This preprint is under consideration at BMC Microbiology. Preprints are preliminary reports that have not undergone peer review. They should not be considered conclusive, used to inform clinical practice, or referenced by the media as validated information.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Unravelling Wolbachia global exchange: a contribution from the Bicyclus and Mylothris butterflies in the Afrotropics
Anne Duplouy
Helsingin Yliopisto
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7147-5199
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
The most recent version of this article is available here.
Background
Phylogenetically closely related strains of maternally inherited endosymbiotic bacteria are often found in phylogenetically divergent, and geographically distant insect host species. The interspecies transfer of the symbiont Wolbachia has been thought to have occurred repeatedly, facilitating its observed global pandemic. Few ecological interactions have been proposed as potential routes for the horizontal transfer of Wolbachia within natural insect communities. These routes are however likely to act only at the local scale, but how they may support the global distribution of some Wolbachia strains remains unclear.
Results
Here, we characterize the Wolbachia diversity in butterflies from the tropical forest regions of central Africa to discuss transfer at both local and global scales. We show that numerous species from both the Mylothris (family Pieridae) and Bicyclus (family Nymphalidae) butterfly genera are infected with similar Wolbachia strains, this despite only minor interclade contacts across the life cycles of the species within their partially overlapping ecological niches. The phylogenetic distance and differences in resource use between these genera rule out the role of ancestry, hybridization, and shared host-plants in the interspecies transfer of the symbiont. Furthermore, we could not identify any shared ecological factors to explain the presence of the strains in other arthropod species from other habitats, or even ecoregions.
Conclusion
Only the systematic surveys of the Wolbachia strains from entire species communities may offer the material currently lacking for understanding how Wolbachia may transfer between highly different and unrelated hosts, as well as across environmental scales.
Keywords
Symbiosis, Vertical transmission, Horizontal transfer, Phylogeny, Lepidoptera, Interspecific interactions
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
The maternally inherited endosymbiont Wolbachia is present in more than 20% of all insect species, making this bacterium one of the most successful organisms on Earth [1]. Although host-Wolbachia co-divergence is relatively common between Nematode hosts and their Wolbachia strains, similar examples of co-divergence between insect hosts and their Wolbachia strains remain scarce [2, 3, but see 4]. These patterns thus suggest that Wolbachia may have jump jumped horizontally between host species throughout the ~ 400 million years of the symbiont evolutionary history [3, 5–8]. Hybridization events, followed by introgression between closely related species have been shown to support the interspecies transfer of various genetic entities, including Wolbachia [9–11]. Although recent common ancestry is an obvious reason to why two species can carry the same symbionts, studies have shown that it is not the only one (Fig. 1).
Various ecological interactions between hosts appear to support the horizontal transfer (HT) of Wolbachia between highly divergent species. Through the study of Dipterans associated to fleshy mushrooms, Stahlhut et al. [12] suggested that the HT through species hybridization occurs between species of this community, but that shared food-resources may also provide an efficient support for the horizontal movement of the bacterium between divergent host species. Similar conclusions were drawn from the study of an insect community feeding on pumpkin plants [13]. Analogously, an investigation of the Wolbachia infection status of parasitoid wasps showed that the wasps can act as both vectors and hosts for Wolbachia, as the parasitoids were found to carry similar Wolbachia strains as those found in their hosts [14, 15], and as those found in the other parasitoid species feeding on the same hosts [5]. Although exploring each potential transfer route independently is informative [7, 16], the distribution of Wolbachia in the host phylogeny is likely to be the result of a combination of both the host cladogenesis, and diverse horizontal transfer events between host species. Thus, investigating horizontal movements of the endosymbiont between species within complex natural insect communities should increase our understanding of the relative importance of each route for the HT, and global success of Wolbachia.
Butterflies in the genera Mylothris and Bicyclus seem to be an ideal model for studying of the inter-clade transfer of Wolbachia. The two genera (belonging to the families Pieridae and Nymphalidae, respectively) have diverged from each other about 97 My ago [17]. They represent two of the most species-rich genera of African butterflies, each including about 100 species [18, 19]. Both Mylothris and Bicyclus butterflies share similar geographical distributions, covering the Afrotropical region [20–22]. They include specialists for the same types of macro-habitats, from primary forests to forest edges and savannah grasslands [23, 24]. However, despite the syntopic occurrence of many species, the two genera mostly differ in the micro-habitat use. Most distinctively, they inhabit different vertical layers of the habitat [24]. The Mylothris species often prefer higher strata [24], where their larval host-plants (mistletoes mostly from Loranthaceae and Santalaceae families) occur [25–27], while the Bicyclus species occur predominantly in the undergrowth of the habitat [24], around their grassy larval host-plants (mostly Poaceae family, but sometimes Marantaceae or Zingiberaceae) [28, 29]. The two clades differ also in their adult food resources. Whilst Mylothris butterflies are commonly nectaring on various plant species (Tropek, unpublished data), Bicyclus are mostly fruit-feeders and sap-suckers and are observed on flowers only occasionally [30, 31]. On the other hand, species from both clades are observed mud-puddling, during which they could interact.
Prior to this study, Mylothris agathina was possibly the only Mylothris species to be known to carry Wolbachia [32, 33]. Earlier, Poulton [34] described an all-female brood in a species he referred to as M. spica, in Cameroon. This particular phenotype could be suggestive of an infection with a sex-ratio distorting Wolbachia strain, similar to the ones infecting Acraea encedon, A. encedana [11], or Hypolimnas bolina [35], but this has yet to be fully tested. In contrast, a recent study has shown that at least 19 Bicyclus species carry Wolbachia [36]. Many of the strains characterized in the divergent Bicyclus species shown high genetic similarity [36], and were also similar to strains described earlier in various insects, including Lepidoptera, from other geographic regions [7]. These patterns are suggestive of the horizontal acquisition of the bacterium between Bicyclus species, though the mechanisms of the transfers remained unclear.
We predicted that butterflies belonging to the same genus could share similar strains of Wolbachia due to recent common ancestry, and the possibility of HT by the means of hybridization events and shared larval host-plants. We did not expect the same to be true between the genera from different families, as their hybridization is impossible, and as butterflies of the two genera studied here do not share micro-habitats (as stated above). To further looked at the potential role of geographic distribution and habitat on any particular ecological routes to the transfer of the symbiont between species, we included Wolbachia-strains previously characterized from any Lepidoptera, any Hymenoptera (many of which could be parasitoid species of Lepidopteran larvae), and any other African arthropods, to the analyses. Finally, we call upon the investigation of more insect communities across the globe, and upon the revision of the current MLST-based Wolbachia characterization method.
Material:
All Mylothris specimens used in this study originated from the private collections of Haydon Warren-Gash and Robert Ducarme, and from the African Butterfly Research Institute ‘ABRI’ holding, which were collected under various local collection permits. All Bicyclus, Aphysoneura and Henotesia specimens were collected under research permits from the Cameroonian government to Dr. Robert Tropek. Tissue material from 225 adult butterflies from 53 Mylothris species [19], 63 specimens from 21 Bicyclus species, two specimens of Aphysoneura scapulifascia, and three specimens of Henotesia cf. nigrescens were included in the present study. The sample size for each species, and country of origin of each specimen can be found in the document available from Zenodo (doi:10.5281/zenodo.3934112).
Habitats and ecoregions:
The world’s terrestrial lands have been divided in eight biogeographic realms, which delineations do not follow countries boundaries, but are defined by the evolutionary history of the organisms they contain [37, 38]. The eight biogeographic realms, here called ecoregions for simplicity, are (1) Afrotropic (Trans-Saharan Africa and Arabia), (2) Antarctic, (3) Australasia (Australia, NewGuinea, and New Zealand), (4) Indo-Malay (Indian subcontinent Southeast Asia and Southern China), (5) Nearctic (North America), (6) Neotropic (South and Central America and the Caribbean), (7) Oceania (South Pacific islands), and (8) Palearctic (Eurasia and North Africa)[38]. Each of these ecoregion covers a wide diversity of biomes, or habitats. The Mylothris and Bicyclus butterflies evolve only within the Afrotropical region [20–22], but different species are found from either dense primary forests (i.e. forest habitat), forest edges (i.e. mixed habitat), or open savannah grassland habitats (i.e. open habitat) (Fig. 2)[39].
