhere. Experimental analyses have shown evidence of wasp-to-wasp transmission during coinfection (eg Huigins et al), host to wasp transmission (eg Heath et al), and mechanical ('dirty needle') transmission from host to host (Ahmed et al). To my knowledge this manuscript provides the first experimental evidence of wasp to host transmission. Given the strong phylogenetic pattern of host-parasitoid Wolbachia sharing, this may be of general importance in explaining the distribution of Wolbachia across arthropods. This is of interest as Wolbachia is extremely common in the natural world and influences many aspects of host biology.

Weaknesses:

The first observation of the manuscript is that the Wolbachia strains in hosts are more closely related to those in their parasitoids. This has been reported on multiple occasions before, dating back to the late 1990s. The introduction cites five such papers (the observation is made in other studies too that could be cited) but then dismisses them by stating "However, without quantitative tests, this observation could simply reflect a bias in research focus." As these studies include carefully collected datasets that were analysed appropriately, I felt this claim of novelty was rather strong. It is unclear why downloading every sequence in GenBank avoids any perceived biases, when presumably the authors are reanalysing the data in these papers.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we will make the necessary amendments in our revised manuscript.

I do not doubt the observation that host-parasitoid pairs tend to share related Wolbachia, as it is corroborated by other studies, the effect size is large, and the case study of whitefly is clearcut. It is also novel to do this analysis on such a large dataset. However, the statistical analysis used is incorrect as the observations are pseudo-replicated due to phylogenetic non-independence. When analysing comparative data like this it is essential to correct for the confounding effects of related species tending to be similar due to common ancestry. In this case, it is well-known that this is an issue as it is a repeated observation that related hosts are infected by related Wolbachia. However, the authors treat every pairwise combination of species (nearly a million pairs) as an independent observation. Addressing this issue is made more complex because there are both the host and symbiont trees to consider. The additional analysis in lines 123-124 (including shuffling species pairs) does not explicitly address this issue.

We concur with your observation regarding the non-independence of the data due to phylogenetic relationships. While common phylogenetic correction methods are indeed not directly applicable to wsp distances between species pairs, we are investigating the potential of phylogenetic mixed models to address this issue. We hope to include a revised analysis using this approach in our revised manuscript.

The sharing of Wolbachia between whitefly and their parasitoids is very striking, although this has been reported before (eg the authors recently published a paper entitled "Diversity and Phylogenetic Analyses Reveal Horizontal Transmission of Endosymbionts Between Whiteflies and Their Parasitoids"). In Lines 154-164 it is suggested that from the tree the direction of transfer between host and parasitoid can be inferred from the data. This is not obvious to me given the poor resolution of the tree due to low sequence divergence. There are established statistical approaches to test the direction of trait changes on a tree that could have been used (a common approach is to use the software BEAST).

Thank you for your insightful comments regarding the transfer direction of Wolbachia between whiteflies and their parasitoids. We acknowledge the concern about the resolution of the phylogenetic tree and the inference of the direction of Wolbachia transmission based on the available data. We considered the high infection frequency and obligate nature of Wolbachia in En. formosa, which exhibits a 100% infection rate, as a strong indicator that recent transmission of Wolbachia in this clade likely occurred from En. formosa to B. tabaci. We appreciate your recommendation and will ensure that our conclusions are supported by a more statistically sound approach. As you suggested, we will employ the software BEAST to rigorously test the direction of transmission, and we will revise our statements accordingly.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The paper by Yan et al. aims to provide evidence for horizontal transmission of the intracellular bacterial symbiont Wolbachia from parasitoid wasps to their whitefly hosts. In my opinion, the paper in its current form consists of major flaws.

Weaknesses:

The dogma in the field is that although horizontal transmission events of Wolbachia occur, in most systems they are so rare that the chances of observing them in the lab are very slim.

For the idea of bacteria moving from a parasitoid to its host, the authors have rightfully cited the paper by Hughes, et al. (2001), which presents the main arguments against the possibility of documenting such transmissions. Thus, if the authors want to provide data that contradict the large volume of evidence showing the opposite, they should present a very strong case.

In my opinion, the paper fails to provide such concrete evidence. Moreover, it seems the work presented does not meet the basic scientific standards.

