Culex pipiens mosquitoes are infected with Wolbachia (wPip) that cause an important diversity of cytoplasmic incompatibilities (CIs). Functional transgenic studies have implicated the cidA-cidB operon from wPip and its homolog in wMel in CI between infected Drosophila males and uninfected females. However, the genetic basis of the CI diversity induced by different Wolbachia strains was unknown. We show here that the remarkable diversity of CI in the C. pipiens complex is due to the presence, in all tested wPip genomes, of several copies of the cidA-cidB operon, which undergoes diversification through recombination events. In 183 isofemale lines of C. pipiens collected worldwide, specific variations of the cidA-cidB gene repertoires are found to match crossing types. The diversification of cidA-cidB is consistent with the hypothesis of a toxin–antitoxin system in which the gene cidB co-diversifies with the gene cidA, particularly in putative domains of reciprocal interactions.
The most common way by which Wolbachia bacteria spread within insect populations is cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI), which results in the early death of embryos1 when males infected with a given Wolbachia strain mate with uninfected females or females infected with an incompatible strain. The most popular model to date for conceptualizing CI involves the secretion, by Wolbachia, of a “modification” factor (mod, or toxin) in the sperm that impairs early embryogenesis, and a Wolbachia “rescue” factor (resc, or antitoxin) produced in the oocyte, which allow for a viable, diploid zygote to develop if the cross is compatible2,3,4. Previous studies searching for Wolbachia effectors involved in CI by genomic comparison between mutualistic and manipulative Wolbachia revealed a higher number of genes with ankyrin repeats in the latter5, 6. Ankyrin repeat genes were thus considered as potential mod and resc candidates due to their role in protein–protein interactions and cellular cycle regulation7. However, to date no correlation between the distributions of any ankyrin repeat genes and CI patterns was demonstrated8. The first convincing candidate gene for involvement in CI encodes a protein called CidA (WP0282), secreted by Wolbachia into Culex pipiens sperm9. The cidA gene is part of an operon also containing a second gene, cidB (WP0283). CidA and CidB proteins directly interact with each other as demonstrated by pull-down experiments10. The cidA and cidB genes (named cifA and cifB in wMel11) are associated with the prophage WO modules11, and paralogs of these genes have been found in all published genomes from Wolbachia strains known to induce CI in insects9, 11, 12. The co-expression of cidA/cidB (or cifA/cifB) transgenes in Drosophila melanogaster reproduces the disturbance of the first embryonic division hallmark of CI, leading to embryo death10, 11. In this context, disruption of the deubiquitylating (DUB) domain of CidB restores normal embryogenesis, demonstrating the contribution of this domain to the “mod” factor function10. The role of CidA in the mod-resc CI system is much more debated. Data obtained on yeast suggest that CidA may rescue CidB10, but CifA has also been described as a CifB elicitor in D. melanogaster11.
cidA-cidB operon is involved in the CI induced by infected males in the progenies of uninfected females10, 11, but the genetic basis of CI diversity (i.e., compatibility, uni or bidirectional incompatibility) between hosts infected with different Wolbachia strains has yet to be investigated. We addressed this question in C. pipiens, a powerful model in which hundreds of crosses between lines sampled worldwide have revealed unprecedented CI diversity13,14,15. This unique CI diversity is solely governed by wPip diversification in this species complex since no other manipulative endosymbionts are present and no host genetic background influence has been yet demonstrated13, 15. All C. pipiens individuals are infected with Wolbachia, which recently diverged into five distinct phylogenetic groups (wPipI to wPipV)16. The wPip strains of the same group generally ensure compatibility between their hosts, whereas intergroup crosses are more likely to be incompatible13. An analysis of multiple crosses concluded that each Wolbachia (wPip) genome must contain several mod and resc factors to account for the high diversity of CI in C. pipiens15, 17. These multiple mod and resc factors could theoretically be encoded by different copies (i.e., variants) of same mod/resc genes or different mod and resc genes within the same wPip genome15, 17. It therefore seems likely that (i) different copies (i.e., variants) of cidA-cidB, (ii) paralogs of these genes resulting from ancient duplication events10, 11, 17, or (iii) totally unrelated genes13, could be involved in CI diversity in C. pipiens.