Molecular work:
DNA was extracted from legs from each butterfly following the protocol of a Qiagen DNeasy Blood & Tissue Extraction Kit (Qiagen, USA). We screened all specimens for Wolbachia, using Wolbachia specific primers amplifying the wsp gene (81F/691R, [40]), and three to five of the Wolbachia Multi Locus Sequence Typing markers [MLSTs, 16]. All sequences were aligned and manually curated in Geneious R11.0 [http://www.geneious.com, 41], and submitted to GenBank under the accession codes # MT669957-70007; MT732338-57.
Genetic data from additional Wolbachia strains:
In order to (I) identify whether the sequences from the Wolbachia characterized from our butterfly samples were unique or not to their host species, and (II) characterize any potential route of transfer of the strains between species (Fig. 1), we fished out the sequences of the wsp and MLST markers, from all Lepidoptera, all Hymenoptera, and all other African arthropods that were available from the PubMLST-Wolbachia database by December 2019 [16]. Many of the records from this database were from specimens of the same species and the same population, we thus randomly deleted some of the duplicates to keep a maximum of three of each type. Additionally, we included all wsp, and MLSTs sequences from Wolbachia strains previously characterized from Bicyclus species [36](GenBank IDs: KY658538-52, KY658652, KY658655, and KY658572-90), and those from Malagasy dung beetles [9](GenBank IDs: MK636654-66), that are not present in the PubMLST-Wolbachia database. The full list of specimens and sequences included in this study can be retrieved from Zenodo (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3934112).
Phylogenies:
The sequences of the six Wolbachia markers were concatenated in the following order: CoxA, fbpA, ftsz, gatb, hcpa, and wsp, for a maximum alignment of 3,149 bp. Each tree was built in CIPRES [42] using RAxML-XSEDE [43] with the Gamma + I parameter. Tree visualization and figures were done with FigTree (http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/) and ITOL [44, 45] using the bipartitions output trees produced by RAxML.
Wolbachia screening and strain diversity:
Out of the 225 Mylothris butterflies screened, 70 specimens (31%) were found infected with Wolbachia, representing 23 of the 53 species (43%) included in the study (43%). Similarly, 15 out of the 63 Bicyclus specimens (24%), representing 10 out of 21 species (47,5%) screened, were infected with Wolbachia. This brings the total number of Bicyclus species known to carry Wolbachia to 23 (19 described by [36], and four new ones in the present study). One of the two Aphysoneura scapulifascia specimens included in this study was also found to host Wolbachia, while the three Henotesia cf. nigrescens specimens were uninfected. We successfully sequenced between three and six Wolbachia markers for 66 (77%) of the 86 butterflies found infected with the symbiont.
There was a higher detectable diversity of B-supergroup than A-supergroup Wolbachia strains in the Mylothris and also in the Bicyclus butterflies (Fig. 2, Table S1, Table S2). Our analyses suggested that the strains clustered within two divergent A-supergroup strains (A1 and A2), and four B-supergroup strains (B1-B4) (Fig. 2). Most of the infected specimens were infected with B-supergroup Wolbachia (NMylothris=57; NBicyclus=13; NAphysoneura=1, or 81,5%, 87% and 100% respectively), while the other infected specimens carried A-supergroup Wolbachia. The host species M. uniformis, M. yulei, and M. asphodelus were found to carry two infections, each as single infection (i.e. different specimens of the same species carry different Wolbachia strains) ; and we suggest multiple infections in five butterflies (2x M. agathina and 3x M. bernice), as double peaks in the chromatogrammes from these specimens were observed, even after repeating sequencing on independent PCR products. Finally, the sequencing failed for two Wolbachia-infected samples (HWG1_176: M. crawshayi, and HWG1_211: M. asphodelus; Table S1), which has not allowed us to conclude on the identity of the infection in these specimens.
Wolbachia host specificity:
From our dataset, there was no effect of cladogenesis on whether two species carry similar Wolbachia strains, with no pattern of co-evolution between the butterflies and their respective infections (Figs. 2 and 3). For example, The Wolbachia strain variants ‘B4’ (Fig. 2) are found in species from at least five divergent Bicyclus species-groups, including the evadne-group, the saussurei-group,the angulosa-group, the trilophus-group and the hewitsoni-group [46]. Additionally, many of the Wolbachia strains characterized in the Mylothris butterflies (family Pieridae) were similar to those from the Bicyclus butterflies (family Nymphalidae) [36] (Table S3), other Lepidoptera, or other insects (Fig. 3).
Finally, we could not detect any clustering of the strains based on their host habitats (i.e. open savannah versus forest), nor based on their host ecoregions (e.g. Afrotropics versus Oceania) (Fig. 3). Strong biases however occur in the dataset used for the present study. There were for example very few Wolbachia strains characterized from host species evolving in certain ecoregions available in the Wolbachia PubMLST database, especially from the Neotropics or the Nearctics. Additionally, the dataset is incomplete (i.e. missing data about habitats of the Hymenoptera species).
We predicted that butterflies belonging to the same genus would share similar strains of Wolbachia due to recent common ancestry, and the possibility of HT by the means of hybridization events, and/or shared resources. We did not expect the same to be true between genera as any hybridization is impossible, and the butterflies of the two genera considered in this study only share similar macro-habitats (i.e. forest and open savannah), but not micro-habitats (i.e. larval host-plant). Our data supported the first prediction. Within each genus, many species carry similar strains to the one found in congeneric species, but not always. However, the same was also true between genera, which contrast with our second prediction. The occurrence of similar Wolbachia strains in both of the two Lepidoptera families (Pieridae and Nymphalidae) is unlikely to occur through shared ancestry, nor through horizontal transfer via the larval host-plants. This is in a clear contrast with the insect communities associated to fleshy mushrooms [12], and pumpkin plants [13]. These results suggest that other factors than the larval host-plants must support the transfer of Wolbachia between host species. The study of the horizontal transfer of Wolbachia between host species might however be currently skewed by (1) our restricted knowledge of the ecology of each species within insect communities, (2) the strong biases associated to the available Wolbachia strain diversity dataset, and (3) the way we characterize the different strains of the bacterium.
As it is the case for many species, especially in the Afrotropics, many aspects of the ecology of the Mylothris and Bicyclus butterflies remain unfortunately poorly studied. To date, almost all ecological studies of the Mylothris butterflies focus on their association at the larval stage to mistletoe plants (e.g. Santalaceae family) [25–27, 47] in their native Afrotropical range [20–22], neglecting other aspects of their life history. There is currently no available comprehensive record of, or formal study looking at the community of parasitoid wasps, or mite communities associated with any Mylothris or Bicyclus butterflies. To our knowledge, Gupta et al. [48] provided the only description of Cotesia pistrinariae as a parasitoid wasp of M. chloris; but it remains unknown whether C. pistrinariae could also parasitize any Bicyclus species, or vector Wolbachia between insect hosts. Our phylogenetic tree suggests several examples of parasitoid wasps sharing similar infection to Bicyclus or Mylothris butterflies, however in each case the direct contact between the Hymenoptera and the Lepidoptera species are unlikely [7], due to geographical or ecological reasons, or both. For example, despite sharing similar Wolbachia strains, the braconid parasitoid wasp Apanteles chilonis, an endoparasitoid of the rice stem borer Chilo suppressalis [49] in the Palearctic, is unlikely to parasitize B. vulgaris or B. auricruda in the Afrotropics. Similarly, Evania appendigaster, a parasitoid of cockroaches [50], is also unlikely to predate on B. ignobilis or B. xeneas. Only systematic surveys of the Wolbachia strains from species communities, rather than individual species or clades, could potentially offer the material currently lacking for testing how a single strain of Wolbachia may occur in highly different hosts and environments. Investigating the Wolbachia infection status of the community of endo- and ectoparasites associated to the Bicyclus and Mylothris butterflies, should thus inform whether these parasites can act as vectors of Wolbachia among the two genera of butterflies, as it was previously suggested in other insects, including flies and ants [5, 51].
Wolbachia is known to survive in an extracellular phase in the laboratory for up to a week [52]. Although Mylothris and Bicyclus larvae use very different host-plants and adult food resources [53, 54], the adult butterflies of both genera have occasionally been observed sucking from the same mud-pools or animal feces. By potential being the only nutrient resources shared by the two genera (Tropek, pers. comm.), mud-pools and feces could thus represent suitable short-term environments supporting the survival of Wolbachia until its successful horizontal transfer to a new host niche. This, however, remains to be tested.