We are grateful for your critical perspective on our work. Nonetheless, we are confident in the credibility of our findings regarding the horizontal transmission of Wolbachia from En. formosa to B. tabaci. Our study has documented this phenomenon through phylogenetic tree analyses, and we have further substantiated our observations with rigorous experiments in both cages and petri dishes. The horizontal transfer of Wolbachia was confirmed via PCR, with the wsp sequences in B. tabaci showing complete concordance with those in En. formosa. Additionally, we utilized FISH, vertical transmission experiments, and phenotypic assays to demonstrate that the transferred Wolbachia could be vertically transmitted and induce significant fitness cost in B. tabaci. All experiments were conducted with strict negative controls and a sufficient number of replicates to ensure reliability, thereby meeting basic scientific standards. The collective evidence we present points to a definitive case of Wolbachia transmission from the parasitoid En. formosa to the whitefly B. tabaci.

My main reservations are:

I think the distribution pattern of bacteria stained by the probes in the FISH pictures presented in Figure 4 looks very much like Portiera, the primary symbiont found in the bacterium of all whitefly species. In order to make a strong case, the authors need to include Portiera probes along with the Wolbachia ones.

We are very grateful for your critical evaluation regarding the specificity of FISH in our study. We assure the reliability of our FISH results based on several reasons.

We implemented rigorous negative controls which exhibited no detectable signal, thereby affirming the specificity of our hybridization. 2) The central region of the whitefly nymphs is a typical oviposition site for En. formosa. Post-parasitism, we observed FISH signals around the introduced parasitoid eggs, distinct from bacteriocyte cells which are rich in endosymbionts including Portiera (FIG 3e-f). This observation supports the high specificity of our FISH method. 3) In the G3 whiteflies, we detected the presence of Wolbachia in bacteriocytes in nymphs and at the posterior end of eggs in adult females (FIG 4). This distribution pattern aligns with previously reported localizations of Wolbachia in B. tabaci (Shi et al., 2016; Skaljac et al., 2013). Furthermore, the distribution of Wolbachia in the whiteflies does indeed exhibit some overlap with that of Portiera (Skaljac et al., 2013; Bing et al., 2014). 4) The primers used in our FISH assays have been widely cited (Heddi et al., 1999) and validated in studies on B. tabaci and other systems (Guo et al., 2018; Hegde et al., 2024; Krafsur et al., 2020; Rasgon et al., 2006; Uribe-Alvarez et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2013). Taking all these points into consideration, we stand by the reliability of our FISH results.

References:

Bing XL, Xia WQ, Gui JD, Yan GH, Wang XW, Liu SS. 2014. Diversity and evolution of the Wolbachia endosymbionts of Bemisia (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) whiteflies. Ecol Evol, 4(13): 2714-37.

Guo, Y, Hoffmann, AA, Xu, XQ, Zhang X, Huang HJ, Ju JF, Gong JT, Hong XY. 2018. Wolbachia-induced apoptosis associated with increased fecundity in Laodelphax striatellus (Hemiptera: Delphacidae). Insect Mol Biol, 27: 796-807.

Heddi A, Grenier AM, Khatchadourian C, Charles H, Nardon P. 1999. Four intracellular genomes direct weevil biology: Nuclear, mitochondrial, principal endosymbiont, and Wolbachia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 96: 6814-6819.

Hegde S, Marriott AE, Pionnier N, Steven A, Bulman C, Gunderson E, et al. 2024. Combinations of the azaquinazoline anti-Wolbachia agent, AWZ1066S, with benzimidazole anthelmintics synergise to mediate sub-seven-day sterilising and curative efficacies in experimental models of filariasis. Front Microbiol, 15: 1346068.

Krafsur AM, Ghosh A, Brelsfoard CL. 2020. Phenotypic response of Wolbachia pipientis in a cell-free medium. Microorganisms, 8: 1060.

Rasgon JL, Gamston, CE, Ren X. 2006. Survival of Wolbachia pipientis in cell-free medium. Appl Environ Microbiol, 72: 6934-6937.

Shi P, He Z, Li S, An X, Lv N, Ghanim M, Cuthbertson AGS, Ren SX, Qiu BL. 2016. Wolbachia has two different localization patterns in whitefly Bemisia tabaci AsiaII7 species. PLoS One, 11: e0162558.

Skaljac M, Zanić K, Hrnčić S, Radonjić S, Perović T, Ghanim M. 2013. Diversity and localization of bacterial symbionts in three whitefly species (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) from the east coast of the Adriatic Sea. Bull Entomol Res, 103(1): 48-59.