We thus investigated the contribution of polymorphism of the cidA-cidB operon and its cinA-cinB paralog with predicted nuclease activity10 to CI diversity in C. pipiens with the major hypothesis that if these genes encode for CI diversity determinants, they should be different between C. pipiens lines with different crossing types. We show that all tested wPip genomes contain several variants of the cidA-cidB operon while it is not the case for cinA-cinB operon. The cidA-cidB repertoires of variants differ between wPip strains from different groups exhibiting different crossing types. In 180 isofemale lines of C. pipiens exclusively infected with wPipIV strains, specific variations of the cidA-cidB gene repertoires are found to match crossing type variations. These variations occurred only in specific domains for both proteins, which consist exclusively of protein–protein interaction motifs and thus might be involved in the physical interaction between CidA and CidB.
Illumina sequencing of several wPip strains
We first used Illumina technology to sequence three wPip genomes from strains inducing different crossing types13: two strains from group IV, originating from Algeria and Turkey; and one strain from group I, originating from Tunisia. The mapping of the reads onto the reference genome wPip_Pel18 revealed an abnormally high coverage of the WOPip1 region, which includes the cidA and cidB genes. The coverage for this region was, on average, three times greater than that for 14 single-copy housekeeping genes19, 20 (Supplementary Fig. 1). Moreover, the cidA-cidB operon was highly variable between and within the three isofemale lines sequenced (Fig. 1a). Contrary to the assembly of wPip_Pel genome, which exhibits only one copy of cidA-cidB operon18, our findings suggest the occurrence of several copies of the cidA-cidB operon within each wPip genome from Algeria, Tunisia, and Turkey. Consistent with this observation, the Sanger sequences of cidA and cidB obtained from single individuals displayed multiple overlaps (Fig. 2a). No such diversity was found in wMel and wRi from D. melanogaster and D. simulans (Figs. 2b, c). The cinA and cinB paralogs, which are also present in all sequenced wPip genomes and have been identified as possibly involved in incompatibility between C. pipiens lines10, displayed no polymorphism within and between wPip strains (Fig. 1b), ruling out their role in CI diversity10. These findings suggest a previously unsuspected diversity of cidA-cidB copies within wPip genomes, resulting from gene amplifications and divergence that may account for CI diversification in C. pipiens.
High cidA-cidB diversity between wPip groups
We explored the association between cidA-cidB genetic variants and CI diversity in C. pipiens further, by investigating the variability of these genes in four isofemale lines differing by their geographical origin, each infected with a wPip strain from a different group (I–IV) and exhibiting a different crossing type (Table 1). Each of these isofemale lines was founded with one initial egg-raft from a single female. Cloning and sequencing revealed a large number of cidA-cidB variants in each of these wPip strains. The variable domains that differ between variants were not contiguous but restricted to some specific zones of the proteins (Figs. 3a and 4a). Within a single line there were up to six different variants of cidA (Fig. 3b), and up to four different variants of cidB (Fig. 4b). Some specificity in the cidA-cidB repertoire was also detected, with none of the variants shared between strains from different wPip groups (Figs. 3b and 4b). Network analyses of cidA and cidB suggested that the differences between copies stemmed mostly from block rearrangements within and/or between wPip genomes (Figs. 3c and 4c). These rearrangements were never observed in the region corresponding to the CidB catalytic domain, but in other regions of the CidA and CidB proteins (Figs. 3 and 4; Supplementary Fig. 2 and 3). The stability of the cidA-cidB repertoire over a decade (between 2006 and 2017) in addition with the stability in the cidA and cidB copy numbers relative to wsp gene (known to be present as a single copy in all Wolbachia genomes) inferred by quantitative PCR (q-PCR) in the Istanbul C. pipiens line are convincing elements that the cidA-cidB genes are present in multiple copies in wPip genome. The copy number ratio between cidA-cidB genes and wsp was always between 4 and 6 (Table 2). We also found that all copies of these genes were transcribed. Indeed, in the wPip strain from Istanbul the transcripts of the six polymorphic copies (i.e., variants) of cidA and the four polymorphic copies of cidB were detected in RNA extract after reverse transcription-PCR, cloning, and sequencing.