Although the origin of Wolbachia supergroups A and B is estimated to be 200 My ago [based on whole genome data, 55], the divergence of the strains within each supergroup is most likely much younger (e.g. estimated around 28 My ago by [7] based on the MLST markers only), and does not match the divergence between Pieridae and Nymphalidae butterflies [97 My ago, 17]. It is thus rather improbable that particular strains have been passed down from their common ancestor or transferred via hybridization events between these butterfly species. Similarly, the ecological links described so far as potential routes for the recent transfer of Wolbachia between species can only explain local HTs of the bacterium. Nonetheless, we show that Mylothris and Bicyclus butterflies in Africa share similar Wolbachia strains to, for example, moths from the Pacific islands [56], and potentially to many other species in between these two geographical regions. Similarly, Ahmed et al. [7] found that a strain type characterized in butterflies from Africa (ie. Azanus mirza; Lycaenidae), was also found in Japan (ie. Eurema hecabe; Pieridae), Borneo (ie. Nacaduba angusta; Lycaenidae) and North America (ie. Celastrina argiolus; Lycaenidae). None of the geographically distant host species described in these two studies are likely to share the same host-plants, parasitoids nor mite parasites. Despite the lack of a clear understanding of ‘how’, the research community however agrees that the ability of Wolbachia to transfer horizontally has without a doubt contributed to the global pandemic of the bacterium [57].
A recent study by Detcharoen et al [58] estimated that, to date, more than 99% of all existing Wolbachia strains have yet to be characterized; worse: that strong biases occur in the database. The Wolbachia PubMLST database [16] currently includes over 2000 strains, but strains from particular host families and ecoregions are more represented. Out of those, 370 are from Lepidoptera species (18,3%), which is more than for the Coleoptera (92; 4,6%), the Hemiptera (297; 14,7%), and the Hymenoptera (359; 17,8%), but less than the Diptera (473; 23,4%), and does not represent the global diversity of these insects. Furthermore, in Lepidoptera for example, most of the Wolbachia strains were characterized from species inhabiting the Palearctic ecoregion (N = 107; 29%), while very few are from the Afrotropics (N = 18; 5%). And this pattern is similarly found in the other insect orders. Although the present study brings new data for the Afrotropic region, many biases remain and will continue to impede the comprehensive study of the diversity and geographical distribution of Wolbachia strains, as well as our understanding of the mechanisms behind their pandemic.
The commonly applied method to characterized Wolbachia strains is based on the sequences of six markers for a maximum length of about 3,000 bp [16]. This molecular technique has recently been highly criticized [59]. New studies are pushing towards the use of whole genome data, which seems to more accurately infer Wolbachia supergroup phylogeny and origin [55, 60]. Although still rather expensive, whole genome sequencing can not only provide the material to improve our understanding of Wolbachia strain diversity, its diversification rates, and its HT, but can also support the investigation of the ecology and evolution of the bacterium, including for example its ability to modify its host phenotype [61], and maybe, one day, its ability to establish in a wide range of host species.
The horizontal transfer of Wolbachia between insect hosts was already suggested in the early 90’s [62, 63]. Our study contributes to the growing literature showing that ecological links between species, such as shared host-plants, can act as platforms to the between species transfer of the symbiont. However, our study also further re-enforces the idea that biases in the dataset, and restrictions in the methodological approaches associated to such study, will, until solved, continue to impede our comprehensive analyses and understanding of the global Wolbachia pandemic.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interests
Funding
AD was funded by a Marie Curie Sklodowska Individual Fellowship to AD (#790531, HostSweetHome) and by the Academy of Finland to AD (#1328944). RT was funded by the Charles University (PRIMUS/17/SCI/8 and UNCE204069) and the National Geographic Society (Waitt Grant W163-11). NW was funded by a grant from the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2015-04441).
Authors’ contributions
AD, RP & NW conceived the study. AD analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to data collected, and all authors reviewed and agreed on the manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. A. Chiocchio and the members of the Systematic Biology Group at the Lund University for fruitful discussions. Thanks to A. Giraud for contributing to the molecular work in the lab.
ORC-IDs
Anne Duplouy 0000-0002-7147-5199
Robin Pranter 0000-0003-3615-0281
Robert Tropek 0000-0001-7499-6259
Niklas Wahlberg 0000-0002-1259-3363
- Hilgenboecker K, Hammerstein P, Schlattmann P, Telschow A, Werren JH. How many species are infected with Wolbachia? A statistical analysis of current data. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2008;281(2):215–20.
- Raychoudhury R, Baldo L, Oliveira DC, Werren JH. Modes of acquisition of Wolbachia: horizontal transfer, hybrid introgression, and codivergence in the Nasonia species complex. Evolution. 2009;63(1):165–83.
- Bordenstein SR, Paraskevopoulos C, Dunning Hotopp JC, Sapountzis P, Lo N, Bandi C, Tettelin H, Werren JH, Bourtzis K. Parasitism and mutualism in Wolbachia: what the phylogenomic trees can and cannot say. Mol Biol Evol. 2009;26(1):231–41.
- Balvin O, Roth S, Talbot B, Reinhardt K. Co-speciation in bedbug Wolbachia parallel the pattern in nematode hosts. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):8797.
- Vavre F, Fleury F, Lepetit D, Fouillet P, Bouletreau M. Phylogenetic evidence for horizontal transmission of Wolbachia in host-parasitoid associations. Mol Biol Evol. 1999;16(12):1711–23.
- Shoemaker DD, Machado CA, Molbo D, Werren JH, Windsor DM, Herre EA. The distribution of Wolbachia in fig wasps: correlations with host phylogeny, ecology and population structure. Proc Biol Sci. 2002;269(1506):2257–67.
- Ahmed MZ, Breinholt JW, Kawahara AY. Evidence for common horizontal transmission of Wolbachia among butterflies and moths. BMC Evol Biol. 2016;16(1):118.
- Johannesen J. Tracing the history and ecological context of Wolbachia double infection in a specialist host (Urophora cardui)-parasitoid (Eurytoma serratulae) system. Ecol Evol. 2017;7(3):986–96.
- Miraldo A, Duplouy A. High Wolbachia Strain Diversity in a Clade of Dung Beetles Endemic to Madagascar. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2019, 7.
- Gaunet A, Dincã V, Dapporto L, Matagud S, Vodã R, Schär S, Baldiane A, Font E, Vila R. Two consecutive Wolbachia-mediated mitochondrial introgressions obscure taxonomy in Palearctic swallowtail butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Zoolog Scr. 2019;48(4):507–19.
- Jiggins FM. Male-killing Wolbachia and mitochondrial DNA: selective sweeps, hybrid introgression and parasite population dynamics. Genetics. 2003;164(1):5–12.
- Stahlhut JK, Desjardins CA, Clark ME, Baldo L, Russell JA, Werren JH, Jaenike J. The mushroom habitat as an ecological arena for global exchange of Wolbachia. Mol Ecol. 2010;19(9):1940–52.
- Sintupachee S, Milne JR, Poonchaisri S, Baimai V, Kittayapong P. Closely related Wolbachia strains within the pumpkin arthropod community and the potential for horizontal transmission via the plant. Microb Ecol. 2006;51(3):294–301.
- Werren JH, O’Neill SL: The evolution of heritable symbionts. In: Influential passengers. Edited by O’Neill SL, Hoffmann AA, Werren JH. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1998: 1–41.
- Ahmed MZ, Li SJ, Xue X, Yin XJ, Ren SX, Jiggins FM, Greeff JM, Qiu BL. The intracellular bacterium Wolbachia uses parasitoid wasps as phoretic vectors for efficient horizontal transmission. PLoS Pathog. 2015;10(2):e1004672.
- Baldo L, Dunning Hotopp JC, Jolley KA, Bordenstein SR, Biber SA, Choudhury RR, Hayashi C, Maiden MC, Tettelin H, Werren JH. Multilocus sequence typing system for the endosymbiont Wolbachia pipientis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(11):7098–110.
- Chazot N, Wahlberg N, Freitas AVL, Mitter C, Labandeira C, Sohn JC, Sahoo RK, Seraphim N, de Jong R, Heikkila M. Priors and Posteriors in Bayesian Timing of Divergence Analyses: The Age of Butterflies Revisited. Syst Biol. 2019;68(5):797–813.
- Carcasson RH: A preliminary survey of the zoogeography of African butterflies. East African Wildlife Journal 1964, e:122–157.