Uribe-Alvarez C, Chiquete-Félix N, Morales-García L, Bohórquez-Hernández A, Delgado-Buenrostro N L, Vaca L, et al. 2019. Wolbachia pipientis grows in Saccharomyces cerevisiae evoking early death of the host and deregulation of mitochondrial metabolism. MicrobiologyOpen, 8: e00675.

Zhao DX, Zhang XF, Chen DS, Zhang YK, Hong XY, 2013. Wolbachia-host interactions: Host mating patterns affect Wolbachia density dynamics. PLoS One, 8: e66373.

If I understand the methods correctly, the phylogeny presented in Figure 2a is supposed to be based on a wide search for Wolbachia wsp gene done on the NCBI dataset (p. 348). However, when I checked the origin of some of the sequences used in the tree to show the similarity of Wolbachia between Bemisia tabaci and its parasitoids, I found that most of them were deposited by the authors themselves in the course of the current study (I could not find this mentioned in the text), or originated in a couple of papers that in my opinion should not have been published to begin with.

We appreciate your meticulous examination of the sources for our sequence data. All the sequences included in our phylogenetic analysis were indeed downloaded from the NCBI database as of July 2023. The sequences used to illustrate the similarity of Wolbachia between B. tabaci and its parasitoids include those from our previously published study (Qi et al., 2019), which were sequenced from field samples. Additionally, some sequences were also obtained from other laboratories (Ahmed et al., 2009; Baldo et al., 2006; Van Meer et al., 1999). We acknowledge that in our prior research (Qi et al., 2019), the sequences were directly submitted to NCBI and, regrettably, we did not update the corresponding publication information after the article were published. It is not uncommon for sequences on NCBI, with some never being followed by a published paper (e.g., FJ710487- FJ710511 and JF426137-JF426149), or not having their associated publication details updated post-publication (for instance, sequences MH918776-MH918794 from Qi et al., 2019, and KF017873-KF017878 from Fattah-Hosseini et al., 2018). We recognize that this practice can lead to confusion and apologize for the oversight in our work.

References:

Ahmed MZ, Shatters RG, Ren, SX, Jin GH, Mandour NS, Qiu BL. 2009. Genetic distinctions among the Mediterranean and Chinese populations of Bemisia tabaci Q biotype and their endosymbiont Wolbachia populations. J Appl Entomol, 133: 733-741.

Baldo L, Hotopp JCD, Jolley KA, Bordenstein SR, Biber SA, Choudhury RR, et al. 2006. Multilocus sequence typing system for the endosymbiont Wolbachia pipientis. Appl Environ Microbiol, 72: 7098-110.

Fattah-Hosseini S, Karimi J, Allahyari H. 2014. Molecular characterization of Iranian Encarsia formosa Gahan populations with natural incidence of Wolbachia infection. J Entomol Res Soc, 20: 85–100.

Qi LD, Sun JT, Hong XY, Li YX. 2019. Diversity and phylogenetic analyses reveal horizontal transmission of endosymbionts between whiteflies and their parasitoids. J Econ Entomol, 112(2): 894-905.

Van Meer MM, Witteveldt J, Stouthamer R. 1999. Phylogeny of the arthropod endosymbiont Wolbachia based on the wsp gene. Insect Mol Biol, 8: 399-408.

The authors fail to discuss or even acknowledge a number of published studies that specifically show no horizontal transmission, such as the one claimed to be detected in the study presented.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will address and discuss the published studies that report no evidence of horizontal transmission, as you've highlighted, in the revised version of our manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This is a very ordinary research paper. The horizontal of endosymbionts, including Wolbachia, Rickettsia etc. has been reported in detail in the last 10 years, and parasitoid vectored as well as plant vectored horizontal transmission is the mainstream of research. For example, Ahmed et al. 2013 PLoS One, 2015 PLoS Pathogens, Chiel et al. 2014 Enviromental Entomology, Ahmed et al. 2016 BMC Evolution Biology, Qi et al. 2019 JEE, Liu et al. 2023 Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, all of these reported the parasitoid vectored horizontal transmission of endosymbiont. While Caspi-Fluger et al. 2012 Proc Roy Soc B, Chrostek et al. 2017 Frontiers in Microbiology, Li et al. 2017 ISME Journal, Li et al. 2017 FEMS, Shi et al. 2024 mBio, all of these reported the plant vectored horizontal transmission of endosymbiont. For the effects of endosymbiont on the biology of the host, Ahmed et al. 2015 PLoS Pathogens explained the effects in detail.