cidA-cidB repertoire variations are linked to crossing type
We then focused on a simpler situation, by analyzing CI diversity within wPip group IV. We used six isofemale lines with two different crossing types. These lines had the same rescue properties but two different mods13. Males from “incompatible” lines sterilize females whenever they host a wPip group I, II, or III strain, whereas males from “compatible” lines always produce progenies with these females (Fig. 5). We compared the cidA-cidB repertoires of “compatible” and “incompatible” lines. We found that one CidA variant [cidA_IV(\(\alpha\))] was present in all wPipIV lines, regardless of their crossing type or geographic origin (Fig. 5). Such a ubiquitous distribution is expected for the resc factor mediating compatibility between all isofemale lines hosting wPip strains from the same group. By contrast, no CidB variant was shared between compatible and incompatible lines (Fig. 5). Strikingly, cidA and cidB repertoire variations were clearly associated with crossing type variations, as cidA_IV(δ) and cidB_IV(a/2) variants were found uniquely in “incompatible” lines (Fig. 5). This may suggest that both cidA_IV(δ) and cidB_IV(a/2) are required for the incompatibility phenotype (Fig. 5).
We further investigated the distribution of these two specific cidA/cidB variants [cidA_IV(δ) and cidB_IV(a/2)] at a larger scale, by performing diagnostic restricted fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) tests on 180 isofemale lines from 15 populations [13 in Algeria and Tunisia; 1 each in China and Turkey], for which we determined crossing types. A very strong association was established between the presence of both cidA_IV(δ) and cidB_IV(a/2) in “incompatible” isofemale lines and their absence from “compatible” isofemale lines: all 17 “incompatible” lines had both these variants, whereas 147 of the 163 “compatible” lines had neither of them (χ2 = 78, df = 1, p < 2.2e-16). Among the 16 “compatible” isofemale that appeared discordant: (i) 8 were truly discordant as they display both cidA_IV(δ) and cidB_IV(a/2) while being compatible but (ii) 8 were only discordant for cidA as they displayed cidA_IV(δ) but lacked cidB_IV(a/2) (as confirmed by cloning and sequencing; Supplementary Data 1). To summarize the data: the absence of these variants is always associated with a “compatible” crossing type while its presence is mostly associated with “incompatible” crossing type with few discrepancies.
Putative ankyrin interaction domains between CidA and CidB
The analysis of CidA and CidB polymorphic regions revealed that the sequence variations associated with crossing type variations are restricted to about 30 amino-acid positions, for both proteins (Fig. 6a). Extensive fold-recognition analysis of the CidA and CidB proteins were performed using the @tome2 in-house server21. Except for the DUB protease domain, no tridimensional model could be firmly obtained. Nevertheless, both CidA and CidB exhibit sequence identity homology (under 20%) with protein–protein interaction domains with repeated structure. Careful examination of hydrophobic patterns suggests internal helical structure repetitions as found in ankyrin or HEAT repeats22. The size of ~33 amino acids is the universal expected size for tandem ankyrin repeat domains6. However, due to the lack of available homolog sequences in databases, it is difficult to determine the helical structure repetition boundaries in both N- and C-terminal part of the protein domains. As the protein variations matching with crossing type variations occur in putative ankyrin domains, we hypothesize that CidA and CidB co-diversify in these domains because they are involved in their reciprocal interactions (Fig. 6).
