Skip to main content
PLOS Genetics logoLink to PLOS Genetics
. 2024 Jun 17;20(6):e1011162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011162

Mendelian segregation and high recombination rates facilitate genetic analyses in Cryptosporidium parvum

Abigail Kimball 1, Lisa Funkhouser-Jones 1,¤a, Wanyi Huang 1, Rui Xu 1,¤b, William H Witola 2, L David Sibley 1,*
Editor: Joseph Heitman3
PMCID: PMC11213348  PMID: 38885280

Abstract

Very little is known about the process of meiosis in the apicomplexan parasite Cryptosporidium despite the essentiality of sex in its life cycle. Most cell lines only support asexual growth of Cryptosporidium parvum (C. parvum), but stem cell derived intestinal epithelial cells grown under air-liquid interface (ALI) conditions support the sexual cycle. To examine chromosomal dynamics during meiosis in C. parvum, we generated two transgenic lines of parasites that were fluorescently tagged with mCherry or GFP on chromosomes 1 or 5, respectively. Infection of ALI cultures or Ifngr1-/- mice with mCherry and GFP parasites resulted in cross-fertilization and the formation of “yellow” oocysts, which contain 4 haploid sporozoites that are the product of meiosis. Recombinant oocysts from the F1 generation were purified and used to infect HCT-8 cultures, and phenotypes of the progeny were observed by microscopy. All possible phenotypes predicted by independent segregation were represented equally (~25%) in the population, indicating that C. parvum chromosomes exhibit a Mendelian inheritance pattern. The most common pattern observed from the outgrowth of single oocysts included all possible parental and recombinant phenotypes derived from a single meiotic event, suggesting a high rate of crossover. To estimate the frequency of crossover, additional loci on chromosomes 1 and 5 were tagged and used to monitor intrachromosomal crosses in Ifngr1−/− mice. Both chromosomes showed a high frequency of crossover compared to other apicomplexans with map distances (i.e., 1% recombination) of 3–12 kb. Overall, a high recombination rate may explain many unique characteristics observed in Cryptosporidium spp. such as high rates of speciation, wide variation in host range, and rapid evolution of host-specific virulence factors.

Author summary

Although sex is essential for the transmission and maintenance of infection of Cryptosporidium, it has been historically challenging to study the process of meiosis in this medically relevant protist. We utilize recent methodological advances such as a specialized in vitro culture system, cell sorting, and the generation of transgenic parasites to cross identical strains of parasites in the absence of selection pressure to identify intrinsic chromosome behavior during meiosis. By specifically examining the phenotypes from the first generation of parasites, we reveal that cross-fertilization frequently occurs in parasite populations, chromosomes segregate in a Mendelian manner, and the rate of crossover is high on Chromosomes 1 and 5. Understanding these baseline meiotic mechanisms is essential for planning and interpreting future genetic studies of Cryptosporidium seeking to identify genes associated with phenotypes of interest.

Introduction

Infection with apicomplexan parasite Cryptosporidium spp. is the second leading cause of diarrheal disease in children under 5 in resource-poor nations and is a significant threat to immunocompromised adults globally [13]. The parasite is transmitted through the fecal-oral route and completes its entire life cycle in the intestine of a single host. After excysting from the infectious oocyst, sporozoites invade the host cells, develop into trophozoites, and then undergo multiple rounds of mitotic division to form meronts [4,5]. After three rounds of merogony, merozoites develop into either male (microgamonts) or female (macrogamonts) gametes [6,7]. Males undergo multiple rounds of replication culminating in the release of 16 extracellular males, which locate and fertilize the females resulting in a zygote [4,8]. The zygote then undergoes meiosis and transitions into an oocyst, which contains four haploid progeny (sporozoites). Oocysts are then released into the environment to infect new hosts; thus, the transmission of Cryptosporidium is reliant on the production and excretion of meiotically derived oocysts.

Beyond oocyst transmission, sexual reproduction contributes to Cryptosporidium pathogenesis in other ways. First, it aids in the maintenance of productive infections, as oocysts that are retained within the original host restart the infectious cycle [5,8,9]. Moreover, the absence of de novo oocyst formation in most in vitro culture platforms leads to a rapid decline in parasite growth over time, whereas growth is sustained in systems where sex and oocyst production is supported, suggesting that sex is obligatory in this parasite [5,8,10]. Additionally, meiosis is particularly important to the fitness of facultatively sexual eukaryotic pathogens as it allows for the generation of genetically diverse progeny, which can outcompete and eliminate deleterious offspring that would otherwise be continuously amplified by asexual reproduction [11]. It is likely that currently undefined meiotic mechanisms contribute to the rapid adaptation of Cryptosporidium spp. to novel hosts, modulate its virulence, and lead to a large variety of distinct species and subtypes [1214]. Although studies of Cryptosporidium isolates have revealed that introgression frequently occurs between different strains in nature, it is currently unclear how the parasite modulates this exchange during meiosis [1416].

Meiosis is an ancient invention that has been well-conserved throughout evolutionary time and across the Eukaryotic kingdom. The meiotic process has been studied in a variety of organisms to reveal large variations in molecular mechanisms. These differences can provide insights into the life history of an organism as well as contribute to our overall understanding of the evolution and maintenance of sex. Recently, genomic and molecular studies examining meiosis in obscure eukaryotes has led to the identification of many novel non-Mendelian mechanisms of chromosomal segregation [17,18]. For instance, Trypanosoma cruzi and Leishmania spp. parasites have significant genomic plasticity due to frequent chromosomal aneuploidies and random loss of heterozygosity [1921]. In Candida albicans, tetraploid progeny arise from diploid cell mating and is reduced using the non-meiotic “concerted chromosome loss” approach [22], and the binuclear Giardia utilizes a specialized process called “diplomixis” during encystation as a mechanism for recombination [23].

Historically, studies of meiosis in protists have been technically challenging due to their microscopic size, lack of culture systems, and underdevelopment of molecular tools. Studies in apicomplexan parasites Plasmodium spp. and Toxoplasma gondii demonstrate that the parasites are haploid throughout their life cycle, fuse to form a diploid zygote, and undergo meiosis that follows classical Mendelian rules [2426]. Forward genetic analysis based on classical genetic mapping has enabled the discovery of virulence factors and drug resistance mechanisms in these parasites [2426]. However, very little is known about how meiosis works in the related apicomplexan parasite Cryptosporidium. Adenocarcinoma cell lines (HCT-8 cells) only support the asexual phase of the Cryptosporidium parvum (C. parvum) life cycle, resulting in short-term parasite growth [8,27]. Reliance on this culture platform has historically limited C. parvum research, leaving the processes of fertilization, meiosis, and oocyst formation largely under studied. C. parvum is obligately sexual, and the transmission of the parasite to a new host is reliant on the production of meiotically-derived oocysts [8,9,28]. Although studies of natural isolates have revealed that introgression frequently occurs between different strains in nature, it is currently unclear how the parasite modulates this exchange during meiosis [29]. Independent segregation of its 8 linear chromosomes and intrachromosomal recombination likely contribute to the ability of Cryptosporidium spp. to rapidly adapt to novel hosts, modulate its virulence, and develop a large variety of distinct species and subtypes [12].

We recently developed a specialized Transwell culture system that uses an air-liquid interface (ALI) to induce differentiation of intestinal stem cells into an epithelial monolayer that permits sexual reproduction of C. parvum in vitro [10]. ALI cultures allow C. parvum fertilization and oocyst production timing to be precisely predicted, providing a novel opportunity to examine the molecular mechanisms of meiosis in this medically relevant protist. Like T. gondii and Plasmodium spp., C. parvum is thought to be haploid during asexual growth and forms haploid macro- and microgamonts that fuse to form a diploid zygote during its sexual phase [4,5]. In ALI cultures, and in mice, these zygotes undergo meiosis to yield 4 haploid sporozoites within a single oocyst [9,10,30]. Thus, in principle, it should be possible to use classical genetic mapping to study the segregation and recombination of chromosomes during meiosis in C. parvum. A previous cross of two genetically distinct Cryptosporidium isolates was performed in mice by sequential passage to estimate genetic recombination frequency [31]; however, since each round of infection in mice results in multiple rounds of meiosis, the precise recombination frequency of chromosomes in a single meiotic event has not been defined for Cryptosporidium.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a model yeast commonly used to study meiotic recombination. Analyses of meiosis in S. cerevisae usually include examining the phenotypes of progeny from a large population of asci or spores (known as random ascus or spore analysis) and the direct observation of progeny from an individual spore (tetrad dissection) [32]. In this study, we adapted these traditional genetic techniques to study single lineage (F1) C. parvum oocysts, produced by crossing isogenically tagged strains (outcrossed oocysts). “Random oocyst analysis” involved observing the frequency of progeny phenotypes at each oocyst hatching site throughout an entire cell culture infected with recombinant oocysts, while “oocyst tetrad dissection” was used to directly interrogate the phenotypes of individual sporozoites from a single oocyst. We found that genetic exchange in C. parvum follows a Mendelian inheritance pattern of independent segregation of chromosomes and that individual chromosomes exhibit high levels of recombination.

