A classic problem in evolutionary biology is to understand the genetic variance in fitness. The simplest hypothesis is that variation exists, even in well-adapted populations, as a result of the balance between mutational input and selective elimination. This variation causes a reduction in mean fitness, known as the mutation load. Though mutation load is difficult to quantify empirically, indirect evidence of segregating genetic variation in fitness is often readily obtained by comparing the fitness of inbred and outbred offspring, i.e., by measuring inbreeding depression. Mutation-selection balance models have been studied as a means of understanding the genetic variance in fitness, mutation load, and inbreeding depression. Since their inception, such models have increased in sophistication, allowing us to ask these questions under more realistic and varied scenarios. The new theoretical work by Abu Awad and Roze [1] is a substantial step forward in understanding how arbitrary levels of self-fertilization affect variation, load and inbreeding depression under mutation-selection balance.
It has never been entirely clear how selfing should affect these population genetic properties in a multi-locus model. From the single-locus perspective, selfing increases homozygosity, which allows for more efficient purging leading to a prediction of less variance and lower load. On the other hand, selfing directly and indirectly affects several types of multilocus associations, which tend to make selection less efficient. Though this is certainly not the first study to consider mutation-selection balance in species with selfing (e.g., [2-5]), it is perhaps the most biologically realistic. The authors consider a model where n traits are under stabilizing selection and where each locus affects an arbitrary subset of these traits. As others have argued [6-7], this type of fitness landscape model “naturally” gives rise to dominance and epistatic effects. Abu Awad and Roze [1] thoroughly investigate this model both with analytical approximations and stochastic simulations (incorporating the effects of drift).
Their analysis reveals three major parameter regimes. The first regime occurs under low mutation rates, when segregating deleterious alleles are sufficiently rare across the genome that multi-locus genetic associations (disequilibria) can be ignored. As expected, in this regime, increased selfing facilitates purging, thereby leading to less standing genetic variation, lower load and less inbreeding depression.
In the second regime, mutation rates are higher and segregating deleterious alleles are more common. Though the effects of multilocus genetic associations cannot be ignored, Abu Awad and Roze [1] show that a good approximation can be obtained by considering only two-locus associations (ignoring the multitude of higher order associations). This is where the sophistication of their analysis yields the greatest insights. Their analysis shows that two different types of interlocus associations are important. First, selfing directly generates identity disequilibrium (correlation in homozygosity between two loci) that occurs because individuals produced through outbreeding tend to be heterozygous across multiple loci whereas individuals produced by selfing tend to be homozygous across multiple loci. These correlations reduce the efficiency of selection when deleterious effects are partially recessive [5]. Second, selfing indirectly affects traditional linkage disequilibrium. Epistatic selection resulting from the fitness landscape generates negative linkage disequilibrium between alleles at different loci that cause the same direction of deviation in a trait from its optimum. Because selfing reduces the effective rate of recombination, linkage disequilibrium reaches higher levels. Because selection tends to generate compensatory combinations of alleles, partially masking their deleterious effects, these associations also make purging less efficient. Their analysis shows the strength of the effect from identity disequilibrium scales with U, the genome-wide rate of deleterious mutations, but the effect of linkage disequilibrium scales with U/n because with more traits (higher n) two randomly chosen alleles are less likely to affect the same trait and so be subject to epistatic selection. Together, the effects of multilocus associations increase the load and can, in some cases, cause the load to increase as selfing increase from moderate to high levels.
However, their analytical approximations become inaccurate under conditions when the number of epistatically interacting segregating mutations (proportional to U/n) becomes large relative to the effective recombination rate (dependent on outcrossing and recombination rates). In this third regime, higher order genetic associations become important. In the limit of no recombination, model behaves as if the whole genome is a single locus with a very large number of alleles, becoming equivalent to previous studies [2-3].
The study by Abu Awad and Roze [1] helps us better understand the “simplest” explanation for genetic variance in fitness—mutation-selection balance—in a model of considerable complexity involving multiple traits under stabilizing selection, which ‘naturally’ allows for pleiotropy and epistasis. Their model tends to confirm the classic prediction of lower variation in fitness, less load, and inbreeding depression in species with higher levels of selfing. However, their careful analysis provides a clearer picture of how (and by how much) epistasis and selfing affect key population genetic properties.