In the C. pipiens mosquitoes, the genetic architecture of the Wolbachia cidA-cidB operon is characterized by variable multi-copies associated to the unique CI diversification observed in this species. These different copies of cidA and cidB likely result from genic amplification followed by diversification since we revealed a high diversity within each wPip strain. As these genes are associated with the prophage WO modules11, the number of cidA-cidB copies assessed by q-PCR may not reflect the exact number of cidA-cidB copies in a single wPip genome since viral particle multiplication resulting from lytic phage activity can influence the accuracy of this quantification23. However, the diversity of cidA-cidB sequences in a single mosquito, the geographical and temporal stability of sequences found in wPipIV group clearly point out that several copies of the operon do co-exist within the same wPip genome. As cidA and cidB are amplified in all wPip genomes from each C. pipiens individual we sequenced so far, the presence of only one copy of the cidA/cidB operon in wPip_Pel seems to result from an error during assembly likely caused by too many repeats. The reason(s) why such amplification and diversification of cidA/cidB has evolved in wPip is still an open question. However, this diversity likely reflects high levels of intra- or intergenome recombination, which may be favored by multiple infections with different wPip and/or promoted by lytic phage activity in C. pipiens24.
In a more global context, our results provide insights into the respective roles of CidA and CidB in the mod/resc model. Indeed, the association between cidA_IV(δ)-cidB_IV(a/2) presence/absence and incompatible/compatible crossing types, together with the results of functional studies10, 11, demonstrate that CidB is involved in the mod function responsible for the variation in crossing types. However, some discrepancies were found in few isofemale lines, which harbor cidA_IV(δ) and/or cidB_IV(a/2) but are “compatible”. These discrepancies suggest that either (i) our strategy, involving larval field sampling, the establishment of isofemale lines and crossing experiments, generated a few errors or (ii) other genetic or epigenetic mechanisms may disrupt the relationship between genomic potential and the resulting crossing type.
The role of CidA is still unclear. The association of cidA_IV(δ) with variation in crossing types does not necessarily implicate CidA in the mod function. Indeed, as CidA and CidB interact with each other10, their co-diversification could result in specific CidA variations whenever involved in the mod (i.e., toxin) or in resc (i.e., antitoxin) function. Several lines of evidence suggest that CidA could be the antitoxin of CidB and that the cidA-cidB operon encodes a classic toxin–antitoxin system: (i) the simple two-gene structure of the operon, with the putative antitoxin gene located upstream from the putative toxin gene9; (ii) the overexpression of the antitoxin gene relative to the toxin gene11; (iii) the ability of the two proteins to form a complex10; and (iv) the required co-expression of cidA and cidB for the production of live transgenic D. melanogaster and Saccharomyces cerevisiae10. Additional argument of CidA being an antitoxin is provided by the presence of cidA_IV(α), a ubiquitous CidA variant in wPip strains within the same group wPipIV, potentially accounting for their hosts’ compatibility. Moreover, if CidA is indeed the antitoxin, then a new toxin (i.e., CidB) produced by block recombination between variants would be positively selected only if a compatible CidA, capable of interaction with this new toxin, was already present in the same wPip genome to prevent its producer from being killed2, 25. This is coherent with our results since we found more cidA variants than cidB variants in the same isofemale line (except for Tunis, which has as many cidA as cidB).
Most toxin–antitoxin systems require an interaction between both proteins25. Pull-down experiments have demonstrated that CidA can interact with CidB10. Our analysis of CidA-CidB repertoires in wPipIV group showed that genetic variations linked to crossing type variations occurred only in specific domains of about ~30 amino acids in length, for both proteins (Fig. 6a). These domains consist exclusively of protein–protein interaction motifs (ankyrin or HEAT repeats) and thus might be involved in the reciprocal interaction between CidA and CidB. The variability of these domains that co-diversify may account for specific interaction between one variant of CidA and one variant of CidB. Such variability in interactions between CidA and CidB could drive the unrivaled diversity of crossing types in C. pipiens.