- Warren-Gash H, Aduse-Poku K, Murillo-Ramos L, Wahlberg N. Systematics and evolution of the African butterfly genus Mylothris(Lepidoptera, Pieridae). Nota Lepidopterologica. 2020;43:1–14.
- Seitz A: Die gross schmetterlinge der erde: eine systematishe bearbeitung des bis jetzt bekannten gross schmetterlinge, vol. Bd. 13 (1925) Stuttgart: Verlag des Seitzschen Werkes (Alfred Kernen); 1907.
- Weaving A, Picker M, Llewellyn GC: Field Guide to insects of South africa: New Holland Publisher, Ltd; 2003.
- Mendes LF, Bivar de Sousa A. Description of a new species of Mylothris from northern Angola (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana. 2009;141(1):55–8.
- Larsen TB. Butterflies of west Africa. Strenstrup: Apollo Books; 2005.
- Tropek R, Konvicka M. Forest eternal? Endemic butterflies of the Bamenda highlands, Cameroon, avoid close-canopy forest. Afr J Ecol. 2010;48(2):428–37.
- Braby MF, Trueman JW. Evolution of larval host plant associations and adaptive radiation in pierid butterflies. J Evol Biol. 2006;19(5):1677–90.
- Braby MF. Afrotropical mistletoe butterflies: Larval food plant relationships of Mylothris Hubner (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). J Nat Hist. 2005;39(6):499–513.
- Claassens AJM, Dickson CGC. Mylothris chloris agathina (Cramer) (Lepidoptera: Pieridae), a species which has extended its range of distribution from the easterly part of South Africa to the extreme Western Cape. The entomologist's record journal of variation. 1986;98:1–4.
- Nokelainen O, Ripley BS, van Bergen E, Osborne CP, Brakefield PM. Preference for C4 shade grasses increases hatchling performance in the butterfly, Bicyclus safitza. Ecol Evol. 2016;6(15):5246–55.
- Pena C, Wahlberg N. Prehistorical climate change increased diversification of a group of butterflies. Biol Lett. 2008;4(3):274–8.
- Maicher V, Safian S, Murkwe M, Przybylowicz L, Janecek S, Fokam EB, Pyrcz T, Tropek R. Flying between raindrops: Strong seasonal turnover of several Lepidoptera groups in lowland rainforests of Mount Cameroon. Ecol Evol. 2018;8(24):12761–72.
- Maicher V, Sáfián S, Murkwe M, Delabye S, Przybyłowicz L, Potocký P, Kobe IN, Janeček S, Mertens JEJ, Fokam EB, et al. Seasonal shifts of biodiversity patterns and species’ elevation ranges of butterflies and moths along a complete rainforest elevational gradient on Mount Cameroon. J Biogeogr. 2019;47(2):342–54.
- Duplouy A, Hornett EA. Uncovering the hidden players in Lepidoptera biology: the heritable microbial endosymbionts. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4629.
- Russell JA, Funaro CF, Giraldo YM, Goldman-Huertas B, Suh D, Kronauer DJ, Moreau CS, Pierce NE. A veritable menagerie of heritable bacteria from ants, butterflies, and beyond: broad molecular surveys and a systematic review. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51027.
- Poulton EB: An all-female family of Mylothris spica, Moschl. Reared by Miss M.E. Fountaine from a company of larvae at Buea (about 3000 ft.) in the Cameroons. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London Series 1928, A 2:75.
- Dyson EA, Hurst GD. Persistence of an extreme sex-ratio bias in a natural population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(17):6520–3.
- Duplouy A, Brattstrom O. Wolbachia in the Genus Bicyclus: a Forgotten Player. Microb Ecol. 2018;75(1):255–63.
- Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake E, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D’amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on Earth. Bioscience. 2001;51:933–8.
- Olson DM, Dinerstein E. The Global 200: A representation approach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv Biol. 1998;12:502–15.
- Halali S, Brakefield PM, Collins SC, Brattstrom O. To mate, or not to mate: The evolution of reproductive diapause facilitates insect radiation into African savannahs in the Late Miocene. J Anim Ecol. 2020;89(5):1230–41.
- Zhou W, Rousset F, O'Neil S. Phylogeny and PCR-based classification of Wolbachia strains using wsp gene sequences. Proc Biol Sci. 1998;265(1395):509–15.
- Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, Buxton S, Cooper A, Markowitz S, Duran C, et al. Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(12):1647–9.
- Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T: Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE) 2010, New Orleans, LA:1–8.
- Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(9):1312–3.
- Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(W1):W256–9.
- Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL): an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(1):127–8.
- Aduse-Poku K, Brakefield PM, Wahlberg N, Brattström O. Expanded molecular phylogeny of the genus Bicyclus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) shows the importance of increased sampling for detecting semi-cryptic species and highlights potentials for future studies. Syst Biodivers. 2016;15(2):215–130.
- Ackery D. Host plant untilization by African and Australian butterflies. Biol J Lin Soc. 1991;44:335–51.
- Gupta A, Shaw M, Cardinal S, Fernandez-Triana J. A review of unusual species of Cotesia (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae) with the first tergite narrowing at midlength. Zookeys 2016(580):29–44.
- Wu SF, Sun FD, Qi YX, Yao Y, Fang Q, Huang J, Stanley D, Ye GY. Parasitization by Cotesia chilonis influences gene expression in fatbody and hemocytes of Chilo suppressalis. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e74309.
- Fox EGP, Bressan-Nascimento S. Biological characteristics of Evania appendigaster (L.) (Hymenoptera: Evaniidae) in different densities of Periplaneta americana (L.) oothecae (Blattodea: Blattidae). Biological control. 2006;36(2):183–8.
- Van Borm S, Wenseleers T, Billen J, Boomsma JJ. Cloning and sequencing of wsp encoding gene fragments reveals a diversity of co-infecting Wolbachia strains in Acromyrmex leafcutter ants. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003;26(1):102–9.
- Rasgon JL, Gamston CE, Ren X. Survival of Wolbachia pipientis in cell-free medium. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(11):6934–7.
- Yapo ML, Tuo Y, Kone M, Kouassi P: Diversity of butterflies visitors of cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) flowers in Korhogo (Northern Côte d’ivoire). International Journal of Entomology Research 2018, 3(3):7–10.
- Kudom AA, Kofi KP. Floral visitors of Ananas comosus in Ghana: A preliminary assessment. Journal of Pollination Ecology. 2010;2(5):27–32.
- Gerth M, Gansauge MT, Weigert A, Bleidorn C. Phylogenomic analyses uncover origin and spread of the Wolbachia pandemic. Nat Commun. 2014;5:5117.
- Bailly-Bechet M, Martins-Simoes P, Szollosi GJ, Mialdea G, Sagot MF, Charlat S. How long does Wolbachia remain on board?. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34(5):1183–93.
- Saridaki A, Bourtzis K. Wolbachia: more than just a bug in insects genitals. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2010;13(1):67–72.
- Detcharoen M, Arthofer W, Schlick-Steiner BC, Steiner FM. Wolbachia megadiversity: 99% of these microorganismic manipulators unknown. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2019, 95(11).
- Bleidorn C, Gerth M. A critical re-evaluation of multilocus sequence typing (MLST) efforts in Wolbachia. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2018, 94(1).
- Gerth M, Bleidorn C. Comparative genomics provides a timeframe for Wolbachia evolution and exposes a recent biotin synthesis operon transfer. Nat Microbiol. 2016;2:16241.
- LePage DP, Metcalf JA, Bordenstein SR, On J, Perlmutter JI, Shropshire JD, Layton EM, Funkhouser-Jones LJ, Beckmann JF, Bordenstein SR. Prophage WO genes recapitulate and enhance Wolbachia-induced cytoplasmic incompatibility. Nature. 2017;543(7644):243–7.
- O’Neill SL, Giordano R, Colbert AME, Karr TL: 16S rRNA phylogenetic analysis of the bacterial endosymbionts associated with cytoplasmic incompatibility in insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1992, 89:2699–2702.