Results

C. parvum utilizes outcrossing in vitro and in vivo

Previously, we demonstrated that the ALI system supports both self and cross-fertilization of C. parvum [10]. Specifically, co-infection of ALI cultures with differentially tagged strains with a fluorescent marker either on chromosome 1 (Δuprt-mCherry) or chromosome 5 (Δtk-GFP) (Fig 1A) resulted in recombinant parasites that expressed both markers, indicative of outcrossing. However, the frequency of outcrossing, which is expected to occur 50% of the time, was lower than expected due to the greater frequency of selfing by the Δtk-GFP strain relative to Δuprt-mCherry [10]. For this study, we utilized the ALI platform to specifically capture the oocysts produced by the first round of fertilization between Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-GFP parents. Outcrossed “yellow” oocysts could then be used to examine F1 progeny phenotypes at a population and single oocyst resolution. The number of F1 “yellow” outcrossed oocysts produced in ALI is limited due to the high frequency of selfing of the Δtk-GFP parasites. To obtain greater numbers of recombinant oocysts for random oocyst and tetrad analyses, we increased the number of transwells used for experiments and selectively purified double-positive oocysts by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) before outgrowth infection of HCT-8 cells. While performing FACS, we found that Δtk-GFP oocysts were still dominant in ALI culture (18,042 oocysts) compared to Δuprt-mCherry oocysts (7,208) and recombinant oocysts (1,886 total) at 3 days post infection (dpi) (S1A Fig). Despite filtering harvested ALI samples and using a positive control for oocysts to generate an “all oocysts” gate, the events in the GFP+, mCherry+, and GFP+/mCherry+ oocyst gates likely contain debris as well as oocysts and are not as reliable for quantifying the rates of selfing and outcrossing compared to outgrowth assays. We also found that the recombinant oocysts had two different populations that varied in the ratio of fluorescence signal. The GFPhi/mCherrymid (population A) and GFPmid/mCherryhi (population C) oocysts occurred about equally in ALI (1,015 vs. 779 oocysts), and we hypothesize that this is due to the macrogamont “mother” contributing more cytoplasmic proteins than the microgamont “father” during oocyst formation [8] (S1A Fig). We also found that collecting oocysts from ALI cultures past 3 dpi resulted in a third population of GFPhi/mCherryhi (population B) oocysts, which we predict is the product of mating between F1 yellow macrogamonts with yellow, green, or red males to form F2+ oocysts (S1B Fig). We found a similar pattern when examining oocysts produced in vivo: oocysts collected at 3 dpi had undergone a single round of meiosis (S1C Fig) while those collected at 4 dpi or later had started another round (S1D Fig). To focus on chromosome behavior during a single round of meiosis, we confined our analyses to oocysts collected at day 3 both from in vitro and in vivo infections.

Fig 1. Detection of outcrossing and the segregation of homologous chromosomes in C. parvum.

Fig 1

(A) Parental parasites have chromosome 1 or 5 tagged with mCherry replacing the uprt gene or GFP replacing the tk gene, respectively. If fusion occurs between gamonts of different phenotypes (“outcrossing”), the resulting progeny will be “yellow” (mCherry+/GFP+). (B) The frequency of F1 outgrowth clusters that were red or green only (selfing) or had more than one color (outcrossing) was determined by immunofluorescence staining and microscopy. Two Ifngr1−/− mice infected with Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-GFP oocysts were sacrificed 3 days post infection (dpi), and F1 “yellow” oocysts were purified from ileal tissue. 1000–5000 F1 “yellow” oocysts were grown on HCT-8 cells, fixed 15–18 hours post infection (hpi) and stained with rabbit anti-GFP, rat anti-mCherry, and VVL-Biotin, followed by secondary antibodies Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rabbit IgG, Alexa Fluor 568 goat anti-rat IgG, and Alexa Fluor 647 Streptavidin. Hoechst was used to stain nuclei. This experiment was performed twice and found similar results. (C) Progeny of “yellow” F1 oocysts will have one copy each of chromosomes 1 and 5 inherited from their parents. There are four options for progeny phenotype based on the predicted segregation of chromosomes during meiosis. (D) ALI transwells infected with Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-GFP oocysts were scraped 3 dpi, bleached, and F1 “yellow” oocysts were purified with FACS. 1000–5000 “yellow” F1 oocysts were grown on HCT-8 cells, fixed, and stained as described above. Data represent the combined mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) of results of five independent experiments, with two to three technical replicates per experiment. (E) Two mice were infected, oocysts were collected, and HCT-8 cells were infected, fixed, and stained as described above. All the phenotypes of progeny from “yellow” F1 oocysts in the mixed clusters were quantified. This experiment was performed twice and found similar results. The observed ratios in D and E do not significantly deviate from the expected 25% for each phenotype (p = 0.06 for 1D and p = 0.17 for 1E, Chi-square test) (S1 Dataset).

To examine the rate of outcrossing and selfing in vivo, we infected Ifngr1-/- mice with equal numbers of Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-GFP oocysts, sacrificed on 3 dpi, harvested the ileums, and enriched for oocysts by bleaching. Oocysts were plated on a human adenocarcinoma cell line (HCT-8) monolayer at a density of 1000–5000 oocysts per coverslip such that progeny descended from a single oocyst would form distinct clusters as asexual expansion progressed. At 15–18 hpi, cultures were fixed, stained, and the mCherry and GFP expression of each cluster was observed by immunofluorescence (IFA) microscopy. Two independent outgrowth experiments found outcrossing to occur 38.2–60.0% of the time during in vivo infections, in contrast to 20.6–27.9% observed in in vitro conditions [10]. The average rate of 49.1% outcrossing in vivo was consistent with the expected value of 50.0%, suggesting that outcrossing commonly occurs in C. parvum populations (Fig 1B).

Homologous chromosomes segregate independently in vitro and in vivo

We expect that after oocyst formation, homologous chromosomes segregate from each other so that each sporozoite carries only one copy of each chromosome (either fluorescently tagged or wild type) (Fig 1C). This principle can be tested by examining the population of progeny from recombinant oocysts since each combination of alleles (red, green, yellow, wild type) should be equally represented (25% frequency) in the resulting infection. For in vitro experiments, transwells were infected with equal numbers Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-GFP sporozoites, ALI was harvested 3 dpi, recombinant oocysts were purified by FACS, and 500–5000 yellow oocysts were used to infect HCT-8 cells. At 15–18 hpi, the cultures were fixed and stained, and the progeny phenotypes were quantified by IFA in 5 independent experiments. For in vivo experiments, Ifngr1-/- mice were infected with Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-GFP oocysts, sacrificed after 3 days, and oocysts were purified from the ileal tissue. All recovered oocysts were used to infect HCT-8 cells, which were fixed and stained after the first round of merogony. Only the progeny in “mixed” clusters were quantified across two experiments. The average distribution of progeny phenotypes (green, red, yellow, and wild type) did not significantly deviate from the anticipated 25% in vitro (Fig 1D) or in vivo (Fig 1E). Overall, this indicates that homologous chromosomes independently segregate in C. parvum.

C. parvum exhibits an unusually high rate of tetratype formation in recombinant oocysts

To further characterize meiosis in C. parvum, we tested if homologous chromosomes abided by Mendel’s law of independent assortment, which states that genes carried on different chromosomes segregate independently during meiosis. This principle can be tested by examining the progeny from cross-fertilization events at the single oocyst level. Since the uprt and tk genes are carried on different chromosomes (1 and 5 respectively), each progeny should only receive one copy of either the wild type uprt or the Δuprt-mCherry gene and one of the wild type tk or Δtk-GFP gene. Depending on how the homologous chromosomes align during metaphase 1, there is an equal probability of an alignment that results in a parental ditype (two “red” and two “green”) or non-parental ditype (two “yellow” and two “wild type”) progeny pattern. There is also a tetratype inheritance pattern (one of each possible phenotype) that is possible if crossover occurs during interphase I near the uprt or tk locus. If C. parvum abides by the traditional meiotic mechanisms, we would expect all mixed-hatching clusters to fall into one of these categories (Fig 2A).

Fig 2. A tetratype segregation pattern occurs frequently at the single oocyst resolution.

Fig 2

(A) Progeny of “yellow” F1 oocysts are expected to follow one of three segregation patterns: parental ditype (PD, red and green), non-parental ditype (NPD, wild type and yellow), and tetratype (TT, red, green, wild type, and yellow). In the absence of gene linkage and high crossover, you would expect parental ditype and non-parental ditype to occur at a similar rate and tetratype to be rare. (B) The number of mixed clusters that followed the PD, NPD, TT, or other (red and wild type, red and yellow, green and wild type, or green and yellow) segregation pattern was determined by immunofluorescence staining and microscopy. ALI transwells infected with Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-GFP oocysts were scraped and bleached 3 dpi, and F1 “yellow” oocysts were purified with FACS. 1000–5000 F1 “yellow” oocysts were grown on HCT-8 cells, fixed, and stained with the antibodies described in Fig 1. This experiment was performed five times, and 114 mixed clusters were quantified in total. (C) F1 yellow oocysts purified from ALI were used to infect HCT-8 culture, and the expression of GFP and mCherry proteins was captured from oocyst hatching through the conclusion of the first merogony cycle with timelapse microscopy (S1 Movie). Representative images from 1, 3, 5, and 10 hpi are shown. Yellow arrows indicate parasites expressing GFP and mCherry proteins, red arrows indicate the expression of mCherry only, and white arrows indicate parasites that are not expressing GFP or mCherry. The cross symbol indicates a parasite that failed to infect or died before the expression of GFP and/or mCherry could be determined. (D) Two Ifngr1−/− mice infected with Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-GFP oocysts were sacrificed 3 dpi, and F1 “yellow” oocysts were purified from ileal tissue. 1000–5000 F1 “yellow” oocysts were grown on HCT-8 cells and fixed 15–18 hours post infection (hpi) and stained as described above. Mixed clusters were examined, and their segregation pattern was quantified (S1 Dataset). This experiment was performed twice, and 34 mixed clusters were quantified total.