Isofemale line construction
C. pipiens larvae and pupae were collected in the field and reared to adulthood in the laboratory. Females were then fed on blood to lay eggs that served to establish isofemale lines. Each egg-raft (containing 100–300 eggs) was individually isolated for hatching, and the Wolbachia group present was determined by performing pk1 PCR-RFLP tests26 on two first-instar larvae (L1). Isofemale lines were created by rearing the offspring resulting from a single egg-raft (thus from a single female). We established 162 isofemale lines for this study. We also used 21 isofemale lines from laboratory stocks of various geographic origins (Supplementary Data 1 and Supplementary Table 1). Isofemale lines were reared in 65 dm3 screened cages kept in a single room at 22–25 °C, under a 12 h light/12 h dark cycle. Larvae were fed with a mixture of shrimp powder and rabbit pellets, and adults were fed on honey solution.
Crossing type determination
Crossing types were characterized by crossing males (25–50 virgin males) from each of the studied isofemale lines with females (25–50 virgin females) from four reference laboratory isofemale lines hosting different Wolbachia strains [Tunis (wPipI), Lavar (wPipII), Maclo (wPipIII), and Istanbul (wPipIV)] or with females from Tunis only (Supplementary Data 1 and Supplementary Table 1).
The genomes of three Wolbachia strains from three C. pipiens isofemale lines were fully sequenced: Tunis from group wPipI, and Harash and Istanbul from group wPipIV. Wolbachia is an intracellular uncultivable bacterium. To obtain satisfactory amounts of Wolbachia DNA, we therefore developed a protocol based on that described by Ellegaard et al.27. This protocol involved Wolbachia enrichment on egg rafts immediately after oviposition, to maximize the ratio of Wolbachia to Culex genomes. The freshly laid eggs-rafts were washed in bleach to crack their chorion. They were then rinsed in water and homogenized in phosphate-buffered saline (1× PBS). Wolbachia cells were isolated from each egg-raft separately and concentrated. Each egg-raft was crushed with a sterile pestle and the resulting suspension was centrifuged at 400 × g for 5 min at 4 °C to remove the cell debris. The supernatant was then centrifuged again at 6000 × g for 5 min at 4 °C, to obtain a pellet of Wolbachia cells. These cells were resuspended in 1× PBS and passed through a filter with 5 µm pores (GVS Filter Technology), and a filter with 2.7 µm pores (Whatman), to remove any remaining particles bigger than Wolbachia. The resulting filtrate was centrifuged at 6900 × g for 15 min at 4 °C to obtain a pellet of Wolbachia cells. Multiple-displacement amplification was carried out directly on the Wolbachia pellet, with the Repli-g- mini kit (Qiagen). For each strain, five amplifications were performed independently, to randomize potential amplification errors, and the amplicons were then pooled for sequencing. Illumina sequencing was performed by the 3 kb Long Jumping Distance Mate-Pair method, on a HiSeq2000 instrument (Eurofins MWG Operon platform in Ebersberg, Germany), generating 2 × 100 bp sequences for each fragment.
Cloning and Sanger sequencing of the cidA and cidB genes
For all experiments, total DNA was extracted with the Dneasy Blood & Tissue Spin-Column kit (Qiagen; bench protocol: animal tissues). For amplification of the full-length cidA gene, we used two pairs of overlapping primers, 1/2 and 3/4 (Fig. 7, Supplementary Table 2). For amplification of the full-length cidB gene, we used four pairs of overlapping primers: 5/6; 7/8; 9/10; and 11/12 (Fig. 8, Supplementary Table 2). We used cidA fragments amplified with primers 1/2 and cidB fragments amplified with primers 7/8 for cloning experiments, because these two regions contain all the polymorphism observed in cidA and cidB variants (Figs. 3 and 4). PCR products were extracted from the electrophoresis gel with the W-tracta disposable gel extraction tool (Star Lab) and purified with the QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen). The TOPO TA cloning Kit pCR 2.1-TOPO Vector (Invitrogen) was used for ligation. Before electroporation, the DNA was dialyzed with VSWP membrane filters with 0.025 µm pores (Merck Millipore) to remove excess salt from the ligation. Electroporation was performed with One Shot TOP10 Electrocomp Escherichia coli (Invitrogen) and a Bio-Rad Micropulser with 2 mm-path electroporation cuvettes (Eurogentec) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For repertoire acquisition of cidA and cidB, at least 48 clones for each individual were amplified and sequenced with M13 primers. Once the PCR-RFLP tests (see below) had been developed, more sequences were obtained for the variants initially underrepresented. For all the C. pipiens isofemale lines analyzed by cloning-sequencing, direct Sanger sequencing results for cidA and cidB were compared with the repertoire obtained by cloning-sequencing, to ensure that no variants were missing. For Sanger sequencing, the PCR products were purified with the Agencourt Ampure PCR purification kit (Agencourt) and directly sequenced with an ABI Prism 3130 sequencer using the BigDye Terminator Kit (Applied Biosystems).