References

[1] Abu Awad D and Roze D. 2017. Effects of partial selfing on the equilibrium genetic variance, mutation load and inbreeding depression under stabilizing selection. bioRxiv, 180000, ver. 4 of 17th November 2017. doi: 10.1101/180000

[2] Lande R. 1977. The influence of the mating system on the maintenance of genetic variability in polygenic characters. Genetics 86: 485–498.

[3] Charlesworth D and Charlesworth B. 1987. Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 18: 237–268. doi: 10.1111/10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.001321

[4] Lande R and Porcher E. 2015. Maintenance of quantitative genetic variance under partial self-fertilization, with implications for the evolution of selfing. Genetics 200: 891–906. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.176693

[5] Roze D. 2015. Effects of interference between selected loci on the mutation load, inbreeding depression, and heterosis. Genetics 201: 745–757. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.178533

[6] Martin G and Lenormand T. 2006. A general multivariate extension of Fisher's geometrical model and the distribution of mutation fitness effects across species. Evolution 60: 893–907. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01169.x

[7] Martin G, Elena SF and Lenormand T. 2007. Distributions of epistasis in microbes fit predictions from a fitness landscape model. Nature Genetics 39: 555–560. doi: 10.1038/ng1998

Human economic activity is responsible for the vast majority of ongoing extinction, but that does not mean lineages are being affected willy-nilly. For amphibians [1] and South African flowering plants [2], young species have a somewhat higher than expected chance of being threatened with extinction. In contrast, older Australian marsupial lineages seem to be more at risk [3]. Both of the former studies suggested that situations leading to peripheral isolation might simultaneously increase ongoing speciation and current threat via small geographic range, while the authors of the latter study suggested that older species might have evolved increasingly narrow niches. Here, Andrew Tanentzap and colleagues [4] dig deeper into the putative links between species age, niche breadth and threat status. Across 500-some plant genera worldwide, they find that, indeed, ""younger"" species (i.e. from younger and faster-diversifying genera) were more likely to be listed as imperiled by the IUCN, consistent with patterns for amphibians and African plants. Given this, results from their finer-level analyses of conifers are initially bemusing: here, ""older"" (i.e., on longer terminal branches) species were at higher risk. This would make conifers more like Australian marsupials, with the rest of the plants being more like amphibians. However, here where the data were more finely grained, the authors detected a second interesting pattern: using an intriguing matched-pair design, they detect a signal of conifer species niches seemingly shrinking as a function of age. The authors interpret this as consistent with increasing specialization, or loss of ancestral warm wet habitat, over paleontological time. It is true that conifers in general are older than plants more generally, with some species on branches that extend back many 10s of millions of years, and so a general loss of suitable habitat makes some sense. If so, both the pattern for all plants (small initial ranges heightening extinction) and the pattern for conifers (eventual increasing specialization or habitat contraction heightening extinction) could occur, each on a different time scale. As a coda, the authors detected no effect of age on threat status in palms; however, this may be both because palms have already lost species to climate-change induced extinction, and because they are thought to speciate more via long-distance dispersal and adaptive divergence then via peripheral isolation.
Given how quickly ranges can change, how hard it is to measure niche breadth, and the qualitatively different time scales governing past diversification and present-day extinction drivers, this is surely not the last word on the subject, even for plants. However, even the hint of a link between drivers of extinction in the Anthropocene and drivers of diversification through the ages is intellectually exciting and, perhaps, even, somehow, of practical importance.

References

[1] Greenberg, D. A., & Mooers, A. Ø. (2017). Linking speciation to extinction: Diversification raises contemporary extinction risk in amphibians. Evolution Letters, 1, 40–48. doi: 10.1002/evl3.4
[2] Davies, T. J., Smith, G. F., Bellstedt, D. U., Boatwright, J. S., Bytebier, B., Cowling, R. M., Forest, F., et al. (2011). Extinction risk and diversification are linked in a plant biodiversity hotspot. PLoS Biology, 9:e1000620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000620
[3] Johnson, C. N., Delean S., & Balmford, A. (2002). Phylogeny and the selectivity of extinction in Australian marsupials. Animal Conservation, 5, 135–142. doi: 10.1017/S1367943002002196
[4] Tanentzap, A. J., Igea, J., Johnston, M. G., & Larcombe, M. G. (2018). Range size dynamics can explain why evolutionarily age and diversification rate correlate with contemporary extinction risk in plants. bioRxiv, 152215, ver. 5 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Evol Biol. doi: 10.1101/152215