- Rousset F, Bouchon D, Pintureau B, Solignac M. Wolbachia endosymbionts responsible for various alterations of sexuality in Arthropods. Proc Biol Sci. 1992;250(1328):91–8.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
No community comments so far
Editor assigned
On 04 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 04 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 04 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 29 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 26 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Sep, 2020
Version 1
Posted 20 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 26 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 18 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Aug, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 14 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 30 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 29 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 27 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 15 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 15 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 15 Jul, 2020
First submitted
On 14 Jul, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Microbiology. Preprints are preliminary reports that have not undergone peer review. They should not be considered conclusive, used to inform clinical practice, or referenced by the media as validated information.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Unravelling Wolbachia global exchange: a contribution from the Bicyclus and Mylothris butterflies in the Afrotropics
Anne Duplouy
Helsingin Yliopisto
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7147-5199
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
No community comments so far
Editor assigned
On 04 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 04 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 04 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 29 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 26 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 07 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Sep, 2020
Version 1
Posted 20 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 26 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 18 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Aug, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 14 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 30 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 29 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 27 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 15 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 15 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 15 Jul, 2020
First submitted
On 14 Jul, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
The most recent version of this article is available here.
Background
Phylogenetically closely related strains of maternally inherited endosymbiotic bacteria are often found in phylogenetically divergent, and geographically distant insect host species. The interspecies transfer of the symbiont Wolbachia has been thought to have occurred repeatedly, facilitating its observed global pandemic. Few ecological interactions have been proposed as potential routes for the horizontal transfer of Wolbachia within natural insect communities. These routes are however likely to act only at the local scale, but how they may support the global distribution of some Wolbachia strains remains unclear.
Results
Here, we characterize the Wolbachia diversity in butterflies from the tropical forest regions of central Africa to discuss transfer at both local and global scales. We show that numerous species from both the Mylothris (family Pieridae) and Bicyclus (family Nymphalidae) butterfly genera are infected with similar Wolbachia strains, this despite only minor interclade contacts across the life cycles of the species within their partially overlapping ecological niches. The phylogenetic distance and differences in resource use between these genera rule out the role of ancestry, hybridization, and shared host-plants in the interspecies transfer of the symbiont. Furthermore, we could not identify any shared ecological factors to explain the presence of the strains in other arthropod species from other habitats, or even ecoregions.
Conclusion
Only the systematic surveys of the Wolbachia strains from entire species communities may offer the material currently lacking for understanding how Wolbachia may transfer between highly different and unrelated hosts, as well as across environmental scales.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
The maternally inherited endosymbiont Wolbachia is present in more than 20% of all insect species, making this bacterium one of the most successful organisms on Earth [1]. Although host-Wolbachia co-divergence is relatively common between Nematode hosts and their Wolbachia strains, similar examples of co-divergence between insect hosts and their Wolbachia strains remain scarce [2, 3, but see 4]. These patterns thus suggest that Wolbachia may have jump jumped horizontally between host species throughout the ~ 400 million years of the symbiont evolutionary history [3, 5–8]. Hybridization events, followed by introgression between closely related species have been shown to support the interspecies transfer of various genetic entities, including Wolbachia [9–11]. Although recent common ancestry is an obvious reason to why two species can carry the same symbionts, studies have shown that it is not the only one (Fig. 1).
Various ecological interactions between hosts appear to support the horizontal transfer (HT) of Wolbachia between highly divergent species. Through the study of Dipterans associated to fleshy mushrooms, Stahlhut et al. [12] suggested that the HT through species hybridization occurs between species of this community, but that shared food-resources may also provide an efficient support for the horizontal movement of the bacterium between divergent host species. Similar conclusions were drawn from the study of an insect community feeding on pumpkin plants [13]. Analogously, an investigation of the Wolbachia infection status of parasitoid wasps showed that the wasps can act as both vectors and hosts for Wolbachia, as the parasitoids were found to carry similar Wolbachia strains as those found in their hosts [14, 15], and as those found in the other parasitoid species feeding on the same hosts [5]. Although exploring each potential transfer route independently is informative [7, 16], the distribution of Wolbachia in the host phylogeny is likely to be the result of a combination of both the host cladogenesis, and diverse horizontal transfer events between host species. Thus, investigating horizontal movements of the endosymbiont between species within complex natural insect communities should increase our understanding of the relative importance of each route for the HT, and global success of Wolbachia.
Butterflies in the genera Mylothris and Bicyclus seem to be an ideal model for studying of the inter-clade transfer of Wolbachia. The two genera (belonging to the families Pieridae and Nymphalidae, respectively) have diverged from each other about 97 My ago [17]. They represent two of the most species-rich genera of African butterflies, each including about 100 species [18, 19]. Both Mylothris and Bicyclus butterflies share similar geographical distributions, covering the Afrotropical region [20–22]. They include specialists for the same types of macro-habitats, from primary forests to forest edges and savannah grasslands [23, 24]. However, despite the syntopic occurrence of many species, the two genera mostly differ in the micro-habitat use. Most distinctively, they inhabit different vertical layers of the habitat [24]. The Mylothris species often prefer higher strata [24], where their larval host-plants (mistletoes mostly from Loranthaceae and Santalaceae families) occur [25–27], while the Bicyclus species occur predominantly in the undergrowth of the habitat [24], around their grassy larval host-plants (mostly Poaceae family, but sometimes Marantaceae or Zingiberaceae) [28, 29]. The two clades differ also in their adult food resources. Whilst Mylothris butterflies are commonly nectaring on various plant species (Tropek, unpublished data), Bicyclus are mostly fruit-feeders and sap-suckers and are observed on flowers only occasionally [30, 31]. On the other hand, species from both clades are observed mud-puddling, during which they could interact.
Prior to this study, Mylothris agathina was possibly the only Mylothris species to be known to carry Wolbachia [32, 33]. Earlier, Poulton [34] described an all-female brood in a species he referred to as M. spica, in Cameroon. This particular phenotype could be suggestive of an infection with a sex-ratio distorting Wolbachia strain, similar to the ones infecting Acraea encedon, A. encedana [11], or Hypolimnas bolina [35], but this has yet to be fully tested. In contrast, a recent study has shown that at least 19 Bicyclus species carry Wolbachia [36]. Many of the strains characterized in the divergent Bicyclus species shown high genetic similarity [36], and were also similar to strains described earlier in various insects, including Lepidoptera, from other geographic regions [7]. These patterns are suggestive of the horizontal acquisition of the bacterium between Bicyclus species, though the mechanisms of the transfers remained unclear.
We predicted that butterflies belonging to the same genus could share similar strains of Wolbachia due to recent common ancestry, and the possibility of HT by the means of hybridization events and shared larval host-plants. We did not expect the same to be true between the genera from different families, as their hybridization is impossible, and as butterflies of the two genera studied here do not share micro-habitats (as stated above). To further looked at the potential role of geographic distribution and habitat on any particular ecological routes to the transfer of the symbiont between species, we included Wolbachia-strains previously characterized from any Lepidoptera, any Hymenoptera (many of which could be parasitoid species of Lepidopteran larvae), and any other African arthropods, to the analyses. Finally, we call upon the investigation of more insect communities across the globe, and upon the revision of the current MLST-based Wolbachia characterization method.
Material:
All Mylothris specimens used in this study originated from the private collections of Haydon Warren-Gash and Robert Ducarme, and from the African Butterfly Research Institute ‘ABRI’ holding, which were collected under various local collection permits. All Bicyclus, Aphysoneura and Henotesia specimens were collected under research permits from the Cameroonian government to Dr. Robert Tropek. Tissue material from 225 adult butterflies from 53 Mylothris species [19], 63 specimens from 21 Bicyclus species, two specimens of Aphysoneura scapulifascia, and three specimens of Henotesia cf. nigrescens were included in the present study. The sample size for each species, and country of origin of each specimen can be found in the document available from Zenodo (doi:10.5281/zenodo.3934112).
Habitats and ecoregions:
The world’s terrestrial lands have been divided in eight biogeographic realms, which delineations do not follow countries boundaries, but are defined by the evolutionary history of the organisms they contain [37, 38]. The eight biogeographic realms, here called ecoregions for simplicity, are (1) Afrotropic (Trans-Saharan Africa and Arabia), (2) Antarctic, (3) Australasia (Australia, NewGuinea, and New Zealand), (4) Indo-Malay (Indian subcontinent Southeast Asia and Southern China), (5) Nearctic (North America), (6) Neotropic (South and Central America and the Caribbean), (7) Oceania (South Pacific islands), and (8) Palearctic (Eurasia and North Africa)[38]. Each of these ecoregion covers a wide diversity of biomes, or habitats. The Mylothris and Bicyclus butterflies evolve only within the Afrotropical region [20–22], but different species are found from either dense primary forests (i.e. forest habitat), forest edges (i.e. mixed habitat), or open savannah grassland habitats (i.e. open habitat) (Fig. 2)[39].