Sanger sequencing data analyses
Sequence variants of cidA and cidB were aligned, with Muscle implemented in Seaview 6.4.1 software28. Alignments were then analyzed within a phylogenetic network framework, to account for potentially conflicting signals due to recombination. A phylogenetic network was constructed from uncorrected P distances by the neighbor-net method29 implemented in Splitstree430.
We designed PCR-RFLP tests to detect the presence of the cidA_IV(δ) [cidA_IV(δ/1) and cidA_IV(δ/2)] and cidB_IV(2) [cidB_IV(a/2) and cidB_IV(b/2)] variants in isofemale lines. For cidA_IV variants, only the first polymorphic region was correlated with crossing types. We therefore designed the PCR-RFLP test to distinguish between the cidA_IV(α), cidA_IV(β), cidA_IV(γ), and cidA_IV(δ) sequences (Fig. 7). A 778 bp fragment was amplified with the 1/13 primer pair (Supplementary Table 2). Double digestion of the PCR products with ApoI and Hpy188I (New England Biolabs) identified three groups of sequencing: cidA_IV(α) (six fragments: 471; 122; 57; 53; 51; and 24 bp); cidA_IV(β) and cidA_IV(γ) (six fragments: 441; 123; 83; 57; 51; and 24 bp); and cidA_IV(δ) (five fragments: 524; 122; 57; 51; and 24 bp).
For cidB_IV variants, only the second polymorphic region was found to be correlated with crossing types, so the PCR-RFLP test was designed to discriminate between the cidB_IV(1), cidB_IV(2), and cidB_IV(3) sequences (Fig. 8). A 1267–1276 bp fragment was amplified with the 7/8 primer pair (Supplementary Table 2). Double digestion of the PCR products with BanI and TaqaI (New England Biolabs) distinguished three different groups of sequences: cidB_IV(1) (three fragments: 892, 239, 145 bp); cidB_IV(2) (two fragments: 1028 and 239 bp); and cidB_IV(3) (three fragments: 861; 239; and 167 bp).
Gene copy number quantification
The copy numbers of the cidA and cidB genes were estimated per Wolbachia genome, for four laboratory lines, on male and female adults and a pool of larvae at the earliest stage, by real-time q-PCR with a Roche Light Cycler. Three PCRs were performed, in triplicate, on each sample, one for the Wolbachia wsp locus present as single copy per genome (primer pair 18/19), one for cidA (primer pair 14/15), and one for cidB (primer pair 16/17). These primer pairs specifically bind to a region conserved in all wPip groups for each gene (Supplementary Table 2). The ratio between cidA or cidB and wsp signals was used to estimate the relative number of copies of cidA or cidB per Wolbachia genome.
cidA-cidB expressed repertoire
Fresh mosquito samples from adult females and males and first (L1) and last (L4) instar larvae were used for RNA extraction with Trizol (Life Technologies). The RNA obtained was treated with DNase with the TURBO DNA-free Kit (Life Technologies), in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. We reverse-transcribed 2–5 µg of each total RNA sample with the SuperScript III Reverse Transcriptase Kit and 30 ng of random oligomer primers ((RP)10; Invitrogen, Life Technologies).
The polymorphic zones of the cidA and cidB cDNAs were amplified, cloned and 48 clones were sequenced, as described above.