Whether speciation through ecological specialization occurs has been a thriving research area ever since Mayr (1942) stated this to play a central role. In herbivorous insects, ecological specialization is most likely to happen through host plant differentiation (Funk et al. 2002). Therefore, after Dorothy Pashley had identified two host strains in the Fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda, in 1988 (Pashley 1988), researchers have been trying to decipher the evolutionary history of these strains, as this seems to be a model species in which speciation is currently occurring through host plant specialization. Even though FAW is a generalist, feeding on many different host plant species (Pogue 2002) and a devastating pest in many crops, Pashley identified a so-called corn strain and a so-called rice strain in Puerto Rico. Genetically, these strains were found to differ mostly in an esterase, although later studies showed additional genetic differences and markers, mostly in the mitochondrial COI and the nuclear TPI. Recent genomic studies showed that the two strains are overall so genetically different (2% of their genome being different) that these two strains could better be called different species (Kergoat et al. 2012). So far, the most consistent differences between the strains have been their timing of mating activities at night (Schoefl et al. 2009, 2011; Haenniger et al. 2019) and hybrid incompatibilities (Dumas et al. 2015; Kost et al. 2016). Whether and to what extent host plant preference or performance contributed to the differentiation of these sympatrically occurring strains has remained unclear.
In the current study, Orsucci et al. (2020) performed oviposition assays and reciprocal transplant experiments with both strains to measure fitness effects, in combination with a comprehensive RNAseq experiment, in which not only lab reared larvae were analysed, but also field-collected larvae. When testing preference and performance on the two host plants corn and rice, the authors did not find consistent fitness differences between the two strains, with both strains performing less on rice plants, although larvae from the corn strain survived more on corn plants than those from the rice strain. These results mostly confirm findings of a number of investigations over the past 30 years, where no consistent differences on the two host plants were observed (reviewed in Groot et al. 2016). However, the RNAseq experiments did show some striking differences between the two strains, especially in the reciprocally transplanted larvae, where both strains had been reared on rice or on corn plants for one generation: both strains showed transcriptional responses that correspond to their respective putative host plants, i.e. overexpression of genes involved in digestion and metabolic activity, and underexpression of genes involved in detoxification, in the corn strain on corn and in the rice strain on rice. Interestingly, similar sets of genes were found to be overexpressed in the field-collected larvae with which a RNAseq experiment was conducted as well.
The most interesting result of the study performed by Orsucci et al. (2020) is the underexpression in the corn strain of so-called numts, small genomic sequences that corresponded to fragments of the mitochondrial COI and COIII. These two numts were differentially expressed in the two strains in all RNAseq experiments analysed. This result coincides with the fact that the COI is one of the main diagnostic markers to distinguish these two strains. The authors suggestion that a difference in energy production between these two strains may be linked to a shift in host plant preference matches their finding that rice plants seem to be less suitable host plants than corn plants. However, as the lower suitability of rice plants was true for both strains, it remains unclear whether and how this difference could be linked to possible host plant differentiation between the strains. The authors also suggest that COI and potentially other mitochondrial genes may be the original target of selection between these two strains. This is especially interesting in light of the fact that field-collected larvae have frequently been found to have a rice strain mitochondrial genotype and a corn strain nuclear genotype, also in this study, while in the lab (female rice strain x male corn strain) hybrid females (i.e. females with a rice strain mitochondrial genotype and a corn strain nuclear genotype) are behaviorally sterile (Kost et al. 2016). Whether and how selection on mitochondrial genes or on mitonuclear interactions has indeed affected the evolution of these strains in the New world, and will affect the evolution of FAW in newly invaded habitats in the Old world, including Asia and Australia – where, so far, only corn strain and (female rice strain x male corn strain) hybrids have been found (Nagoshi 2019), will be a challenging research question for the coming years.