Molecular work:
DNA was extracted from legs from each butterfly following the protocol of a Qiagen DNeasy Blood & Tissue Extraction Kit (Qiagen, USA). We screened all specimens for Wolbachia, using Wolbachia specific primers amplifying the wsp gene (81F/691R, [40]), and three to five of the Wolbachia Multi Locus Sequence Typing markers [MLSTs, 16]. All sequences were aligned and manually curated in Geneious R11.0 [http://www.geneious.com, 41], and submitted to GenBank under the accession codes # MT669957-70007; MT732338-57.
Genetic data from additional Wolbachia strains:
In order to (I) identify whether the sequences from the Wolbachia characterized from our butterfly samples were unique or not to their host species, and (II) characterize any potential route of transfer of the strains between species (Fig. 1), we fished out the sequences of the wsp and MLST markers, from all Lepidoptera, all Hymenoptera, and all other African arthropods that were available from the PubMLST-Wolbachia database by December 2019 [16]. Many of the records from this database were from specimens of the same species and the same population, we thus randomly deleted some of the duplicates to keep a maximum of three of each type. Additionally, we included all wsp, and MLSTs sequences from Wolbachia strains previously characterized from Bicyclus species [36](GenBank IDs: KY658538-52, KY658652, KY658655, and KY658572-90), and those from Malagasy dung beetles [9](GenBank IDs: MK636654-66), that are not present in the PubMLST-Wolbachia database. The full list of specimens and sequences included in this study can be retrieved from Zenodo (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3934112).
Phylogenies:
The sequences of the six Wolbachia markers were concatenated in the following order: CoxA, fbpA, ftsz, gatb, hcpa, and wsp, for a maximum alignment of 3,149 bp. Each tree was built in CIPRES [42] using RAxML-XSEDE [43] with the Gamma + I parameter. Tree visualization and figures were done with FigTree (http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/) and ITOL [44, 45] using the bipartitions output trees produced by RAxML.
Wolbachia screening and strain diversity:
Out of the 225 Mylothris butterflies screened, 70 specimens (31%) were found infected with Wolbachia, representing 23 of the 53 species (43%) included in the study (43%). Similarly, 15 out of the 63 Bicyclus specimens (24%), representing 10 out of 21 species (47,5%) screened, were infected with Wolbachia. This brings the total number of Bicyclus species known to carry Wolbachia to 23 (19 described by [36], and four new ones in the present study). One of the two Aphysoneura scapulifascia specimens included in this study was also found to host Wolbachia, while the three Henotesia cf. nigrescens specimens were uninfected. We successfully sequenced between three and six Wolbachia markers for 66 (77%) of the 86 butterflies found infected with the symbiont.
There was a higher detectable diversity of B-supergroup than A-supergroup Wolbachia strains in the Mylothris and also in the Bicyclus butterflies (Fig. 2, Table S1, Table S2). Our analyses suggested that the strains clustered within two divergent A-supergroup strains (A1 and A2), and four B-supergroup strains (B1-B4) (Fig. 2). Most of the infected specimens were infected with B-supergroup Wolbachia (NMylothris=57; NBicyclus=13; NAphysoneura=1, or 81,5%, 87% and 100% respectively), while the other infected specimens carried A-supergroup Wolbachia. The host species M. uniformis, M. yulei, and M. asphodelus were found to carry two infections, each as single infection (i.e. different specimens of the same species carry different Wolbachia strains) ; and we suggest multiple infections in five butterflies (2x M. agathina and 3x M. bernice), as double peaks in the chromatogrammes from these specimens were observed, even after repeating sequencing on independent PCR products. Finally, the sequencing failed for two Wolbachia-infected samples (HWG1_176: M. crawshayi, and HWG1_211: M. asphodelus; Table S1), which has not allowed us to conclude on the identity of the infection in these specimens.
Wolbachia host specificity:
From our dataset, there was no effect of cladogenesis on whether two species carry similar Wolbachia strains, with no pattern of co-evolution between the butterflies and their respective infections (Figs. 2 and 3). For example, The Wolbachia strain variants ‘B4’ (Fig. 2) are found in species from at least five divergent Bicyclus species-groups, including the evadne-group, the saussurei-group,the angulosa-group, the trilophus-group and the hewitsoni-group [46]. Additionally, many of the Wolbachia strains characterized in the Mylothris butterflies (family Pieridae) were similar to those from the Bicyclus butterflies (family Nymphalidae) [36] (Table S3), other Lepidoptera, or other insects (Fig. 3).
Finally, we could not detect any clustering of the strains based on their host habitats (i.e. open savannah versus forest), nor based on their host ecoregions (e.g. Afrotropics versus Oceania) (Fig. 3). Strong biases however occur in the dataset used for the present study. There were for example very few Wolbachia strains characterized from host species evolving in certain ecoregions available in the Wolbachia PubMLST database, especially from the Neotropics or the Nearctics. Additionally, the dataset is incomplete (i.e. missing data about habitats of the Hymenoptera species).
We predicted that butterflies belonging to the same genus would share similar strains of Wolbachia due to recent common ancestry, and the possibility of HT by the means of hybridization events, and/or shared resources. We did not expect the same to be true between genera as any hybridization is impossible, and the butterflies of the two genera considered in this study only share similar macro-habitats (i.e. forest and open savannah), but not micro-habitats (i.e. larval host-plant). Our data supported the first prediction. Within each genus, many species carry similar strains to the one found in congeneric species, but not always. However, the same was also true between genera, which contrast with our second prediction. The occurrence of similar Wolbachia strains in both of the two Lepidoptera families (Pieridae and Nymphalidae) is unlikely to occur through shared ancestry, nor through horizontal transfer via the larval host-plants. This is in a clear contrast with the insect communities associated to fleshy mushrooms [12], and pumpkin plants [13]. These results suggest that other factors than the larval host-plants must support the transfer of Wolbachia between host species. The study of the horizontal transfer of Wolbachia between host species might however be currently skewed by (1) our restricted knowledge of the ecology of each species within insect communities, (2) the strong biases associated to the available Wolbachia strain diversity dataset, and (3) the way we characterize the different strains of the bacterium.
As it is the case for many species, especially in the Afrotropics, many aspects of the ecology of the Mylothris and Bicyclus butterflies remain unfortunately poorly studied. To date, almost all ecological studies of the Mylothris butterflies focus on their association at the larval stage to mistletoe plants (e.g. Santalaceae family) [25–27, 47] in their native Afrotropical range [20–22], neglecting other aspects of their life history. There is currently no available comprehensive record of, or formal study looking at the community of parasitoid wasps, or mite communities associated with any Mylothris or Bicyclus butterflies. To our knowledge, Gupta et al. [48] provided the only description of Cotesia pistrinariae as a parasitoid wasp of M. chloris; but it remains unknown whether C. pistrinariae could also parasitize any Bicyclus species, or vector Wolbachia between insect hosts. Our phylogenetic tree suggests several examples of parasitoid wasps sharing similar infection to Bicyclus or Mylothris butterflies, however in each case the direct contact between the Hymenoptera and the Lepidoptera species are unlikely [7], due to geographical or ecological reasons, or both. For example, despite sharing similar Wolbachia strains, the braconid parasitoid wasp Apanteles chilonis, an endoparasitoid of the rice stem borer Chilo suppressalis [49] in the Palearctic, is unlikely to parasitize B. vulgaris or B. auricruda in the Afrotropics. Similarly, Evania appendigaster, a parasitoid of cockroaches [50], is also unlikely to predate on B. ignobilis or B. xeneas. Only systematic surveys of the Wolbachia strains from species communities, rather than individual species or clades, could potentially offer the material currently lacking for testing how a single strain of Wolbachia may occur in highly different hosts and environments. Investigating the Wolbachia infection status of the community of endo- and ectoparasites associated to the Bicyclus and Mylothris butterflies, should thus inform whether these parasites can act as vectors of Wolbachia among the two genera of butterflies, as it was previously suggested in other insects, including flies and ants [5, 51].
Wolbachia is known to survive in an extracellular phase in the laboratory for up to a week [52]. Although Mylothris and Bicyclus larvae use very different host-plants and adult food resources [53, 54], the adult butterflies of both genera have occasionally been observed sucking from the same mud-pools or animal feces. By potential being the only nutrient resources shared by the two genera (Tropek, pers. comm.), mud-pools and feces could thus represent suitable short-term environments supporting the survival of Wolbachia until its successful horizontal transfer to a new host niche. This, however, remains to be tested.