All statistical analyses were performed with R version 3.0.2 software. We compared the proportions of “compatible” and “incompatible” isofemales harboring cidA_IV(δ) and cidB_IV(a/2) in a two-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction based on χ2.
Mapping of illumina reads on the reference genome
Illumina Long Jumping Distance sequencing data were trimmed with Trimmomatic version 0.36.
Paired reads and single reads for each line were compiled into Fastq files and mapped onto the reference genome wPip_Pel, with bwa mem and default parameters. Mappings were visualized with IGV version 2.3.68.
For each Wolbachia strain, the coverages of WP0282 (cidA), WP0283 (cidB), WP0294 (cinA), WP0295 (cinB), and MLST genes19, 31 were calculated with genomecov from bedtools, with the -d option, to calculate “per-base” genome coverage. Several adjustments were made: (i) coverage was normalized by dividing by the mean coverage on the whole reference genome of the strain concerned, to eliminate bias due to the higher coverage for strains for which there were larger numbers of reads in the Illumina data set; (ii) polymorphic regions of cidA and cidB were removed, due to the considerable variability of coverage in these regions; and (iii) the region of cidB from position 2461 to the end of the gene was removed because this region is identically duplicated in the wPip_Pel genome9, artificially increasing its coverage.
The Illumina raw reads data of the three wPip genomes have been deposited in the Sequence Read Archive with Bioproject PRJNA393398 and BioSample SAMN07315580 (wPipI Tunis), SAMN07327402 (wPipIV Harash), and SAMN07327406 (wPipIV Istanbul). Nucleotidic and proteic sequences of cidA-cidB variants have been deposited in GenBank and accession numbers are available in the Supplementary Table 3. The authors declare that all other data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its Supplementary Information files, or are available from the authors upon request.
Yen, J. H. & Barr, A. R. New hypothesis of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatibility in Culex pipiens L. Nature 232, 657–658 (1971).
Poinsot, D., Charlat, S. & Merçot, H. On the mechanism of Wolbachia-induced cytoplasmic incompatibility: confronting the models with the facts. BioEssays 25, 259–265 (2003).
Hurst, L. D. The evolution of cytoplasmic incompatibility or when spite can be successful. J. Theor. Biol. 148, 269–277 (1991).
Werren, J. H. Biology of Wolbachia. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42, 587–609 (1997).
Foster, J. et al. The Wolbachia genome of Brugia malayi: endosymbiont evolution within a human pathogenic nematode. PLoS Biol. 3, 0599–0614 (2005).
Siozios, S. et al. The diversity and evolution of Wolbachia ankyrin repeat domain genes. PLoS ONE 8, e55390 (2013).
Sedgwick, S. G. & Smerdon, S. J. The ankyrin repeat: a diversity of interaction on a common structural framework. Trends Biochem. Sci. 24, 311–316 (1999).
Duron, O. et al. Variability and expression of ankyrin domain genes in Wolbachia variants infecting the mosquito Culex pipiens. J. Bacteriol. 189, 4442–4448 (2007).
Beckmann, J. F. & Fallon, A. M. Detection of the Wolbachia protein WPIP0282 in mosquito spermathecae: Implications for cytoplasmic incompatibility. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 43, 867–878 (2013).
Beckmann, J. F., Ronau, J. A., Hochstrasser, M., Tillett, D. & Ginalski, K. A. Wolbachia deubiquitylating enzyme induces cytoplasmic incompatibility. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17007 (2017).
Lepage, D. P. et al. Prophage WO genes recapitulate and enhance Wolbachia-induced cytoplasmic incompatibility. Nature 543, 243–247 (2017).
Sutton, E. R., Harris, S. R., Parkhill, J. & Sinkins, S. P. Comparative genome analysis of Wolbachia strain wAu. BMC Genomics 15, 928 (2014).
Atyame, C. M. et al. Wolbachia divergence and the evolution of cytoplasmic incompatibility in Culex pipiens. PLoS ONE 9, 21–26 (2014).
Laven, H., Wright, J. W. & Pal, R. in Genetics of Insect Vectors of Disease (eds Wright, J. W. & Pal, R.) 251–275 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1967).