References

[1] Dumas, P. et al. (2015). Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) host-plant variants: two host strains or two distinct species?. Genetica, 143(3), 305-316. doi: 10.1007/s10709-015-9829-2
[2] Funk, D. J., Filchak, K. E. and Feder J. L. (2002) Herbivorous insects: model systems for the comparative study of speciation ecology. In: Etges W.J., Noor M.A.F. (eds) Genetics of Mate Choice: From Sexual Selection to Sexual Isolation. Contemporary Issues in Genetics and Evolution, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0265-3_10
[3] Groot, A. T., Unbehend, M., Hänniger, S., Juárez, M. L., Kost, S. and Heckel D. G.(2016) Evolution of reproductive isolation of Spodoptera frugiperda. In Allison, J. and Cardé, R. (eds) Sexual communication in moths. Chapter 20: 291-300.
[4] Hänniger, S. et al. (2017). Genetic basis of allochronic differentiation in the fall armyworm. BMC evolutionary biology, 17(1), 68. doi: 10.1186/s12862-017-0911-5
[5] Kost, S., Heckel, D. G., Yoshido, A., Marec, F., and Groot, A. T. (2016). AZ‐linked sterility locus causes sexual abstinence in hybrid females and facilitates speciation in Spodoptera frugiperda. Evolution, 70(6), 1418-1427. doi: 10.1111/evo.12940
[6] Mayr, E. (1942) Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.
[7] Nagoshi, R. N. (2019). Evidence that a major subpopulation of fall armyworm found in the Western Hemisphere is rare or absent in Africa, which may limit the range of crops at risk of infestation. PloS one, 14(4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208966
[8] Orsucci, M., Moné, Y., Audiot, P., Gimenez, S., Nhim, S., Naït-Saïdi, R., Frayssinet, M., Dumont, G., Boudon, J.-P., Vabre, M., Rialle, S., Koual, R., Kergoat, G. J., Nagoshi, R. N., Meagher, R. L., d’Alençon, E. and Nègre N. (2020) Transcriptional differences between the two host strains of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). bioRxiv, 263186, ver. 2 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Evol Biol. doi: 10.1101/263186
[9] Pashley, D. P. (1988) Current Status of Fall Armyworm Host Strains. Florida Entomologist 71 (3): 227–34. doi: 10.2307/3495425
[10] Pogue, M. (2002). A World Revision of the Genus Spodoptera Guenée (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). American Entomological Society.
[11] Schöfl, G., Heckel, D. G., and Groot, A. T. (2009). Time‐shifted reproductive behaviours among fall armyworm (Noctuidae: Spodoptera frugiperda) host strains: evidence for differing modes of inheritance. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 22(7), 1447-1459. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01759.x
[12] Schöfl, G., Dill, A., Heckel, D. G., and Groot, A. T. (2011). Allochronic separation versus mate choice: nonrandom patterns of mating between fall armyworm host strains. The American Naturalist, 177(4), 470-485. doi: 10.1086/658904

Evolutionary genomics, and population genetics in particular, aim to decipher the respective influence of neutral and selective forces shaping genetic polymorphism in a species/population. This is a much-needed requirement before scanning genome data for footprints of species adaptation to their biotic and abiotic environment (Johri et al. 2022). In general, we would like to quantify the proportion of the genome evolving neutrally and under selective (positive, balancing and negative) pressures (Kern and Hahn 2018, Johri et al. 2021). We thus need to understand patterns of linked selection along the genome, that is how the distribution of genetic polymorphisms is shaped by selected sites and the recombination landscape. The present contribution by Pavinato et al. (2022) provides an additional method in the population genomics toolbox to quantify the extent of linked positive and negative selection using temporal data.

The availability of genomics data for model and non-model species has led to improvement of the modeling framework for demography and selection (Johri et al. 2022), but also new inference methods making use of the full genome data based on the Sequential Markovian Coalescent (SMC, Li and Durbin 2011), Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC, Jay et al. 2019), ABC and machine learning (Pudlo et al. 2016, Raynal et al. 2019) or Deep Learning (Sanchez et al. 2021). These methods are based on one sample in time and the use of the coalescent theory to reconstruct the past (demographic) history. However, it is also possible to obtain for many species temporal data sampled over several time points. For species with short generation time (in experimental evolution or monitored populations), one can sample a population every couple of generations as exemplified with Drosophila melanogaster (Bergland et al. 2010). For species with longer generation times that cannot be easily regularly sampled in time, it becomes possible to sequence available specimens from museums (e.g. Cridland et al. 2018) or ancient DNA samples. Methods using temporal data are based on the classical population genomics assumption that demography (migration, population subdivision, population size changes) leaves a genome-wide signal, while selection leaves a localized signal in the close vicinity of the causal mutation. Several methods do assess the demography of a population (change in effective population size, Ne, in time) using temporal data (e.g. Jorde and Ryman 2007) which can be used to calibrate the detection of loci under strong positive selection (Foll et al. 2014). Recently Buffalo and Coop (2020) used genome-wide covariance between allele frequency changes across time samples (and across replicates) to quantify the effects of linked selection over short timescales. 