Analysis of yellow oocysts generated in vitro demonstrated that 87.3% of single oocyst outgrowth clusters contained three or four of the possible phenotypes (Fig 2B). The rest of the clusters had various combinations of two colors (PD, NPD) or unexpected combinations (e.g., yellow and red, yellow and green, wild type and red, or wild type and green). This “other” category does not match the parental ditype or non-parental ditype and likely occurs when only some sporozoites successfully egress from the oocyst, establish infection, or go through merogony. We repeated this experiment using yellow oocysts produced in Ifngr-/- mice and found a similar frequency of TT clusters (89.2%), indicating that this is not a phenomenon specific to in vitro culture (Fig 2D). To examine this process in real time, we used recombinant oocysts sorted from ALI cultures to perform live microscopy infection experiments in HCT-8 culture. Over three independent experiments, we tracked 292 yellow oocysts from hatching through merogony and found multiple examples of TT segregation (Fig 2C and S1 Movie). Sporozoite and trophozoite stages initially appeared as GFP+/mCherry+ due to the parentally inherited fluorescent cytoplasmic proteins. Early in merogony, these inherited proteins were degraded completely at 5–10 hpi, prior to the parasites expressing fluorescent proteins that reflected their inherited Δuprt-mCherry and/or Δtk-GFP genes at 7.5–13.5 hpi (Figs 2C and S2 and S1 Movie). This variation in the timing of protein degradation and expression is correlated with parasite development that is asynchronous between oocyst hatching sites.

C. parvum has a high crossover rate between homologous chromosomes during meiosis

The high frequency of TT inheritance in C. parvum was unexpected as similar studies in T. gondii found very low rates of recombination between independent markers on separate chromosomes [26,3335]. In those studies, the pattern of inheritance due to outcrossing closely matched the expected outcome for independent segregation of unlinked markers, which also had low rates of recombination [33]. In contrast, a preponderance of TT genotypes is expected in situations where markers are distal from their centromeres and hence have a high frequency of recombination, as often observed in genetic crosses of Saccharomyces cerevisiae [32]. The composition and position of centromeres in C. parvum is unknown, and it remained possible that a high rate of recombination on either or both chromosomes was responsible for the TT pattern. To test this possibility, we generated two additional transgenic lines of parasites that had an alternative tagged locus on chromosome 1 or 5 and then performed intrachromosomal crosses and evaluated the rate of crossover. The ABC Transporter gene (cgd1_700) has been previously tagged by our lab and shown to have a unique staining pattern in the feeder organelle of all intracellular life stages [36]. It lies on the distal end of chromosome 1, and here we tagged it with CFP using CRISPR/Cas9 (Figs 3A and S3B–S3D). We infected mice as described above with an equal proportion of ABC-3HA-CFP and Δuprt-mCherry parasites and examined the pattern of inheritance in mixed clusters (outgrowth from recombinant “purple” oocysts) at the single oocyst resolution. Crossover on chromosome 1 would generate a TT pattern at the single oocyst resolution, while absence of crossover should yield PD (Fig 3B). We found that the TT pattern was dominant (89.3% of hatching clusters), suggesting that crossover is very common on chromosome 1 (Fig 3C). A similar intrachromosomal crossing experiment was conducted to examine the crossover rate on chromosome 5. The enolase gene (cgd5_1960) was tagged with an HA tag (Figs 4A and S4B–S4D) and used in an in vivo intrachromosomal cross with the Δtk-GFP transgenic line (Fig 4B). Because the HA tag is not a fluorescent reporter, we fixed and stained with anti-HA antibodies in combination with anti-GFP to examine the outcome. We analyzed the outgrowth from recombinant oocysts (clusters containing both markers) and found that chromosome 5 also has a very high rate of crossover (82.1%) (Fig 4C). To estimate the rate of recombination (cM, 1% recombination) for C. parvum we divided the distance between markers (bp) by the percent of clusters that were “TT” or “TT + other” observed over 78–93 outcrossed clusters (Table 1).

Fig 3. Crossover is high on chromosome 1.

Fig 3

(A) Diagram of the ABC-3HA-CFP targeting vector. A triple hemagglutinin (3HA) epitope tag, CFP, and an Nluc-P2A-NeoR cassette was added to the C-terminus of ABC1 (cgd1_700) using CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing. (B) The segregation pattern of progeny from outcrossed oocysts in an intrachromosomal cross reflects if crossover occurred on chromosome 1. A tetratype pattern (mCherry+, CFP-3HA+, mCherry+/CFP-3HA+, and wild type) indicates that crossover occurred, whereas a parental ditype pattern (mCherry+ and CFP-3HA+) indicates that no crossover occurred. (C) Two Ifngr1−/− mice infected with Δuprt-mCherry and ABC-3HA-CFP oocysts were sacrificed 3 dpi, and all F1 oocysts were purified from ileal tissue. 1000–5000 F1 oocysts were grown on HCT-8 cells and fixed 15–18 hours post infection (hpi) and stained. The antibodies used were rabbit anti-GFP (also recognizes CFP), rat anti-mCherry, and VVL-Biotin, followed by a secondary stain of Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rabbit IgG, Alexa Fluor 568 goat anti-rat IgG, and Alexa Fluor 647 Streptavidin. Lastly, Hoechst was used to stain nuclei. Mixed clusters were examined, and their segregation patterns were quantified. This experiment was performed twice, and 93 mixed clusters were quantified in total (S1 Dataset).

Fig 4. Crossover is high on chromosome 5.

Fig 4

(A) Diagram of the Enolase-3HA targeting vector. A triple hemagglutinin (3HA) epitope tag and an Nluc-P2A-NeoR cassette was added to the C-terminus of enolase (cgd5_1960) using CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing. (B) The segregation pattern of progeny from outcrossed oocysts in an intrachromosomal cross reflects if crossover occurred on chromosome 5. A tetratype pattern (GFP+, 3HA+, GFP+/3HA+, and wild type) indicates that crossover occurred, whereas a parental ditype pattern (GFP+ and 3HA+) indicates that no crossover occurred. (C) Two Ifngr1−/− mice infected with Δtk-GFP and Enolase-3HA oocysts were sacrificed 3 dpi, and all F1 oocysts were purified from ileal tissue. 1000–5000 F1 oocysts were grown on HCT-8 cells and fixed 15–18 hours post infection (hpi) and stained with rabbit anti-GFP, rat anti-HA, and VVL-Biotin, followed by a secondary stain of Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rabbit IgG, Alexa Fluor 568 goat anti-rat IgG, and Alexa Fluor 647 Streptavidin. Hoechst was used to stain nuclei. Mixed clusters were examined, and their segregation patterns were quantified. This experiment was performed twice, and 78 mixed clusters were quantified total (S1 Dataset).

Table 1. Estimated recombination frequencies for Cryptosporidium parvum chromosomes 1 and 5.

Chromosome Gene ID Tag Position Distance between markers Recombination Frequency (1% in bp*) % of TT % of TT + other
1 cgd1_1900 Δuprt-mCherry 436,349–437,147 bp 264,369 bp 2962–3841 bp 68.82% 89.25%
1 cgd1_700 ABC-3HA-CFP 167,685–171,980 bp
5 cgd5_4440 Δtk-GFP 1,018,878–1,019,486 bp 603,027 bp 7349–12,060 bp 50% 82.05%
5 cgd5_1960 Enolase-3HA 414,502–41,5851 bp

*First number: % TT in X clusters, second number: % TT + “Other” in 78–93 clusters from two independent experiments.

Discussion

Despite evidence for introgression in wild populations, and recent evolution of new variants, little is known about genetic recombination mechanisms during meiosis in Cryptosporidium. We developed assays to track meiotic mechanisms by examining F1 progeny from crosses between transgenic parasites in vitro and in vivo. We found that in our stem cell-derived culture system (ALI) and Ifngr1-/- mice, transgenic parasites utilize self and cross-fertilization, consistent with the absence of fixed mating types, like other apicomplexans. Examination of progeny in outcrossed oocysts that were allowed to expand mitotically revealed that homologous chromosomes independently segregate in vitro and in vivo. At the single oocyst level, the segregation pattern of independent markers indicated a high rate of crossing over as tetratype patterns of inheritance predominated. Consistent with this pattern, intrachromosomal crosses between additional lines of transgenic parasites found that crossover is very high on both chromosomes 1 and 5. Our findings indicate that recombination frequently occurs between strains and that high rates of intrachromosomal crossover are common. Such Mendelian patterns of meiotic segregation and high recombination provide a mechanistic explanation for recent recombination and development of new genotypes in the wild including those that are anthroponotic subtypes [14].

Other apicomplexan parasites require multiple hosts to complete the asexual and sexual portions of their life cycles, requiring multiple animal models to perform forward genetic crosses [24,26], and precluding genetic crosses in vitro. However, C. parvum is monoxenous and can be cultured entirely in a specialized ALI culture system in vitro, thus allowing genetic crosses to be performed in a few days in the laboratory [10]. Our laboratory previously showed that the ALI system could be used for mating transgenic parasites, but outcrossing only occurred ~25% of the time (vs. the expected 50%), and there was an overrepresentation of green clusters over red. These fluorescently tagged parasites lack either the tk gene or one of two copies of uprt, yet their growth in vitro and in vivo are relatively normal [10]. The non-essential nature of these two genes is likely due to alternative pathways: DHFR-TS can provide de novo synthesis of pyrimidines in the absence of TK and the second copy of uprt is likely sufficient. Nonetheless, the slightly lower success of selfing of Δuprt-mCherry suggests it may have a defect in growth and/or development. This lower selfing rate in Δuprt-mCherry was also observed in vivo, although the proportion of outcrossed oocysts was somewhat higher than observed in vitro. Selfing and outcrossing is a common pattern seen in other apicomplexans such as Plasmodium spp. and Toxoplasma gondii [37,38]. Maintaining a 50/50 rate of selfing and outcrossing is likely highly advantageous in parasites, where constant genetic innovation, but also preservation, must be delicately balanced for survival.