Although the origin of Wolbachia supergroups A and B is estimated to be 200 My ago [based on whole genome data, 55], the divergence of the strains within each supergroup is most likely much younger (e.g. estimated around 28 My ago by [7] based on the MLST markers only), and does not match the divergence between Pieridae and Nymphalidae butterflies [97 My ago, 17]. It is thus rather improbable that particular strains have been passed down from their common ancestor or transferred via hybridization events between these butterfly species. Similarly, the ecological links described so far as potential routes for the recent transfer of Wolbachia between species can only explain local HTs of the bacterium. Nonetheless, we show that Mylothris and Bicyclus butterflies in Africa share similar Wolbachia strains to, for example, moths from the Pacific islands [56], and potentially to many other species in between these two geographical regions. Similarly, Ahmed et al. [7] found that a strain type characterized in butterflies from Africa (ie. Azanus mirza; Lycaenidae), was also found in Japan (ie. Eurema hecabe; Pieridae), Borneo (ie. Nacaduba angusta; Lycaenidae) and North America (ie. Celastrina argiolus; Lycaenidae). None of the geographically distant host species described in these two studies are likely to share the same host-plants, parasitoids nor mite parasites. Despite the lack of a clear understanding of ‘how’, the research community however agrees that the ability of Wolbachia to transfer horizontally has without a doubt contributed to the global pandemic of the bacterium [57].
A recent study by Detcharoen et al [58] estimated that, to date, more than 99% of all existing Wolbachia strains have yet to be characterized; worse: that strong biases occur in the database. The Wolbachia PubMLST database [16] currently includes over 2000 strains, but strains from particular host families and ecoregions are more represented. Out of those, 370 are from Lepidoptera species (18,3%), which is more than for the Coleoptera (92; 4,6%), the Hemiptera (297; 14,7%), and the Hymenoptera (359; 17,8%), but less than the Diptera (473; 23,4%), and does not represent the global diversity of these insects. Furthermore, in Lepidoptera for example, most of the Wolbachia strains were characterized from species inhabiting the Palearctic ecoregion (N = 107; 29%), while very few are from the Afrotropics (N = 18; 5%). And this pattern is similarly found in the other insect orders. Although the present study brings new data for the Afrotropic region, many biases remain and will continue to impede the comprehensive study of the diversity and geographical distribution of Wolbachia strains, as well as our understanding of the mechanisms behind their pandemic.
The commonly applied method to characterized Wolbachia strains is based on the sequences of six markers for a maximum length of about 3,000 bp [16]. This molecular technique has recently been highly criticized [59]. New studies are pushing towards the use of whole genome data, which seems to more accurately infer Wolbachia supergroup phylogeny and origin [55, 60]. Although still rather expensive, whole genome sequencing can not only provide the material to improve our understanding of Wolbachia strain diversity, its diversification rates, and its HT, but can also support the investigation of the ecology and evolution of the bacterium, including for example its ability to modify its host phenotype [61], and maybe, one day, its ability to establish in a wide range of host species.
The horizontal transfer of Wolbachia between insect hosts was already suggested in the early 90’s [62, 63]. Our study contributes to the growing literature showing that ecological links between species, such as shared host-plants, can act as platforms to the between species transfer of the symbiont. However, our study also further re-enforces the idea that biases in the dataset, and restrictions in the methodological approaches associated to such study, will, until solved, continue to impede our comprehensive analyses and understanding of the global Wolbachia pandemic.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interests
Funding
AD was funded by a Marie Curie Sklodowska Individual Fellowship to AD (#790531, HostSweetHome) and by the Academy of Finland to AD (#1328944). RT was funded by the Charles University (PRIMUS/17/SCI/8 and UNCE204069) and the National Geographic Society (Waitt Grant W163-11). NW was funded by a grant from the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2015-04441).
Authors’ contributions
AD, RP & NW conceived the study. AD analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to data collected, and all authors reviewed and agreed on the manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. A. Chiocchio and the members of the Systematic Biology Group at the Lund University for fruitful discussions. Thanks to A. Giraud for contributing to the molecular work in the lab.
ORC-IDs
Anne Duplouy 0000-0002-7147-5199
Robin Pranter 0000-0003-3615-0281
Robert Tropek 0000-0001-7499-6259
Niklas Wahlberg 0000-0002-1259-3363
- Hilgenboecker K, Hammerstein P, Schlattmann P, Telschow A, Werren JH. How many species are infected with Wolbachia? A statistical analysis of current data. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2008;281(2):215–20.
- Raychoudhury R, Baldo L, Oliveira DC, Werren JH. Modes of acquisition of Wolbachia: horizontal transfer, hybrid introgression, and codivergence in the Nasonia species complex. Evolution. 2009;63(1):165–83.
- Bordenstein SR, Paraskevopoulos C, Dunning Hotopp JC, Sapountzis P, Lo N, Bandi C, Tettelin H, Werren JH, Bourtzis K. Parasitism and mutualism in Wolbachia: what the phylogenomic trees can and cannot say. Mol Biol Evol. 2009;26(1):231–41.
- Balvin O, Roth S, Talbot B, Reinhardt K. Co-speciation in bedbug Wolbachia parallel the pattern in nematode hosts. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):8797.
- Vavre F, Fleury F, Lepetit D, Fouillet P, Bouletreau M. Phylogenetic evidence for horizontal transmission of Wolbachia in host-parasitoid associations. Mol Biol Evol. 1999;16(12):1711–23.
- Shoemaker DD, Machado CA, Molbo D, Werren JH, Windsor DM, Herre EA. The distribution of Wolbachia in fig wasps: correlations with host phylogeny, ecology and population structure. Proc Biol Sci. 2002;269(1506):2257–67.
- Ahmed MZ, Breinholt JW, Kawahara AY. Evidence for common horizontal transmission of Wolbachia among butterflies and moths. BMC Evol Biol. 2016;16(1):118.
- Johannesen J. Tracing the history and ecological context of Wolbachia double infection in a specialist host (Urophora cardui)-parasitoid (Eurytoma serratulae) system. Ecol Evol. 2017;7(3):986–96.
- Miraldo A, Duplouy A. High Wolbachia Strain Diversity in a Clade of Dung Beetles Endemic to Madagascar. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2019, 7.
- Gaunet A, Dincã V, Dapporto L, Matagud S, Vodã R, Schär S, Baldiane A, Font E, Vila R. Two consecutive Wolbachia-mediated mitochondrial introgressions obscure taxonomy in Palearctic swallowtail butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Zoolog Scr. 2019;48(4):507–19.
- Jiggins FM. Male-killing Wolbachia and mitochondrial DNA: selective sweeps, hybrid introgression and parasite population dynamics. Genetics. 2003;164(1):5–12.
- Stahlhut JK, Desjardins CA, Clark ME, Baldo L, Russell JA, Werren JH, Jaenike J. The mushroom habitat as an ecological arena for global exchange of Wolbachia. Mol Ecol. 2010;19(9):1940–52.
- Sintupachee S, Milne JR, Poonchaisri S, Baimai V, Kittayapong P. Closely related Wolbachia strains within the pumpkin arthropod community and the potential for horizontal transmission via the plant. Microb Ecol. 2006;51(3):294–301.
- Werren JH, O’Neill SL: The evolution of heritable symbionts. In: Influential passengers. Edited by O’Neill SL, Hoffmann AA, Werren JH. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1998: 1–41.
- Ahmed MZ, Li SJ, Xue X, Yin XJ, Ren SX, Jiggins FM, Greeff JM, Qiu BL. The intracellular bacterium Wolbachia uses parasitoid wasps as phoretic vectors for efficient horizontal transmission. PLoS Pathog. 2015;10(2):e1004672.
- Baldo L, Dunning Hotopp JC, Jolley KA, Bordenstein SR, Biber SA, Choudhury RR, Hayashi C, Maiden MC, Tettelin H, Werren JH. Multilocus sequence typing system for the endosymbiont Wolbachia pipientis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(11):7098–110.
- Chazot N, Wahlberg N, Freitas AVL, Mitter C, Labandeira C, Sohn JC, Sahoo RK, Seraphim N, de Jong R, Heikkila M. Priors and Posteriors in Bayesian Timing of Divergence Analyses: The Age of Butterflies Revisited. Syst Biol. 2019;68(5):797–813.