Atyame, C. M. et al. Multiple Wolbachia determinants control the evolution of cytoplasmic incompatibilities in Culex pipiens mosquito populations. Mol. Ecol. 20, 286–298 (2011).
Atyame, C. M., Delsuc, F., Pasteur, N., Weill, M. & Duron, O. Diversification of Wolbachia endosymbiont in the Culex pipiens mosquito. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28, 2761–2772 (2011).
Nor, I. et al. On the genetic architecture of cytoplasmic incompatibility: inference from phenotypic data. Am. Nat. 182, E15–E24 (2013).
Klasson, L. et al. Genome evolution of Wolbachia strain wPip from the Culex pipiens group. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25, 1877–1887 (2008).
Baldo, L. et al. Multilocus sequence typing system for the endosymbiont Wolbachia pipientis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol 72, 7098–7110 (2006).
Lo, N. et al. Taxonomic status of the intracellular bacterium Wolbachia pipientis. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 57, 654–657 (2007).
Pons, J. L. & Labesse, G. @TOME-2: A new pipeline for comparative modeling of protein-ligand complexes. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 485–491 (2009).
Andrade, M. A., Perez-Iratxeta, C. & Ponting, C. P. Protein repeats: structures, functions, and evolution. J. Struct. Biol. 134, 117–131 (2001).
Bordenstein, S. R., Marshall, M. L., Fry, A. J., Kim, U. & Wernegreen, J. J. The Tripartite associations between bacteriophage, Wolbachia, and arthropods. PLoS. Pathog. 2, e43 (2006).
Wright, J. D., Sjostrand, F. S., Portaro, J. K. & Barr, A. R. The ultrastructure of the rickettsia-like microorganism Wolbachia pipientis and associated virus-like bodies in the mosquito Culex pipiens. J. Ultra Res. 63, 79–85 (1978).
Aakre, C. D. et al. Evolving new protein-protein interaction specificity through promiscuous intermediates. Cell 163, 594–606 (2015).
Dumas, E. et al. Population structure of Wolbachia and cytoplasmic introgression in a complex of mosquito species. BMC Evol. Biol. 13, 181 (2013).
Ellegaard, K. M., Klasson, L., Näslund, K., Bourtzis, K. & Andersson, S. G. E. Comparative genomics of Wolbachia and the bacterial species concept. PLoS Genet 9, e1003381 (2013).
Gouy, M., Guindon, S. & Gascuel, O. SeaView Version 4: a multiplatform graphical user interface for sequence alignment and phylogenetic tree building. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27, 221–224 (2010).
Bryant, D. & Moulton, V. Neighbor-Net: an agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 255–265 (2004).
Huson, D. H. & Bryant, D. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23, 254–267 (2006).
Paraskevopoulos, C., Bordenstein, S. R., Wernegreen, J. J., Werren, J. H. & Bourtzis, K. Toward a Wolbachia multilocus sequence typing system: Discrimination of Wolbachia strains present in Drosophila species. Curr. Microbiol. 53, 388–395 (2006).
We would like to thank Sylvain Charlat, Pierrick Labbé, Benjamin Lopin, Nicole Pasteur, and François Rousset for helpful comments on the manuscript. We also thank Khalid Belkhir for bioinformatic analyses performed on the Montpellier Bioinformatics Biodiversity cluster computing platform. Frédéric Delsuc for phylogenic analyses, and Arnaud Berthomieu, Ali Bouattour, Emilie Dumas, Patrick Makoundou, and Sandra Unal for technical support. Sequencing data were produced through the technical facilities of the LabEX "Centre Méditerranéen de l'Environnement et de la Biodiversité" in the GENSEQ plateform. This work was funded by the French ANR (project “CIAWOL” ANR-16-CE02-0006-01 and ANR-10-BINF-0003).
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Bonneau, M., Atyame, C., Beji, M. et al. Culex pipiens crossing type diversity is governed by an amplified and polymorphic operon of Wolbachia. Nat Commun 9, 319 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02749-w