There are many examples of non-Mendelian inheritance patterns in fungal and protist species (chromosomal aneuploidies with reduction by random loss of heterozygosity or concerted chromosome loss, diplomixis, etc.) [23]. These various systems can each contribute to genetic variability and hence are adaptive. However, understanding the parameters of meiosis is key to using forward genetics to map traits and genes. To examine the behavior of chromosomes during meiosis in Cryptosporidium, we purified recombinant oocysts from ALI and immunocompromised mice. Analysis of 162 outcrossed clusters revealed that alleles on homologous chromosomes segregate independently and results in predicted ratios of parental and recombinant progeny in vitro and in vivo. Confirmation that C. parvum independently segregates alleles is essential for performing more advanced genetic studies like gene mapping and linkage analyses.

Studies examining meiosis in model organisms typically rely on cytological examination of the process in zygotes. However, isolation of the diploid stage of C. parvum is currently infeasible as zygotes are an extremely rare and transient population, there are no genes uniquely associated with this life stage, and apicomplexan parasites do not condense their very small chromosomes [39]. For these reasons, it was necessary to utilize an indirect approach where we examined the phenotypes of progeny from outcrossed oocysts to deduce the meiotic process. Based on previous experiments in T. gondii [26,3335] we initially expected that the parental ditype and non-parental ditype pattern would be equally common and dominate culture, and the tetratype pattern would occur occasionally. However, we found the opposite to be true as the tetratype segregation pattern was preponderant, indicating to us that the crossover rate on chromosome 1 and/or 5 is relatively high.

The rate of crossover in C. parvum was quantified previously [31], but at that time, recombinant lines could not be created, and the generation number of progeny could not be verified (F1 vs. F2 and beyond.). For our study, we generated two additional lines of parasites that had alternative loci on chromosome 1 and 5 tagged and performed an intrachromosomal cross. We also only examined the progeny of “yellow” F1 oocysts” to observe the frequency of crossovers between markers in a single meiosis (analogous to a random spore analysis in yeast). We found a high crossover rate for both chromosomes 1 and 5, although without sequencing the progeny it is unclear if crossovers occur randomly between the markers or if they are clustered. We found an overall recombination rate of 3–3.8 kb (Chromosome 1) and 7.4–12.1 kb (Chromosome 5) per centimorgan that is slightly lower than a previous estimate of 10–56 kb/cM for C. parvum [31]. Our estimated recombination rates apply between discrete markers on two chromosomes, while this previous rate was a genome wide estimate and rates could vary considerably between chromosomes. Our calculated recombination rate could be an underestimate as our genetic markers are far enough away from one another that double or an even number of crossover events would not be detected by our assay (Table 1). The recombination rate for C. parvum is roughly similar to that of P. falciparum 9.6–17 kb/cM [40] but higher than the ~104 kb/cM in T. gondii [34]. In comparison, the recombination rate in Cryptococcus neoformans is estimated to be 13.2 kb/cM [41], 260 kb/cM in Arabidopsis thaliana [42], and 137 kb/cM in Drosophila pseudoobscura [43]. In model organisms, the recombination rate can be influenced by a variety of factors such as the size of the chromosome, the centromere position, crossover assurance, etc. [44,45]. It is currently unknown what type of centromeric structure C. parvum utilizes, where centromeres are located on each chromosome, and what effects proximity has on recombination rates. Furthermore, crossover assurance (when at least one crossover must occur per chromosome during chiasma formation between homologous chromosomes during meiosis) does not occur in every organism. For instance, many T. gondii chromosomes do not undergo crossover in individual progeny from outcrosses [35]. Our current data do not allow us to calculate crossover events over all chromosomes, although future studies with additional marker or genome-wide analysis could address this issue.

Our findings are consistent with the many observations of introgression between Cryptosporidium spp. variants [14,16] as sexual reproduction likely frequently occurs between parasites cohabitating in a single host. Previous comparative genomics studies from wild Cryptosporidium spp. populations have observed that frequency of recombination events varies significantly between chromosomes with disproportionately lower (chromosomes 3, 5, and 7), moderate (chromosomes 1, 2, 4, and 8), and high (chromosome 6) number of events [14]. However, these identified recombination events come from comparing sequencing data from a variety of subtypes and species, whereas our study is the first to perform a cross between identical strains in the absence of selection pressure or bias to capture the intrinsic chromosome dynamics.

There are many inherent traits of Cryptosporidium that make it an ideal candidate for genetic analysis such having a single host life cycle, the ability to isolate the oocyst life stage via bleaching, the relative synchronicity of the life cycle, and even the sexual cycle block in HCT-8 cells. Additionally, a high recombination rate will make it easier to identify specific regions of the genome associated with phenotypes of interest. Future crossing studies in Cryptosporidium can mate strains of varying virulence with known SNPs to identify genes of interest that can be characterized and utilized as targets for therapeutics. The development of many new tools for the study of C. parvum in the last decade has allowed more complex study of this organism [5]. By combining CRISPR/Cas9 with ALI, we were able to adapt the classical yeast genetic assays random ascus/spore analysis and tetrad dissection for the study of recombination in C. parvum. Our study sought to establish basic mechanisms of the meiotic process in C. parvum by examining the inheritance of specific loci at the phenotypic level without sequencing. Now that we have established that outcrossing is common, alleles segregate in a Mendelian matter, and that recombination and linkage experiments are feasible, a new era of complex genetic screens in Cryptosporidium can begin.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Animal studies on mice were approved by the Institutional Animal Studies Committee (School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis). Ifngr1-/- mice (003288; Jackson Laboratories), and Nod scid gamma mice (referred to as NSG) (005557; Jackson Laboratories) were bred in-house in a specific-pathogen-free animal facility on a 12:12 light-dark cycle. Male and female mice between 8 and 12 weeks of age were used for sex-matching in crossing experiments. Mice were co-housed with siblings of the same sex throughout the experiments.

Cell culture

HCT-8 cells (Human ileocecal adenocarcinoma, ATCC CCL-244) derived from a human ileocecal carcinoma from a 67-year-old man were cultured in RPMI 1640 ATCC Modification medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator. After trypsinization, 450,000 cells were plated on glass coverslips in 24-well plates and used for outgrowth assays or IFA studies of transgenic parasite lines. Cells were confirmed to be mycoplasma-free with the e-Myco plus Mycoplasma PCR detection kit.

Genetic crosses in the air liquid interface (ALI) culture system

Generating air liquid interface (ALI) culture system

ALI was generated according to previously described protocols [10,46]. Briefly, transwells were coated with a layer of diluted Matrigel and incubated for 15–20 min at 37°C. Excess Matrigel was aspirated, and irradiated 3T3 (i3T3) cells were seeded at a density of 8 x 104 cells/transwell at 37°C for 24 hr. Next, mouse ileal spheroids were harvested from culture, processed to a single cell suspension, and 5 x 104 cells/transwell were added to the i3T3 cell monolayer. Every other day, the top and bottom transwell compartments were fed 50% conditioned media (CM) for 7 days total [10,46]. After 7 days of growth, the top media was removed for an additional three days before infection while the bottom media continued to be changed every other day throughout the experiment.

Infecting ALI with Cryptosporidium parental oocysts

The infection of ALI transwells has been previously described by our lab [10,46,47]. Before infection of ALI transwells, transgenic strains of parasites were treated with a 40% bleach solution for 10 min on ice, washed 3 times in DPBS w/ 1% BSA, and resuspended in DPBS w/ 1% BSA to be at 1 x 108 oocysts/mL for excystation. Excystation buffer (1.5% sodium taurocholate) was added at a 1:1 concentration, and oocysts were incubated at 37°C for one hr. Sporozoites were then spun down and resuspended in 50% CM, and 2 x 105 sporozoites of each parental transgenic strain were added per transwell (4 x 105 total sporozoites/transwell). After 4–6 hr, the media and uninfected parasites were removed, and the transwells were washed twice with DPBS.

Harvesting F1 oocysts from ALI

After three days of infection, the transwells were moved into empty wells of a 24-well plate, 100 uL of cold DPBS was added to each well, and a blunt pipette tip was used to scrape the monolayer off the transwell. 100 uL from each transwell was then transferred to a polystyrene 15 mL conical tube and treated with 40% bleach solution for 10 min on ice. Oocysts were then spun down at 1,250 x g for 3 min, washed twice with DPBS, and used for sorting experiments.

Fluorescent activated cell sorting (FACS) of yellow oocysts from ALI

The SONY SH800S Cell Sorter software and control samples were used to construct a Boolean gating strategy to identify oocysts (FSC-Alo and BSC-Alo) and “yellow oocysts” (GFP+/mCherry+). Oocysts harvested from ALI were resuspended in 100 uL of cold DPBS and inserted into the sorting chamber of a SONY SH800 Cell Sorter, and 1000–5000 yellow oocysts were sorted directly into a 24-well plate containing coverslips with a confluent HCT-8 cell monolayer (2–3 coverslips total per experiment) or into 100 uL of cold DPBS for storage.

Timelapse microscopy

Timelapse microscopy of C. parvum infection has been previously described by our lab [48]. HCT-8 cells were cultured in a poly-lysine coated glass-bottomed 24-well plate for 24 hr before the experiment. Media was replaced with HCT-8 media (with 10% FBS and no phenol red) containing ~1000 sorted yellow oocysts. ~100 oocysts were tracked every 20 min for 30 hr at 40X magnification using a Zeiss Observer Z1 471 inverted microscope with a Colibri LED illumination for multi-color epifluorescence, and the ORCA-ER digital camera was used for image acquisition. All images were processed and analyzed using ZEN 2.5 software.