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and for highlighting the relevant literature in the field of horizontal transmission of endosymbionts, including Wolbachia and Rickettsia. After careful consideration of the studies you have mentioned, we believe that our work presents significant novel contributions to the field. 1) Regarding the parasitoid-mediated horizontal transmission of Wolbachia, most of the cited articles, such as Ahmed et al. 2013 in PLoS One and Ahmed et al. 2016 in BMC Evolutionary Biology, propose hypotheses but do not provide definitive evidence. The transmission of Wolbachia within the whitefly cryptic species complex (Ahmed et al. 2013) or between moths and butterflies (Ahmed et al. 2016) could be mediated by parasitoids, plants, or other unknown pathways. 2) Chiel et al. (2014 in Environmental Entomology reported “no evidence for horizontal transmission of Wolbachia between and within trophic levels” in their study system. 3) The literature you mentioned about Rickettsia, rather than Wolbachia, indirectly reflects the relative scarcity of evidence for Wolbachia horizontal transmission. For example, the evidence for plant-mediated transmission of Wolbachia remains isolated, with Li et al. 2017 in The ISME Journal being one of the few reports supporting this mode of transmission. 4) While the effects of endosymbionts on their hosts are not the central focus of our study, the effects of transgenerational Wolbachia on whiteflies are primarily demonstrated to confirm the infection of Wolbachia into whiteflies. Furthermore, the effects we report of Wolbachia on whiteflies are notably different from those reported by Ahmed et al. 2015 in PLoS Pathogens, likely due to different whitefly species and Wolbachia strains. 6) More importantly, our study reveals a mechanism of parasitoid-mediated horizontal transmission of Wolbachia that is distinct from the mechanical transmission suggested by Ahmed et al. 2015 in PLoS Pathogens. Their study implies transmission primarily through host-feeding contamination, without the need for Wolbachia to infect the parasitoid, suggesting host-to-host transmission at the same trophic level. In contrast, our findings demonstrate transmission from parasitoids to hosts through unsuccessful parasitism, which represents cross-trophic level transmission. To our knowledge, this is the first experimental evidence that Wolbachia can be transmitted from parasitoids to hosts. We believe these clarifications and the novel insights provided by our research contribute valuable knowledge to the field.

References:

Ahmed MZ, De Barro PJ, Ren SX, Greeff JM, Qiu BL. 2013. Evidence for horizontal transmission of secondary endosymbionts in the Bemisia tabaci cryptic species complex. PLoS One, 8: e53084.

Ahmed MZ, Li SJ, Xue X, Yin XJ, Ren SX, Jiggins FM, Greeff JM, Qiu BL. 2015. The intracellular bacterium Wolbachia uses parasitoid wasps as phoretic vectors for efficient horizontal transmission. PLoS Pathog, 10: e1004672.

Ahmed MZ, Breinholt JW, Kawahara AY. 2016. Evidence for common horizontal transmission of Wolbachia among butterflies and moths. BMC Evol Biol, 16: 118. doi.org/10.1186/s12862-016-0660-x.

Caspi-Fluger A, Inbar M, Mozes-Daube N, Katzir N, Portnoy V, Belausov E, Hunter MS, Zchori-Fein E. 2012. Horizontal transmission of the insect symbiont Rickettsia is plant-mediated. Proc Biol Sci, 279(1734): 1791-6.

Chiel E, Kelly SE, Harris AM, Gebiola M, Li X, Zchori-Fein E, Hunter MS. 2014. Characteristics, phenotype, and transmission of Wolbachia in the sweet potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), and its parasitoid Eretmocerus sp. nr. emiratus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Environ Entomol, 43(2): 353-62.

Chrostek E, Pelz-Stelinski K, Hurst GDD, Hughes GL. 2017. Horizontal transmission of intracellular insect symbionts via plants. Front Microbiol, 8: 2237.

Li SJ, Ahmed MZ, Lv N, Shi PQ, Wang XM, Huang JL, Qiu BL. 2017. Plantmediated horizontal transmission of Wolbachia between whiteflies. ISME J, 11: 1019-1028.