In the present contribution, Pavinato et al. (2022) make use of temporal data to draw the joint estimation of demographic and selective parameters using a simulation-based method (ABC-Random Forests). This study by Pavinato et al. (2022) builds a framework allowing to infer the census size of the population in time (N) separately from the effect of genetic drift, which is determined by change in effective population size (Ne) in time, as well estimates of genome-wide parameters of selection. In a nutshell, the authors use a forward simulator and summarize genome data by genomic windows using classic statistics (nucleotide diversity, Tajima’s D, FST, heterozygosity) between time samples and for each sample. They specifically use the distributions (higher moments) of these statistics among all windows. The authors combine as input for the ABC-RF, vectors of summary statistics, model parameters and five latent variables: Ne, the ratio Ne/N, the number of beneficial mutations under strong selection, the average selection coefficient of strongly selected mutations, and the average substitution load. Indeed, the authors are interested in three different types of selection components: 1) the adaptive potential of a population which is estimated as the population mutation rate of beneficial mutations (θb), 2) the number of mutations under strong selection (irrespective of whether they reached fixation or not), and 3) the overall population fitness which is a function of the genetic load. In other words, the novelty of this method is not to focus on the detection of loci under selection, but to infer key parameters/distributions summarizing the genome-wide signal of demography and (positive and negative) selection. As a proof of principle, the authors then apply their method to a dataset of feral populations of honey bees (Apis mellifera) collected in California across many years and recovered from Museum samples (Cridland et al. 2018). The approach yields estimates of Ne which are on the same order of magnitude of previous estimates in hymenopterans, and the authors discuss why the different populations show various values of Ne and N which can be explained by different history of admixture with wild but also domesticated lineages of bees.

This study focuses on quantifying the genome-wide joint footprints of demography, and strong positive and negative selection to determine which proportion of the genome evolves neutrally or not. Further application of this method can be anticipated, for example, to study species with ecological and life-history traits which generate discrepancies between census size and Ne, for example for plants with selfing or seed banking (Sellinger et al. 2020), and for which the genome-wide effect of linked selection is not fully understood.

References

Johri P, Aquadro CF, Beaumont M, Charlesworth B, Excoffier L, Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD, Lynch M, McVean G, Payseur BA, Pfeifer SP, Stephan W, Jensen JD (2022) Recommendations for improving statistical inference in population genomics. PLOS Biology, 20, e3001669. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001669

Kern AD, Hahn MW (2018) The Neutral Theory in Light of Natural Selection. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 35, 1366–1371. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy092

Johri P, Riall K, Becher H, Excoffier L, Charlesworth B, Jensen JD (2021) The Impact of Purifying and Background Selection on the Inference of Population History: Problems and Prospects. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 38, 2986–3003. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab050

Pavinato VAC, Mita SD, Marin J-M, Navascués M de (2022) Joint inference of adaptive and demographic history from temporal population genomic data. bioRxiv, 2021.03.12.435133, ver. 6 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.12.435133

Li H, Durbin R (2011) Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences. Nature, 475, 493–496. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10231

Jay F, Boitard S, Austerlitz F (2019) An ABC Method for Whole-Genome Sequence Data: Inferring Paleolithic and Neolithic Human Expansions. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 36, 1565–1579. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msz038

Pudlo P, Marin J-M, Estoup A, Cornuet J-M, Gautier M, Robert CP (2016) Reliable ABC model choice via random forests. Bioinformatics, 32, 859–866. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv684

Raynal L, Marin J-M, Pudlo P, Ribatet M, Robert CP, Estoup A (2019) ABC random forests for Bayesian parameter inference. Bioinformatics, 35, 1720–1728. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty867

Sanchez T, Cury J, Charpiat G, Jay F (2021) Deep learning for population size history inference: Design, comparison and combination with approximate Bayesian computation. Molecular Ecology Resources, 21, 2645–2660. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13224

Bergland AO, Behrman EL, O’Brien KR, Schmidt PS, Petrov DA (2014) Genomic Evidence of Rapid and Stable Adaptive Oscillations over Seasonal Time Scales in Drosophila. PLOS Genetics, 10, e1004775. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004775