Immunofluorescence assays & microscopy

Staining protocols have been previously described [49]. Briefly, infected HCT-8 cultures were fixed with 4% formaldehyde 16–18 hr post-infection (hpi), permeabilized with 0.1% Triton X-100, blocked with 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA), stained with a primary antibody mixture for 1 hr followed by secondary antibodies for 1 hr and Hoechst for 20 min. Primary antibodies were diluted for staining: 1E12 (mouse, 1:500) [49], VVL-Biotin (Vicia Villosa Lectin, Biotinylated, 1:1000), anti-GFP (rabbit, 1:1000), anti-mCherry (rat, 1:1000), and anti-HA (rat, 1:500). All Alexa Fluor secondary antibodies were diluted at 1:1000 and Hoechst was diluted 1:2000. Coverslips were mounted onto microscope slides with Prolong Glass Antifade Mountant. Coverslips were visualized using the Zeiss Axioskop Mot Plus fluorescence microscope with 63X and 100X oil objectives. Images were taken with the AxioCam MRm monochrome digital camera and Axiovision software and further analyzed using ImageJ.

Crossing experiments in immunodeficient mice

Parental oocyst strains were prepared for mouse infections (1 x 106–2 x 106 total oocysts/mouse) using bleaching and washing methods described previously [50], and Infgr1-/- mice were orally gavaged. After 3 days post-infection, mice were euthanized by CO2 asphyxiation and the ileum was harvested into a petri dish containing 10 mL of cold DPBS. The submerged ileum was cut open longitudinally and the tissue and liquid were transferred into a 15 mL polystyrene conical tube. The samples were placed on a nutating rocker for 10 min, the contents were poured into a 50 mL polystyrene conical tube through a 40 μm filter, and an additional 30 mL of cold DPBS was added to flush the filter before disposing of the tissue. The samples were spun down at 1,250 x g for 3 min, and the oocysts were bleached and washed as described above. 1000–5000 oocysts per coverslip were resuspended in HCT-8 media and used for infection (2 coverslips total per mouse).

CRISPR/Cas9 plasmid construction

The pABC-3HA-Nluc-P2A-neo homology repair template and the pACT:Cas9, U6:sgABC plasmids were previously generated in our lab [36]. For this study, an additional CFP fluorescent protein was inserted into the repair template via Gibson assembly cloning with the linearized backbone and a gBlock gene fragment (Integrated DNA Technologies). The Enolase CRISPR/Cas9 plasmid was created via Gibson assembly of the linearized backbone amplified from the pACT:Cas9, U6:sgABC plasmid and an oligonucleotide with the sgRNA specific for the Enolase gene. The Enolase tagging plasmid was generated using the pABC-3HA-Nluc-P2A-neo homology repair template and replacing the C-terminal and 3’UTR sequences with equivalent regions from the Enolase gene amplified from C. parvum genomic DNA. SnapGene (v7.1.1) and NEBuilder Assembly Tool (v2.9.0) were used to construct plasmids and design primers and the Eukaryotic Pathogen CRISPR guide RNA/DNA Design tool (http://grna.ctegd.uga.edu) was used to identify the Enolase sgRNA sequence. Primers were ordered from IDT and all sequences can be found in S2 Table.

Amplifying transgenic parasites in mice

The transfection and amplification of parasites in immunocompromised mice have been previously described by our lab [10,36,50,51]. Briefly, 1 x 108 freshly excysted sporozoites were electroporated with 100 μg of the repair plasmid, and 66 μg of the CRISPR/Cas9 plasmid and resuspended in 300 uL of cold DPBS. Ifngr1-/- mice were orally gavaged first with 8% (wt/vol) sodium bicarbonate to neutralize the stomach acid, followed by the electroporated sporozoites. The drinking water was replaced with paromomycin H2O (16 g/L) 24 hours later to select for transgenic parasites. Fecal pellets were collected for luciferase assays, qPCR, and PCR on 3, 9, and 15 dpi to confirm parasite growth and correct gene insertion. Oocysts were enriched from the fecal material with bleach treatment and 20,000 oocysts/mouse were used for a second round of amplification in NSG mice. Fecal samples were collected every 3 days after 3 dpi and used for the assays described above and for downstream purification for crossing experiments.

Luciferase assays for mouse experiments

Fecal samples collected from Ifngr1-/- and NSG mice were analyzed with the Promega Nano-Glo luciferase assay kit as previously described [50]. Tubes for fecal collection were weighed before and after collection to determine fecal sample weight. Glass beads were added to the sample along with a fecal lysis buffer and vortexed thoroughly. Samples were then centrifuged, supernatant was extracted, and mixed with the Promega Nano-Glo luciferase assay kit buffer and substrate. Luciferase values were then read on the Cytation 3 cell imaging multi-mode reader, and the number of relative luminescence units per milligram of feces was calculated by dividing the average values of two technical replicates by the weight of the fecal sample.

Quantifying oocyst shedding in mouse experiments

The QIAamp PowerFecal DNA kit was used to extract DNA from fecal pellets collected from Ifngr1-/- and NSG mice using previously described methods [10,50,51]. The number of oocysts at each timepoint was determined by qPCR analysis using the C. parvum glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) primers (S1 Table) and a standard curve based on a dilution series using previously described methods [10]. The amount of gDNA was quantified using the QuantStudio 3 real-time PCR system, and the number of oocysts per milligram of feces was calculated by dividing the average values of two technical replicates by 4 (an oocyst contains 4 parasites) and further dividing by the weight of the fecal sample.

Confirmation of insertions in transgenic parasites by PCR

Extracted gDNA from each murine fecal sample on 27 or 30 dpi and a wildtype control was used as the template to confirm the proper integration of the homology repair template by PCR. 1 μL of extracted gDNA, Q5 Hot Start high-fidelity 2x master mix, and primers at a final concentration of 500 nM (S2 Table) were used for PCR amplification on a Veriti 96-well thermal cycler. For the amplification of the 3’UTR in the ABC-3HA-CFP samples and both the 5’ and 3’UTR amplification in Enolase-3HA the following cycling condition was used: 98°C for 30 s, followed by 35 cycles of 98°C for 15 s, 65°C for 30 s, and 72°C for 1 min, with a final extension of 72°C for 2 min. For the amplification of the 5’UTR in ABC-3HA-CFP samples the extension time was adjusted to 1.5 min. All PCR products were resolved on a 1% agarose gel containing GelRed (1:10,000) and imaged using the ChemiDoc MP imaging system.

Oocyst purification from fecal material and storage

The Cryptosporidium parvum isolate AUCP -1 used for transfections was purified from fecal material collected from male Holstein calves at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [52]. All calf procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Transgenic oocysts were purified in-house from fecal material collected from NSG mice using a saturated sodium chloride solution for oocyst floatation [53]. After purification, oocysts were stored at 4 °C in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) for up to three months after fecal collection.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed in GraphPad Prism 10. A Chi-squared test was used to compare the expected and observed ratios for progeny phenotypes. Statistical parameters for each experiment including statistical test used, technical replicates (n), and independent biological replicates (N) are reported in the figure legends and associated method details.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Yellow oocyst populations vary in GFP and mCherry expression in vitro and in vivo on different days of infection.

(A) ALI was infected with Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-GFP oocysts, after 3 days post infection (dpi) transwells were scraped, bleached, and the expression of F1 oocysts were examined by flow cytometry. The Δtk-GFP oocysts produced by self-fertilization are more frequent than Δuprt-mCherry oocysts or outcrossed “yellow” oocysts. Yellow oocysts (mCherry+/GFP+) have two different populations that vary slightly in expression. GFPhi/mCherrymid and GFPmid/mCherryhi yellow oocysts occur at similar rates and likely differ based on the genotype of macrogamont”mother” of the oocyst. (B) A third population of mCherry+/GFP+ oocysts (GFPhi/mCherryhi) can be found in ALI cultures harvested at 4 days post infection using methods described above. These oocysts are likely the result of F1 yellow macrogamonts mating with green and red microgamonts and are indicative that a second round of meiosis has begun. (C) The GFPhi/mCherrymid and GFPmid/mCherryhi yellow oocyst populations can also be found in samples collected from Ifngr1−/− mice infected with Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-mGFP harvested after 3 days of infection. (D) Similarly, a third population of GFPhi /mCherryhi yellow oocysts can be found in samples collected from mice at 4 days post infection using methods described above. To capture only F1 oocysts all experiments utilized only oocysts harvested at 3 dpi.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Parentally inherited cytosolic fluorescent proteins are degraded before germline encoded fluorescent proteins are expressed in progeny from F1 ‘yellow’ oocysts.

Yellow bars represent the time (hours post infection) where parentally inherited cytosolic fluorescent proteins were expressed in F1 ‘yellow’ progeny and black dots indicate when these parentally inherited proteins were degraded. The colored dot represents the time when the germline encoded fluorescent protein began to be expressed and were continuously expressed throughout the first phase of merogony. The progeny from an individual F1 “yellow” oocyst were analyzed across 5 videos in two independent experiments. Each row represents progeny from an individual F1 “yellow” oocyst (n = 5) across two independent experiments (S1 Dataset).

(TIF)

pgen.1011162.s002.tif (681.5KB, tif)
S3 Fig. The ABC gene was successfully tagged in Cryptosporidium parvum.

(A) A diagram of the ABC-3HA-CFP targeting vector and the expected sizes for the 5’ Ins (1419 bp) and 3’ Ins (501 bp) amplicons used for the confirmation of proper insertion by PCR. (B) PCR analysis of ABC-3HA-CFP oocysts amplified in four NSG mice. WT, wild type. M1-4, DNA purified from fecal samples collected from each mouse used for amplification. The 5′ Ins and 3’ Ins products are specific for the 5′ and 3’ insertion sites of the integrated construct. Primers are identified in S2 Table. (C) ABC-HA-CFP oocysts purified from mouse feces were used for infection of HCT-8 cells, fixed at 18 hpi and stained with rabbit anti-GFP (also recognizes CFP), rat anti-HA, and VVL-Biotin all at 1:500. Followed by a secondary stain of Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rabbit IgG, Alexa Fluor 568 goat anti-rat IgG, and Alexa Fluor 647 Streptavidin all at a 1:1000 dilution. Hoechst was used for nuclear staining at 1:2000. (C) Fecal pellets collected from NSG mice from 3 to 30 days post infection were used for nanoluciferase assays and expressed as relative luminescence units (RLU) per milligram of feces. Each point represents a single sample from an individual mouse (n = 4). (D) DNA purified from fecal pellets collected during amplification were used for a qPCR analysis and expressed as gDNA equivalents per milligram of feces. Each point represents a single sample from an individual mouse (n = 4).

