Diurnal rhythmicity in metabolism and salivary effector expression shapes host colonization by aphids

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary :

This study presents valuable data on diurnal patterns in aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi) feeding behavior and transcriptome profiles. The authors measured honeydew production by the aphids on plants and artificial diet during the day and night and conducted a comprehensive feeding behavior study using EPG with many biological replicates at 6 time-points in 24 hours. They also conducted transcriptome analyses of three samples of each 30 aphids at these time points. Differentially expressed transcripts were grouped into four clusters with distinct expression patterns. The expression of two genes found to be diurnally rhythmic was knocked down with RNAi and these aphids did less well, especially at night. They also analyzed the differential expression of candidate effector genes and found rhythmic ones to be enriched for more expression in aphid heads versus bodies - this pattern is expected given that effectors are most likely expressed in the salivary glands. Knockdown of a known effector (C002) that is diurnally rhythmic, and a novel effector gene, was found to alter aphid feeding dynamics and performance.

Strengths:

The manuscript was highly accessible, with clear writing, and the figures provided were both comprehensive and of good quality. The datasets generated from this research are valuable to the research field, especially the findings for honeydew secretion, EPG analysis, and transcriptome experiments.

The datasets generated in this study will be useful to scientists working on aphids and aphid-plant interactions and will inform similar studies on other insect species.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses mainly relate to the (depth of) analyses and interpretation of the data. Also, some methods require more explanation, as follows:

In Figure 1, data show that aphids produce more honeydew at night than during the day. This suggests that the aphids ingest more phloem (E2 phase). However, in Figure 1d the duration of the E2 phase does not show obvious differences among the time points in the 24 hours. The authors contribute the explanation that the aphids may osmoregulate more during the night, leading to more honeydew secretion at night. This may be the case, but there could be other explanations. For example, the physiology, including regulation of water transport, of plants is known to change during night/day. The authors may focus this section more on the differences in the E1 phase, as this involves the delivery of aphid saliva and effectors into the plant phloem.

Transcriptome data shown in Figure 2 (and the experimental procedure of Figure 5b) appears to be based on three biological replicates. However, these replicates appear to have been harvested at the same time in the experiment, and this makes them technical replicates, not biological replicates. The inclusion of true biological replicates that include samples from time series experiments done on different days should be considered.

The authors conducted knockdown experiments targeting aquaporin 1 and gut sucrase 1 in aphids, resulting in reduced nymph production and decreased honeydew secretion. It is concluded that these results indicate significant roles of aquaporin 1 and gut sucrase 1 in diurnal regulation. However, it is essential to consider that these genes likely play crucial roles in aphid physiology beyond diurnal rhythms. Consequently, reduced expression would naturally impair aphid performance. The dsAQP1 and dsSUC1 aphids consistently produced less honeydew, regardless of the time of day, indicating a broader impact of gene knockdown. The observed increase of the phenotype at night may not be attributable to the specific roles of these genes in diurnal regulation but rather due to heightened aphid activity during that time (as evidenced by increased honeydew secretion) that could magnify the impact of the knockdown effect, making it easier to observe. Therefore, the knockdown of aquaporin 1 and gut sucrase 1 may exert a general negative influence on aphid fitness, independently of diurnal factors.

To analyze the roles of genes in diurnal regulation, additional controls should be incorporated. This could involve the knockdown of genes with essential functions that are not influenced by diurnal rhythms, providing a baseline comparison. Furthermore, consider including genes known to be involved in diurnal regulation in other insects, as documented in the existing literature, in the experimental design.

The same arguments as for aquaporin 1 and gut sucrase 1 above may be made for knockdown of effector genes (Figure 4). It has already been shown that knockdown of C002 impacts aphid performance, and the data herein may be explained by a general lower performance of aphids rather than a specific function of these effectors in diurnal regulation. It is also expected that knockdown of the effectors has less impact on aphids feeding from artificial diets. This does not necessarily indicate the role of the effectors in diurnal regulation.

In the abstract and elsewhere, the authors assert priority by stating, "...the first evidence of...". However, it's important to note that priority claims are often challenging to verify across many fields. Instead of relying solely on claims of precedence, the evidence presented in the research could stand on its own merit.

Conclusion:

The study presents intriguing new findings, particularly in the realms of honeydew analysis, EPG, and transcriptome analysis. However, the interpretation of subsequent studies employing gene knockdowns needs further consideration.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors conducted a time-course of whole-body transcriptional analysis of a pest aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi, and identified four major clusters of the genes that show diurnal rhythmicity in transcription. In addition, they conducted the analysis of aphid feeding behaviour and showed that aphids salivate longer from the end of the day toward the beginning of the night while their phloem feeding time does not change throughout the day. The genes up-regulated at night time were enriched with the genes involved in metabolic activities, collaborating with the results showing a higher number of honeydew excretion at night. The authors identified the list of candidate salivary genes that show diurnal rhythmicity in the transcription and silenced a salivary gene C002 and the candidate salivary gene E8696. Silencing of these genes reduced aphid fecundity and survival rate on the host plant but not on the artificial diet.

Strengths:

The time-course transcription study and its analysis will be of interest to researchers studying diurnal rhythms in insect biology. Also, the analysis of aphid feeding behaviour at different times of day is interesting. This study provides variable resources for those who study insect biology.

Weaknesses:

It is not clear to me which data was used to define the putative salivary effectors for R. padi, but the candidate salivary gene list made by Thorpe et al consists of the aphid genes encoding secreted proteins that are up-regulated in the head samples compared to the body samples. Although some proteins were confirmed to be secreted into the aphid saliva, many genes in the list are not confirmed to be expressed in the aphid salivary glands, and their products are not confirmed to be secreted into the saliva and the plant. Is E8696 expressed in the aphid salivary glands and secreted into its host plant? Without the data confirming the expression of the gene in the salivary glands and its secretion into the saliva and into the host plant, we cannot call the protein a salivary protein. Furthermore, without the observation that E8696 has some effect on plant biology, we cannot call it an aphid effector. Therefore, I cannot agree with the parts of the manuscript that refer to E8686 as an aphid salivary effector.

It is interesting to know that some candidate salivary gene expression showed a diurnal rhythm. However, without the knowledge of the functions of the salivary effectors, especially their targets, it is not possible to conclude that the rhythmical expression is important for the aphid performance. In addition, I wonder whether the increase in gene expression is directly correlated with the increase of protein secretion into the saliva and the plant.

Finally, the authors examined aphid survival, fecundity, and feeding behaviour. Those are important for overall aphid performance, but they do not "shape" aphid colonization. Aphid colonisation is shaped by the mechanisms by which aphids find and select their host plant and start to feed on it. Therefore, I do not agree with the title of this manuscript and some parts of the discussion.

I would like the authors to develop how the knowledge of the diurnal rhythm of aphid feeding can contribute to optimise pest management. I see that there are some differences in aphid metabolism and feeding behaviour between day and night, but I would like to hear how such knowledge can optimise pest management strategies.