Li YH, Ahmed MZ, Li SJ, Lv N, Shi PQ, Chen XS, Qiu BL. 2017. Plant-mediated horizontal transmission of Rickettsia endosymbiont between different whitefly species. FEMS Microbiol Ecol, 93(12). doi: 10.1093/femsec/fix138.

Liu Y, He ZQ, Wen Q, Peng J, Zhou YT, Mandour N, McKenzie CL, Ahmed MZ, Qiu BL. 2023. Parasitoid-mediated horizontal transmission of Rickettsia between whiteflies. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 12: 1077494. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.1077494

Qi LD, Sun JT, Hong XY, Li YX. 2019. Diversity and phylogenetic analyses reveal horizontal transmission of endosymbionts between whiteflies and their parasitoids. J Econ Entomol, 112: 894-905.

Shi PQ, Wang L, Chen XY, Wang K, Wu QJ, Turlings TCJ, Zhang PJ, Qiu BL. 2024. Rickettsia transmission from whitefly to plants benefits herbivore insects but is detrimental to fungal and viral pathogens. mBio, 15(3): e0244823.

Weaknesses:

In the current study, the authors downloaded the MLST or wsp genes from a public database and analyzed the data using other methods, and I think the authors may not be familiar with the research progress in the field of insect symbiont transmission, and the current stage of this manuscript lacking sufficient novelty.

We appreciate your critical perspective on our study. However, we respectfully disagree with the viewpoint that our manuscript lacks sufficient novelty.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.97872.1.sa4

Significance of findings

Strength of evidence

Abstract

Introduction

Results

Wolbachia is frequently transmitted between parasitoid wasps and their hosts

Parasitism facilitates interspecific horizontal transfer of Wolbachia.

Wsp phylogeny suggests transfer directions of Wolbachia between the whitefly B. tabaci and its parasitoid wasps

Transfer of Wolbachia from the parasitoid wasp, Encarsia formosa, to its host, Bemisia tabaci.

Wolbachia can be transmitted from the parasitoid wasp En. formosa to its whitefly host in cage experiments

Parasitism failure transmits Wolbachia from the parasitoid wasp En. formosa to its whitefly host

Parasitism failure mediates Wolbachia transfer from En. formosa to B. tabaci.

Vertical transmission and fitness cost of Wolbachia in whiteflies after horizontal transfer from En. formosa

Vertical transmission of Wolbachia from En. formosa in B. tabaci.

Fitness costs in B. tabaci induced by Wolbachia from En. formosa.

Fitness in Bemisia tabaci of different cross combinations

Discussion

The effect of parasitism on Wolbachia horizontal transmission

Directions of Wolbachia transmission between parasitoids and their hosts

Potential intertrophic transmission network of Wolbachia

Wolbachia establishment after host transfers

Conclusions

Materials and Methods

Wsp sequence retrieval and phylogenetic analyses

Statistics for genetic distances of wsp

Insect rearing

PCR and Sanger sequencing

FISH detection of Wolbachia

Outdoor cage experiments for Wolbachia transmission

Wolbachia transmission from irradiated En. formosa to B. tabaci

Wolbachia transmission across generations in whiteflies

Effects of Wolbachia on whitefly fitness

Statistics of the experimental data

Data and code availability

Acknowledgements

Author contributions

Competing interests

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Note 1.

Supplementary Note 2.

Primers used in this study

Subsampling by (a) shuffling species pairs, (b) controlling divergent time or (c) last common ancestor.

Alignment of wsp sequences detected from En. formosa and B. tabaci in the cage experiment.

Relative titer of Wolbachia in En. formosa after radiation.

FISH visualization of Wolbachia in parasitized and nonparasitized nymphs of B. tabaci.

FISH visualization of Wolbachia in G3 B. tabaci.

Maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis of detected Wolbachia strains in B. tabaci and En. formosa.

PCR detection of Wolbachia in B. tabaci.

Survival of En. formosa after radiation at various doses.

Lengths (a) and widths (b) of En. formosa eggs after irradiation at various doses.

Morphologies of dissected En. formosa ovaries at 1, 4 and 9 days after radiation at various doses.

References

Article and author information

Author information

Zhi-Chao Yan

Lan-Da Qi

Han-Le Ji

Xiao-Xiang Wang

Xiao-Yue Hong

Yuan-Xi Li

Version history

Copyright

Peer review process

Editors

FISH visualization of Wolbachia in G₃ B. tabaci.