(TIF)

pgen.1011162.s003.tif (1.5MB, tif)
S4 Fig. The Enolase gene was successfully tagged in Cryptosporidium parvum.

(A) A diagram of the Enolase-3HA targeting vector and the expected sizes for the 5’ Ins (749 bp) and 3’ Ins (517 bp) amplicons used for the confirmation of proper insertion by PCR. (B) PCR analysis of Enolase-3HA oocysts amplified in three NSG mice. WT, wild type. M1-3, DNA purified from fecal samples collected from each mouse used for amplification. The 5′ Ins and 3’ Ins products are specific for the 5′ and 3’ insertion sites of the integrated construct. Primers are identified in S2 Table. (C) Enolase-HA oocysts purified from mouse feces were used for infection of HCT-8 cells, fixed at 18 hpi and stained with rat anti-HA at 1:500 and VVL-Biotin at 1:500. Followed by a secondary stain of Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rat and Alexa Fluor 647 Streptavidin at a 1:1000 dilution. Hoechst was used to stain nuclei at 1:2000. (C) Fecal pellets collected from NSG mice from 3 to 27 days post infection were used for nanoluciferase assays and expressed as relative luminescence units (RLU) per milligram of feces. Each point represents a single sample from an individual mouse (n = 3). (D) DNA purified from fecal pellets collected during amplification were used for a qPCR analysis and expressed as gDNA equivalents per milligram of feces. Each point represents a single sample from an individual mouse (n = 3).

(TIF)

pgen.1011162.s004.tif (1.1MB, tif)
S1 Movie. Progeny from outcrossed oocysts infect HCT-8 cells and display a tetratype segregation pattern.

Freshly excysted F1 progeny from outcrossed oocysts infect HCT-8 cells and move through first round of merogony as captured by video time-lapse microscopy. Cells were grown on HCT-8 cells at 37°C. Images were acquired every 20 min for 30 hours.

(MP4)

Download video file (1.6MB, mp4)
S1 Table. Key reagents and resources used in the experiments.

(DOCX)

pgen.1011162.s006.docx (26.3KB, docx)
S2 Table. All primers used for the construction of the ABC-HA-CFP and Enolase-HA transgenic parasites.

(DOCX)

pgen.1011162.s007.docx (19.8KB, docx)
S1 Dataset. Source data files for Figs 14 and S2 and Table 1.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011162.s008.xlsx (55.3KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank members of the Sibley laboratory for their helpful suggestions.

Data Availability

The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files, and source data are provided as a supplementary file.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by a grant from NIH (AI175150) to LDS and the work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to AKK. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kotloff KL, Nataro JP, Blackwelder WC, Nasrin D, Farag TH, Panchalingam S, et al. Burden and aetiology of diarrhoeal disease in infants and young children in developing countries (the Global Enteric Multicenter Study, GEMS): a prospective, case-control study. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):209–22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60844-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sow SO, Muhsen K, Nasrin D, Blackwelder WC, Wu Y, Farag TH, et al. The Burden of Cryptosporidium Diarrheal Disease among Children < 24 Months of Age in Moderate/High Mortality Regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, Utilizing Data from the Global Enteric Multicenter Study (GEMS). PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(5):e0004729. Epub 2016/05/25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004729 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4878811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wanyiri JW, Kanyi H, Maina S, Wang DE, Steen A, Ngugi P, et al. Cryptosporidiosis in HIV/AIDS patients in Kenya: clinical features, epidemiology, molecular characterization and antibody responses. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;91(2):319–28. Epub 2014/05/29. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0254 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4125256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Borowski H, Thompson RC, Armstrong T, Clode PL. Morphological characterization of Cryptosporidium parvum life-cycle stages in an in vitro model system. Parasitology. 2010;137(1):13–26. Epub 20090820. doi: 10.1017/S0031182009990837 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Guerin A, Striepen B. The Biology of the Intestinal Intracellular Parasite Cryptosporidium. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;28(4):509–15. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2020.09.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.English ED, Guerin A, Tandel J, Striepen B. Live imaging of the Cryptosporidium parvum life cycle reveals direct development of male and female gametes from type I meronts. PLoS Biol. 2022;20(4):e3001604. Epub 2022/04/19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001604 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9015140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Funkhouser-Jones LJ, Ravindran S, Sibley LD. Defining Stage-Specific Activity of Potent New Inhibitors of Cryptosporidium parvum Growth In Vitro. mBio. 2020;11(2). Epub 2020/03/05. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00052-20 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7064746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tandel J, English ED, Sateriale A, Gullicksrud JA, Beiting DP, Sullivan MC, et al. Life cycle progression and sexual development of the apicomplexan parasite Cryptosporidium parvum. Nat Microbiol. 2019. Epub 2019/09/04. doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0539-x . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Current WL, Reese NC. A comparison of endogenous development of three isolates of Cryptosporidium in suckling mice. J Protozool. 1986;33(1):98–108. Epub 1986/02/01. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1986.tb05567.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wilke G, Funkhouser-Jones L, Wang Y, Ravindran S, Wang Q, Beatty WL, et al. Forward genetics in Cryptosporidium enabled by complete in vitro development in stem cell-derived intestinal epithlium. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3331307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Heitman J. Evolution of eukaryotic microbial pathogens via covert sexual reproduction. Cell Host Microbe. 2010;8(1):86–99. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2010.06.011 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2916653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mallon MM, MacLeod A, Wastling JM, Smith H, Reilly B, Tait A. Population structures and the role of genetic exchange in the zoonotic pathogen Cryptosporidium parvum. J Molecular Evolution. 2003;56:407–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Khan A, Shaik JS, Grigg ME. Genomics and molecular epidemiology of Cryptosporidium species. Acta Trop. 2017. Epub 2017/11/08. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.10.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nader JL, Mathers TC, Ward BJ, Pachebat JA, Swain MT, Robinson G, et al. Evolutionary genomics of anthroponosis in Cryptosporidium. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4(5):826–36. Epub 2019/03/06. doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0377-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tichkule S, Jex AR, van Oosterhout C, Sannella AR, Krumkamp R, Aldrich C, et al. Comparative genomics revealed adaptive admixture in Cryptosporidium hominis in Africa. Microb Genom. 2021;7(1). Epub 2020/12/24. doi: 10.1099/mgen.0.000493 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8115899. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Huang W, Guo Y, Lysen C, Wang Y, Tang K, Seabolt MH, et al. Multiple introductions and recombination events underlie the emergence of a hyper-transmissible Cryptosporidium hominis subtype in the USA. Cell Host Microbe. 2023;31(1):112–23 e4. Epub 2022/12/16. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2022.11.013 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lenormand T, Engelstadter J, Johnston SE, Wijnker E, Haag CR. Evolutionary mysteries in meiosis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016;371(1706). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0001 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5031626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hofstatter PG, Lahr DJG. All Eukaryotes Are Sexual, unless Proven Otherwise: Many So-Called Asexuals Present Meiotic Machinery and Might Be Able to Have Sex. Bioessays. 2019;41(6):e1800246. Epub 20190514. doi: 10.1002/bies.201800246 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gaunt MW, Yeo M, Frame IA, Stothard JR, Carrasco HJ, Taylor MC, et al. Mechanism of genetic exchange in American trypanosomes. Nature. 2003;421(6926):936–9. doi: 10.1038/nature01438 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cruz-Saavedra L, Schwabl P, Vallejo GA, Carranza JC, Munoz M, Patino LH, et al. Genome plasticity driven by aneuploidy and loss of heterozygosity in Trypanosoma cruzi. Microb Genom. 2022;8(6). doi: 10.1099/mgen.0.000843 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9455712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Black JA, Reis-Cunha JL, Cruz AK, Tosi LRO. Life in plastic, it’s fantastic! How Leishmania exploit genome instability to shape gene expression. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1102462. Epub 20230126. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1102462 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9910336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Anderson MZ, Thomson GJ, Hirakawa MP, Bennett RJ. A ’parameiosis’ drives depolyploidization and homologous recombination in Candida albicans. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):4388. Epub 20190926. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12376-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6763455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Carpenter ML, Assaf ZJ, Gourguechon S, Cande WZ. Nuclear inheritance and genetic exchange without meiosis in the binucleate parasite Giardia intestinalis. J Cell Sci. 2012;125(Pt 10):2523–32. Epub 20120224. doi: 10.1242/jcs.103879 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3383261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Su X, Hayton K, Wellems TE. Genetic linkage and association analyses for trait mapping in Plasmodium falciparum. Nat Rev Genet. 2007;8(7):497–506. Epub 2007/06/19. doi: 10.1038/nrg2126 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Su XZ, Lane KD, Xia L, Sa JM, Wellems TE. Plasmodium Genomics and Genetics: New Insights into Malaria Pathogenesis, Drug Resistance, Epidemiology, and Evolution. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019;32(4). Epub 20190731. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00019-19 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6750138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Behnke MS, Dubey JP, Sibley LD. Genetic Mapping of Pathogenesis Determinants in Toxoplasma gondii. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2016;70:63–81. Epub 20160617. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-091014-104353 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Widmer G, Yang YL, Bonilla R, Tanriverdi S, Ciociola KM. Preferential infection of dividing cells by Cryptosporidium parvum. Parasitology. 2006;133(Pt 2):131–8. Epub 20060420. doi: 10.1017/S0031182006000151 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fayer R, Morgan U, Upton SJ. Epidemiology of Cryptosporidium: transmission, detection and identification. Int J Parasitology. 2000;30(12–13):1305–22. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(00)00135-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Feng Y, Ryan UM, Xiao L. Genetic diversity and population structure of Cryptosporidium. Trends Parasitol. 2018;34(11):997–1011. Epub 2018/08/16. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2018.07.009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Current WL, Upton SJ, Haynes TB. The life cycle of Cryptosporidium baileyi n. sp. (Apicomplexa, Cryptosporidiidae) infecting chickens. J Protozool. 1986;33(2):289–96. Epub 1986/05/01. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1986.tb05608.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tanriverdi S, Blain JC, Deng B, Ferdig MT, Widmer G. Genetic crosses in the apicomplexan parasite Cryptosporidium parvum define recombination parameters. Mol Microbiol. 2007;63(5):1432–9. Epub 2007/02/17. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2007.05594.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lichten M. Tetrad, random spore, and molecular analysis of meiotic segregation and recombination. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1205:13–28. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-1363-3_2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pfefferkorn LC, Pfefferkorn ER. Toxoplasma gondii: genetic recombination between drug resistant mutants. Exp Parasitol. 1980;50(3):305–16. doi: 10.1016/0014-4894(80)90034-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Boyle JP, Rajasekar B, Saeij JPJ, Ajioka JW, Berriman M, Paulsen I, et al. Just one cross appears capable of dramatically altering the population biology of a eukaryotic pathogen like Toxoplasma gondii. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(27):10514–9. Epub 20060626. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0510319103 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1502489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Khan A, Shaik JS, Behnke M, Wang Q, Dubey JP, Lorenzi HA, et al. NextGen sequencing reveals short double crossovers contribute disproportionately to genetic diversity in Toxoplasma gondii. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:1168. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-1168 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4326188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Xu R, Beatty WL, Greigert V, Witola WH, Sibley LD. Multiple pathways for glucose phosphate transport and utilization support growth of Cryptosporidium parvum. 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-44696-3 PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1032708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Khan A, Shaik JS, Behnke M, Wang Q, Dubey JP, Lorenzi HA, et al. NextGen sequencing reveals short double crossovers contribute disproportionately to genetic diversity in Toxoplasma gondii. BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1):1168. Epub 20141223. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-1168 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4326188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mu J, Awadalla P, Duan J, McGee KM, Joy DA, McVean GA, Su XZ. Recombination hotspots and population structure in Plasmodium falciparum. PLoS Biol. 2005;3(10):e335. Epub 20050913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030335 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1201364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Frankel MB, Knoll LJ. The ins and outs of nuclear trafficking: unusual aspects in apicomplexan parasites. DNA Cell Biol. 2009;28(6):277–84. doi: 10.1089/dna.2009.0853 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2903460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jiang H, Li N, Gopalan V, Zilversmit MM, Varma S, Nagarajan V, et al. High recombination rates and hotspots in a Plasmodium falciparum genetic cross. Genome Biol. 2011;12(4):R33. Epub 20110404. doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-4-r33 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3218859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Marra RE, Huang JC, Fung E, Nielsen K, Heitman J, Vilgalys R, Mitchell TG. A genetic linkage map of Cryptococcus neoformans variety neoformans serotype D (Filobasidiella neoformans). Genetics. 2004;167(2):619–31. doi: 10.1534/genetics.103.023408 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1470921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Singer T, Fan Y, Chang HS, Zhu T, Hazen SP, Briggs SP. A high-resolution map of Arabidopsis recombinant inbred lines by whole-genome exon array hybridization. PLoS Genet. 2006;2(9):e144. Epub 20060727. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020144 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1564425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ortiz-Barrientos D, Chang AS, Noor MA. A recombinational portrait of the Drosophila pseudoobscura genome. Genet Res. 2006;87(1):23–31. doi: 10.1017/S0016672306007932 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shinohara M, Oh SD, Hunter N, Shinohara A. Crossover assurance and crossover interference are distinctly regulated by the ZMM proteins during yeast meiosis. Nat Genet. 2008;40(3):299–309. Epub 20080224. doi: 10.1038/ng.83 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kaback DB, Guacci V, Barber D, Mahon JW. Chromosome size-dependent control of meiotic recombination. Science. 1992;256(5054):228–32. doi: 10.1126/science.1566070 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wilke G, Wang Y, Ravindran S, Stappenbeck T, Witola WH, Sibley LD. In vitro culture of Cryptosporidium parvum using stem cell-derived intestinal epithelial monolayers. In: Mead J, Arrowood M, editors. Cryptosporidium Methods in Molecular Biology. 2052. New York, NY: Humana; 2020. p. 351–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Greigert V, Saraav I, Son J, Dayao D, Antia A, Tzipori S, et al. Cryptosporidium infection of human small intestinal epithelial cells induces type III interferon and impairs infectivity of Rotavirus. bioRxiv. 2023:2023.08.30.555581. doi: 10.1101/2023.08.30.555581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Xu R, Beatty WL, Greigert V, Witola WH, Sibley LD. Multiple pathways for glucose phosphate transport and utilization support growth of Cryptosporidium parvum. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):380. Epub 20240109. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-44696-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10774378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Wilke G, Ravindran S, Funkhouser-Jones L, Barks J, Wang Q, VanDussen KL, et al. Monoclonal antibodies to intracellular stages of Cryptosporidium parvum define life cycle progression in vitro. mSphere. 2018;3(3):e00124–18. Epub 2018/06/01. doi: 10.1128/mSphere.00124-18 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5976880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Xu R, Feng Y, Xiao L, Sibley LD. Insulinase-like Protease 1 Contributes to Macrogamont Formation in Cryptosporidium parvum. mBio. 2021;12(2). Epub 2021/03/11. doi: 10.1128/mBio.03405-20 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8092296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Akey ME, Xu R, Ravindran S, Funkhouser-Jones L, Sibley LD. Apical Secretory Glycoprotein Complex Contributes to Cell Attachment and Entry by Cryptosporidium parvum. mBio. 2023;14(1):e0306422. Epub 2023/02/02. doi: 10.1128/mbio.03064-22 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9973360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kuhlenschmidt TB, Rutaganira FU, Long S, Tang K, Shokat KM, Kuhlenschmidt MS, LD S. Inhibition of Calcium-Dependent Protein Kinase 1 (CDPK1) In Vitro by Pyrazolopyrimidine Derivatives Does Not Correlate with Sensitivity of Cryptosporidium parvum Growth in Cell Culture. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;60(1):570–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01915-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Current WL. Techniques and laboratory maintenance of Cryptosporidium. In: Dubey JP, Speer CA, Fayer R, editors. Cryptosporidiosis of Man and Animals. Boca Raton, F: L: CRC Press; 1990. p. 44–77. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Geraldine Butler, Joseph Heitman