Cridland JM, Ramirez SR, Dean CA, Sciligo A, Tsutsui ND (2018) Genome Sequencing of Museum Specimens Reveals Rapid Changes in the Genetic Composition of Honey Bees in California. Genome Biology and Evolution, 10, 458–472. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evy007

Jorde PE, Ryman N (2007) Unbiased Estimator for Genetic Drift and Effective Population Size. Genetics, 177, 927–935. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.075481

Foll M, Shim H, Jensen JD (2015) WFABC: a Wright–Fisher ABC-based approach for inferring effective population sizes and selection coefficients from time-sampled data. Molecular Ecology Resources, 15, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12280

Buffalo V, Coop G (2020) Estimating the genome-wide contribution of selection to temporal allele frequency change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 20672–20680. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919039117

Sellinger TPP, Awad DA, Moest M, Tellier A (2020) Inference of past demography, dormancy and self-fertilization rates from whole genome sequence data. PLOS Genetics, 16, e1008698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008698

Understanding the factors that shape the virome of a host is key to understanding virus ecology and evolution (Obbard, 2018; French & Holmes, 2020). There is still much to learn about the diversity and distribution of viruses in a host community (Wille et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2023). The viruses of parasitoid wasps are well studied, and their viruses, or integrated viral genes, are known to suppress their insect host’s immune response to enhance parasitoid survival (Herniou et al., 2013; Coffman et al., 2022). Likewise, the insect virome is being increasingly well studied (Shi et al., 2016), with the virome of Drosophila species being particularly well characterised over the best part of the last century (L'Heritier & Teissier, 1937; L'Heritier, 1970; Brun & Plus, 1980; Longdon et al., 2010; Longdon et al., 2011; Longdon et al., 2012; Webster et al., 2015; Webster et al., 2016; Medd et al., 2018; Wallace et al., 2021). However, the viromes of parasitoids and their insect host communities have been less well studied (Leigh et al., 2018; Caldas-Garcia et al., 2023), and the inherent connectivity between parasitoids and their hosts provides an interesting system to study virus host range and cross-species transmission.

Here, Varaldi et al (Varaldi et al., 2024) have examined the viruses associated with a community of nine Drosophilidae hosts and six parasitoids. Using both RNA and DNA sequencing of insects reared for two generations, they selected viruses that are maintained in the lab either via vertical transmission or contamination of rearing medium. From 55 pools of insects they found 53 virus-like sequences, 37 of which were novel. Parasitoids were host to nearly twice as many viruses as their Drosophila hosts, although they note this could be due to differences in the rearing temperatures of the hosts.  

They next quantified if species, year, season, or location played a role in structuring the virome, finding only a significant effect of host species, which explained just over 50% of the variation in virus distribution. No evidence was found of related species sharing more similar virus communities. Although looking at a limited number of species, this suggests that these viruses are not co-speciating or preferentially host switching between closely related species.

Finally, they carried out crosses between lines of the parasitoid Leptopilina heterotoma that were infected and uninfected for a novel Iflavirus found in their sequencing data.  They found evidence of high levels of maternal transmission and lower level horizontal transmission between wasp larvae parasitising the same host. No evidence of changes in parasitoid-induced mortality, developmental success or the sex ratio was found in iflavirus-infected parasitoids. Interestingly individuals infected with this RNA virus also contained viral DNA, but this did not appear to be integrated into the wasp genome.

Overall, this work has taken the first steps in examining the community structure of the virome of parasitoids together with their Drosophilidae hosts. This work will not doubt stimulate follow-up studies to explore the evolution and ecology of these novel virus communities.

References

Brun G, Plus N (1980) The viruses of Drosophila. In: The genetics and biology of Drosophila eds Ashburner M & Wright TRF), pp. 625-702. Academic Press, New York.
 