- Carcasson RH: A preliminary survey of the zoogeography of African butterflies. East African Wildlife Journal 1964, e:122–157.
- Warren-Gash H, Aduse-Poku K, Murillo-Ramos L, Wahlberg N. Systematics and evolution of the African butterfly genus Mylothris(Lepidoptera, Pieridae). Nota Lepidopterologica. 2020;43:1–14.
- Seitz A: Die gross schmetterlinge der erde: eine systematishe bearbeitung des bis jetzt bekannten gross schmetterlinge, vol. Bd. 13 (1925) Stuttgart: Verlag des Seitzschen Werkes (Alfred Kernen); 1907.
- Weaving A, Picker M, Llewellyn GC: Field Guide to insects of South africa: New Holland Publisher, Ltd; 2003.
- Mendes LF, Bivar de Sousa A. Description of a new species of Mylothris from northern Angola (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana. 2009;141(1):55–8.
- Larsen TB. Butterflies of west Africa. Strenstrup: Apollo Books; 2005.
- Tropek R, Konvicka M. Forest eternal? Endemic butterflies of the Bamenda highlands, Cameroon, avoid close-canopy forest. Afr J Ecol. 2010;48(2):428–37.
- Braby MF, Trueman JW. Evolution of larval host plant associations and adaptive radiation in pierid butterflies. J Evol Biol. 2006;19(5):1677–90.
- Braby MF. Afrotropical mistletoe butterflies: Larval food plant relationships of Mylothris Hubner (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). J Nat Hist. 2005;39(6):499–513.
- Claassens AJM, Dickson CGC. Mylothris chloris agathina (Cramer) (Lepidoptera: Pieridae), a species which has extended its range of distribution from the easterly part of South Africa to the extreme Western Cape. The entomologist's record journal of variation. 1986;98:1–4.
- Nokelainen O, Ripley BS, van Bergen E, Osborne CP, Brakefield PM. Preference for C4 shade grasses increases hatchling performance in the butterfly, Bicyclus safitza. Ecol Evol. 2016;6(15):5246–55.
- Pena C, Wahlberg N. Prehistorical climate change increased diversification of a group of butterflies. Biol Lett. 2008;4(3):274–8.
- Maicher V, Safian S, Murkwe M, Przybylowicz L, Janecek S, Fokam EB, Pyrcz T, Tropek R. Flying between raindrops: Strong seasonal turnover of several Lepidoptera groups in lowland rainforests of Mount Cameroon. Ecol Evol. 2018;8(24):12761–72.
- Maicher V, Sáfián S, Murkwe M, Delabye S, Przybyłowicz L, Potocký P, Kobe IN, Janeček S, Mertens JEJ, Fokam EB, et al. Seasonal shifts of biodiversity patterns and species’ elevation ranges of butterflies and moths along a complete rainforest elevational gradient on Mount Cameroon. J Biogeogr. 2019;47(2):342–54.
- Duplouy A, Hornett EA. Uncovering the hidden players in Lepidoptera biology: the heritable microbial endosymbionts. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4629.
- Russell JA, Funaro CF, Giraldo YM, Goldman-Huertas B, Suh D, Kronauer DJ, Moreau CS, Pierce NE. A veritable menagerie of heritable bacteria from ants, butterflies, and beyond: broad molecular surveys and a systematic review. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51027.
- Poulton EB: An all-female family of Mylothris spica, Moschl. Reared by Miss M.E. Fountaine from a company of larvae at Buea (about 3000 ft.) in the Cameroons. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London Series 1928, A 2:75.
- Dyson EA, Hurst GD. Persistence of an extreme sex-ratio bias in a natural population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(17):6520–3.
- Duplouy A, Brattstrom O. Wolbachia in the Genus Bicyclus: a Forgotten Player. Microb Ecol. 2018;75(1):255–63.
- Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake E, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D’amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on Earth. Bioscience. 2001;51:933–8.
- Olson DM, Dinerstein E. The Global 200: A representation approach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv Biol. 1998;12:502–15.
- Halali S, Brakefield PM, Collins SC, Brattstrom O. To mate, or not to mate: The evolution of reproductive diapause facilitates insect radiation into African savannahs in the Late Miocene. J Anim Ecol. 2020;89(5):1230–41.
- Zhou W, Rousset F, O'Neil S. Phylogeny and PCR-based classification of Wolbachia strains using wsp gene sequences. Proc Biol Sci. 1998;265(1395):509–15.
- Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, Buxton S, Cooper A, Markowitz S, Duran C, et al. Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(12):1647–9.
- Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T: Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE) 2010, New Orleans, LA:1–8.
- Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(9):1312–3.
- Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(W1):W256–9.
- Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL): an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(1):127–8.
- Aduse-Poku K, Brakefield PM, Wahlberg N, Brattström O. Expanded molecular phylogeny of the genus Bicyclus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) shows the importance of increased sampling for detecting semi-cryptic species and highlights potentials for future studies. Syst Biodivers. 2016;15(2):215–130.
- Ackery D. Host plant untilization by African and Australian butterflies. Biol J Lin Soc. 1991;44:335–51.
- Gupta A, Shaw M, Cardinal S, Fernandez-Triana J. A review of unusual species of Cotesia (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae) with the first tergite narrowing at midlength. Zookeys 2016(580):29–44.
- Wu SF, Sun FD, Qi YX, Yao Y, Fang Q, Huang J, Stanley D, Ye GY. Parasitization by Cotesia chilonis influences gene expression in fatbody and hemocytes of Chilo suppressalis. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e74309.
- Fox EGP, Bressan-Nascimento S. Biological characteristics of Evania appendigaster (L.) (Hymenoptera: Evaniidae) in different densities of Periplaneta americana (L.) oothecae (Blattodea: Blattidae). Biological control. 2006;36(2):183–8.
- Van Borm S, Wenseleers T, Billen J, Boomsma JJ. Cloning and sequencing of wsp encoding gene fragments reveals a diversity of co-infecting Wolbachia strains in Acromyrmex leafcutter ants. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003;26(1):102–9.
- Rasgon JL, Gamston CE, Ren X. Survival of Wolbachia pipientis in cell-free medium. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72(11):6934–7.
- Yapo ML, Tuo Y, Kone M, Kouassi P: Diversity of butterflies visitors of cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) flowers in Korhogo (Northern Côte d’ivoire). International Journal of Entomology Research 2018, 3(3):7–10.
- Kudom AA, Kofi KP. Floral visitors of Ananas comosus in Ghana: A preliminary assessment. Journal of Pollination Ecology. 2010;2(5):27–32.
- Gerth M, Gansauge MT, Weigert A, Bleidorn C. Phylogenomic analyses uncover origin and spread of the Wolbachia pandemic. Nat Commun. 2014;5:5117.
- Bailly-Bechet M, Martins-Simoes P, Szollosi GJ, Mialdea G, Sagot MF, Charlat S. How long does Wolbachia remain on board?. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34(5):1183–93.
- Saridaki A, Bourtzis K. Wolbachia: more than just a bug in insects genitals. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2010;13(1):67–72.
- Detcharoen M, Arthofer W, Schlick-Steiner BC, Steiner FM. Wolbachia megadiversity: 99% of these microorganismic manipulators unknown. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2019, 95(11).
- Bleidorn C, Gerth M. A critical re-evaluation of multilocus sequence typing (MLST) efforts in Wolbachia. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2018, 94(1).
- Gerth M, Bleidorn C. Comparative genomics provides a timeframe for Wolbachia evolution and exposes a recent biotin synthesis operon transfer. Nat Microbiol. 2016;2:16241.
- LePage DP, Metcalf JA, Bordenstein SR, On J, Perlmutter JI, Shropshire JD, Layton EM, Funkhouser-Jones LJ, Beckmann JF, Bordenstein SR. Prophage WO genes recapitulate and enhance Wolbachia-induced cytoplasmic incompatibility. Nature. 2017;543(7644):243–7.
- O’Neill SL, Giordano R, Colbert AME, Karr TL: 16S rRNA phylogenetic analysis of the bacterial endosymbionts associated with cytoplasmic incompatibility in insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1992, 89:2699–2702.
- Rousset F, Bouchon D, Pintureau B, Solignac M. Wolbachia endosymbionts responsible for various alterations of sexuality in Arthropods. Proc Biol Sci. 1992;250(1328):91–8.