24 Apr 2024

Dear David,

Thank you very much for submitting your exciting Research Article entitled 'Mendelian segregation and high recombination rates facilitate genetic analyses in Cryptosporidium parvum.' to PLOS Genetics.

The manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by three independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic but identified some concerns that we ask you address in a revised manuscript. I apologize for the delay in returning this to you.  Two of the reviewers were a bit delayed beyond the deadline, and it took a couple of additional weeks for the third review to arrive. 

Given the topic of the paper, I have also read it over myself.  One area that I think needs revision has to do with the expectation/prediction for segregation of two unlinked markers following a standard meiosis.  From yeast genetics we know that segregation of two unlinked markers (and which are not centromere linked), will yield parental ditypes (PD), nonparental ditypes (NPD), and tetratypes (TT), if all four meiotic products from a given tetrad are analyzed.  For two unlinked markers, the ratio is PD:NPD:TT of 1:1:4.  Thus, on average you expect about 66% of the progeny to be tetratype.  Thus, it isn't clear why these are suggested to be rare in Figure 2.  In the actual data, the vast majority of your progeny are TT, in accord with this expectation. They are in fact over-represented, so you want to think about why that is the case.  This was also noted by two of the reviewers.

I don't think you need any additional data from what I can see.  Just revisions to the presentation, models, interpretation.

We therefore ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer.

In addition we ask that you:

1) Provide a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

2) Upload a Striking Image with a corresponding caption to accompany your manuscript if one is available (either a new image or an existing one from within your manuscript). If this image is judged to be suitable, it may be featured on our website. Images should ideally be high resolution, eye-catching, single panel square images. For examples, please browse our archive. If your image is from someone other than yourself, please ensure that the artist has read and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Note: we cannot publish copyrighted images.

We hope to receive your revised manuscript within the next 30 days. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we would ask you to let us know the expected resubmission date by email to plosgenetics@plos.org.

If present, accompanying reviewer attachments should be included with this email; please notify the journal office if any appear to be missing. They will also be available for download from the link below. You can use this link to log into the system when you are ready to submit a revised version, having first consulted our Submission Checklist.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying graphs or summary statistics are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this upon resubmission if not already present. In addition, we do not permit the inclusion of phrases such as "data not shown" or "unpublished results" in manuscripts. All points should be backed up by data provided with the submission.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLOS has incorporated Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, into its journal-wide submission system in order to screen submitted content for originality before publication. Each PLOS journal undertakes screening on a proportion of submitted articles. You will be contacted if needed following the screening process.

To resubmit, you will need to go to the link below and 'Revise Submission' in the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder.

Please let us know if you have any questions while making these revisions.  Thank you for submitting this exciting study to PLOS Genetics!   And again, my apologies for the delay in getting this back to you with reviews.

Yours sincerely,

Joe

Joseph Heitman, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Genetics

Geraldine Butler

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: This is a highly innovative study that will be an excellent addition to the literature on this parasite.

The manuscript is well written, and the results are statistically relevant, and the figs and tables of a high standard.