Caldas-Garcia GB, Santos VC, Fonseca PLC, de Almeida JPP, Costa MA, Aguiar ERGR (2023) The Viromes of Six Ecosystem Service Provider Parasitoid Wasps. Viruses, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/v15122448
 
Chen YM, Hu SJ, Lin XD, Tian JH, Lv JX, Wang MR, Luo XQ, Pei YY, Hu RX, Song ZG, Holmes EC, Zhang YZ (2023) Host traits shape virome composition and virus transmission in wild small mammals. Cell, 186, 4662-4675 e4612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.08.029
 
Coffman KA, Hankinson QM, Burke GR (2022) A viral mutualist employs posthatch transmission for vertical and horizontal spread among parasitoid wasps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120048119
 
French RK, Holmes EC (2020) An Ecosystems Perspective on Virus Evolution and Emergence. Trends in Microbiology, 28, 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2019.10.010
 
Herniou EA, Huguet E, Thézé J, Bézier A, Periquet G, Drezen JM (2013) When parasitic wasps hijacked viruses: genomic and functional evolution of polydnaviruses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0051
 
L'Heritier PH (1970) Drosophila viruses and their role as evolutionary factors. Evolutionary Biology, 4, 185-209
 
L'Heritier PH, Teissier G (1937) Une anomalie physiologique héréditaire chez la Drosophile. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 231, 192-194
 
Leigh BA, Bordenstein SR, Brooks AW, Mikaelyan A, Bordenstein SR (2018) Finer-Scale Phylosymbiosis: Insights from Insect Viromes. Msystems, 3. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00131-18
 
Longdon B, Obbard DJ, Jiggins FM (2010) Sigma viruses from three species of Drosophila form a major new clade in the rhabdovirus phylogeny. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 35-44. 
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1472
 
Longdon B, Wilfert L, Jiggins FM (2012) The Sigma Viruses of Drosophila. Caister Academic Press, Norfolk, UK.
 
Longdon B, Wilfert L, Osei-Poku J, Cagney H, Obbard DJ, Jiggins FM (2011) Host switching by a vertically-transmitted rhabdovirus in Drosophila. Biology Letters, 7, 747-750. 
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0160
 
Medd NC, Fellous S, Waldron FM, Xuereb A, Nakai M, Cross JV, Obbard DJ (2018) The virome of Drosophila suzukii, an invasive pest of soft fruit. Virus Evol, 4, vey009. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/vey009
 
Obbard DJ (2018) Expansion of the metazoan virosphere: progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Curr Opin Virol, 31, 17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2018.08.008
 
Shi M, Lin XD, Tian JH, Chen LJ, Chen X, Li CX, Qin XC, Li J, Cao JP, Eden JS, Buchmann J, Wang W, Xu J, Holmes EC, Zhang YZ (2016) Redefining the invertebrate RNA virosphere. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20167
 
Varaldi J, Lepetit D, Burlet N, Faber C, Baretje B, Allemand R (2024) Community structure of heritable viruses in a Drosophila-parasitoids complex. bioRxiv, 2023.2007.2029.551099, ver.3, peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Evolutionary Biology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.07.29.551099
 
Wallace MA, Coffman KA, Gilbert C, Ravindran S, Albery GF, Abbott J, Argyridou E, Bellosta P, Betancourt AJ, Colinet H, Eric K, Glaser-Schmitt A, Grath S, Jelic M, Kankare M, Kozeretska I, Loeschcke V, Montchamp-Moreau C, Ometto L, Onder BS, Orengo DJ, Parsch J, Pascual M, Patenkovic A, Puerma E, Ritchie MG, Rota-Stabelli O, Schou MF, Serga SV, Stamenkovic-Radak M, Tanaskovic M, Veselinovic MS, Vieira J, Vieira CP, Kapun M, Flatt T, Gonzalez J, Staubach F, Obbard DJ (2021) The discovery, distribution, and diversity of DNA viruses associated with Drosophila melanogaster in Europe. Virus Evol, 7, veab031. https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/veab031
 
Webster CL, Longdon B, Lewis SH, Obbard DJ (2016) Twenty-Five New Viruses Associated with the Drosophilidae (Diptera). Evol Bioinform Online, 12, 13-25. https://doi.org/10.4137/EBO.S39454
 
Webster CL, Waldron FM, Robertson S, Crowson D, Ferrai G, Quintana JF, Brouqui JM, Bayne EH, Longdon B, Buck AH, Lazzaro BP, Akorli J, Haddrill PR, Obbard DJ (2015) The discovery, distribution and evolution of viruses associated with Drosophila melanogaster. Plos Biology, 13(7): e1002210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002210
 
Wille M, Shi M, Klaassen M, Hurt AC, Holmes EC (2019) Virome heterogeneity and connectivity in waterfowl and shorebird communities. ISME J, 13, 2603-2616. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0458-0