One minor point; Could the authors clarify the analysis for quantitating oocyst shedding in mouse experiments which is based on a single sporozoite giving rise to an oocyst (line 400 - the average oocyst count is divided by four, since the oocyst contains four sporozoites). The calculation does not seem to take into account that not all merozoites (the progeny of sporozoites) result in male and female gametes. This may explain why they do not see perfect outcrossing from in vivo experiments.

Reviewer #2: The authors investigated meiotic recombination in the apicomplexan parasite Cryptosporidium parvum. My background is in yeast genetics and I was not familiar with the life cycle of C. parvum before reading this manuscript, but the Introduction provided a good crash course in its biology. It is fascinating that the oocyst, which is equivalent to the ascus in yeast (it contains 4 haploid progeny from a meiosis), is the infectious agent in this organism. The standard laboratory culture protocol for growth of C. parvum cultures (incubation in HCT-8 adenocarcinoma cells) does not induce production of oocysts so it has previously been impossible to study the sexual cycle. However, in 2019 (ref. 10) the authors’ laboratory developed a growth method (ALI cultures) that produces oocytes, and this innovation has enabled them to study the meiotic inheritance of genetic markers in the current manuscript.

The manuscript is first detailed study of genetic crosses in Cryptosporidium. The results indicate that C. parvum outcrosses readily, and that it has a high recombination rate. The work is welcome because it is a significant technical achievement, laying the foundation for future genetic crossing and analysis (e.g. QTL analysis) in this important pathogenic species. Overall, the manuscript was written in a clear style that was accessible to this reader.

Major comment

Perhaps I have misunderstood something, but in the cross in Figure 2, I don’t understand why the authors expect the frequency of Tetratype (TT) oocysts to be low. This cross involves markers that are on two different chromosomes (uprt-mCherry on chr. 1, and tk-GFP on chr. 5) so they should segregate independently, as the authors indeed say on P7 L178. So I don’t understand why the authors then go on to say that the TT class is only possible “if crossover occurs during interphase I near the uprt or tk locus” (L184), and they don’t cite any reference to support this statement. They then observe that 87-89% of the oocysts are TT (Fig. 2B,D) and they say on line 200 that this frequency is surprisingly high (also on line 229).

In yeast genetics, a cross involving two markers on different chromosomes would result in the ratio of asci classes being 1 PD : 1 NPD : 4 TT, (i.e. 66% of the asci will be tetratype), unless each of the markers is tightly linked to the centromere of its chromosome. See Hiten Madhani’s online notes about yeast tetrad analysis, https://studylib.net/doc/8744127/classical-genetics--tetrad-analysis-and

The manuscript doesn’t say anywhere that the UPRT and TK genes are centromere-linked, so I presume that they are not. So shouldn’t the question be whether the observed 87-89% frequency is statistically higher than the expected 66% ?

Minor comments

Lines 36-37: As a non-specialist, I did not know what an oocyst is until I read the Introduction, so I didn’t initially understand these lines in the Abstract. It would be helpful if you could modify line 36 to say something like “Infection of ALI cultures or Ifngr1 mice with mCherry and GFP parasites resulted in cross-fertilization and formation of “yellow” oocysts (clusters of 4 haploid cells segregating from a meiosis)”.

Lines 120-122 make analogies to classical genetic analysis in yeast, referring to “random oocyst analysis” and “oocyst tetrad dissection”. It would be nice to return to these analogies in the Discussion to discuss them in more detail. The experiment in Figure 1 is random oocyst analysis which in yeast would be equivalent to random ascus analysis (not random spore analysis). The experiment in Figure 2 is oocyst tetrad dissection, OK. The experiments in Figures 3 and 4 are, I think, equivalent to random spore analysis.

Line 183, “parental non-ditype” should be “non-parental ditype”.

In Table 1, please add two columns showing “% of TT oocysts” and “% of TT + other oocysts”.

P11 L275, spell out Cp as “C. parvum”.

Reviewer #3: Mendelian segregation and high recombination rates facilitate genetic analyses in Cryptosporidium parvum

In this paper, isogenic lines of Cryptosporidium parvum were fluorescently tagged with mCherry or GFP on chromosomes 1 or 5 and allowed to undergo hybridization to investigate the frequency of crossing over, and whether chromosomes segregate independently in a Mendelian manner. To do this, the authors took advantage of a method they developed to culture all stages of Cryptosporidium in stem cell derived intestinal epithelial cells grown under air-liquid interface conditions (ALI), which they published in Cell Host and Microbe in 2019. Growth in ALI cultures generates infectious oocysts that are “yellow”, products of cross-fertilization between a red and green parental line. By FACS purifying “yellow” oocysts, and plating these oocysts in conditions that allowed for individual sporozoites from each oocyst to be counted, a technique the authors dubbed as “oocyst tetrad dissection”, the phenotypes of each individual sporozoite from single oocysts were quantified. The authors also produced additional lines that possessed tags that were linked (on the same chromosome), to calculate crossover frequencies, and to determine a recombination rate for each of the two chromosomes queried, which they estimated at between 3-12.1 kb/cM. This work is significant because the researchers applied new assays to study meiosis in Cryptosporidium and they showed, by examining progeny from crosses between transgenic parasites, that Cryptosporidium utilizes both self-fertilization and cross-fertilization, has high rates of recombination, and that chromosomes segregate in a Mendelian manner. In an effort to compare / contrast their results with those of fungi, in which tetrad analysis is pursued as a genetic technique to study recombination events and meiosis, the researchers used terminology such as parental ditype (PD), non-parental ditype (NPD) and tetratype (TT), and specifically showed that yellow oocysts, generated by fertilization between a gamete that had the red fluorescent tag with a gamete that had the green fluorescent tag, largely produced (ranging from 85-89%) an equal frequency (or 1:1:1:1 tetratypes) of progeny that were either dark, red, green, or yellow. This was expected. However, the researchers found this to be unexpected (see Fig 2A), which appears to be a flaw in their logic and needs to be corrected, or better explained.

Major Points:

1. Figures – are generally well received, and the graphics are excellent summaries of the data, but are lacking the visual display of the raw data. In referring back to the CHM paper in 2019, the figures in that manuscript were admixed with raw data plus summarized results. I am not necessarily asking for the same here, but more extensive experimental data could be added to the supplemental section, as seen for example in Suppl. Fig. 1, which provided real insight into some of the nuances of the dataset, and how timing is critical for data collection, to avoid the complications associated with a second round of meiosis, or the time needed post meiotic reduction (14hpi) to sufficiently dilute the inherited cytosolic fluorescent protein of the other parent, to establish which germline encoded fluorescent protein remained stably expressed for a more precise tabulation in the results.

2. Figure 2A – the logic appears to be flawed, and needs to be better explained, and/or corrected. Cryptosporidium is haploid, no genome reduction occurs to produce gametes, rather a developmental queue commits each haploid parasite to differentiate into either a microgamete or a macrogamete, and upon fusion, a 2n zygote forms. There are no perceived mating types, and from the analyses in this paper, there appears to be an equal frequency of self- vs. cross-fertilization occurring. Hence, there is a 50% chance of being either red or green, or 50% chance of being yellow for the two unlinked markers. And for the oocyst tetrad dissection analysis, the predicted outcome would be a 1:1:1:1 ratio in this scenario, hence dark:red:green:yellow progeny (or TT) from each single, yellow oocyst. This is largely what has occurred (Fig 2B and Fig 2D), and is what is predicted, so it is unclear why Figure 2A depicts the opposite, and a paragraph of text is devoted to this as an unexpected result. Minor deviations from this were evident in the results shown. It was the same whether oocyst formatio

Decision Letter 1

Geraldine Butler, Joseph Heitman

27 May 2024

Dear David,

We are pleased to inform you that your revised manuscript entitled "Mendelian segregation and high recombination rates facilitate genetic analyses in Cryptosporidium parvum." has been editorially accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics. Congratulations!  I appreciate the care and attention to detail in the revision process.  I would leave it to you to consider whether you might like to thank the reviewers for their astute insights about tetratype recombinants, and how to frame that part of the interpretation of the findings.  They were right on the mark, and I think this is a very nice example where peer review worked to enhance the paper.

Before your submission can be formally accepted and sent to production you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Please note: the accept date on your published article will reflect the date of this provisional acceptance, but your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until the required changes have been made.

Once your paper is formally accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you’ve already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosgenetics@plos.org.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. Note that PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors. Therefore, please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field.  This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

If you have a press-related query, or would like to know about making your underlying data available (as you will be aware, this is required for publication), please see the end of this email. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming article at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. Inform journal staff as soon as possible if you are preparing a press release for your article and need a publication date.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Genetics!  I am especially pleased to see this outstanding study on sexual cycle of Cryptosporidium published in PLOS Genetics---a major advance for the field!

Yours sincerely,

Joe

Joseph Heitman, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Genetics

Geraldine Butler

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

www.plosgenetics.org

Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

----------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers (if applicable):

----------------------------------------------------

Data Deposition

If you have submitted a Research Article or Front Matter that has associated data that are not suitable for deposition in a subject-specific public repository (such as GenBank or ArrayExpress), one way to make that data available is to deposit it in the Dryad Digital Repository. As you may recall, we ask all authors to agree to make data available; this is one way to achieve that. A full list of recommended repositories can be found on our website.

The following link will take you to the Dryad record for your article, so you won't have to re‐enter its bibliographic information, and can upload your files directly: 

http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=pgenetics&manu=PGENETICS-D-24-00143R1

More information about depositing data in Dryad is available at http://www.datadryad.org/depositing. If you experience any difficulties in submitting your data, please contact help@datadryad.org for support.

Additionally, please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying display items are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this before we can formally accept your manuscript, if not already present.

----------------------------------------------------

Press Queries

If you or your institution will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, or if you need to know your paper's publication date for media purposes, please inform the journal staff as soon as possible so that your submission can be scheduled accordingly. Your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. PLOS Genetics may also choose to issue a press release for your article. If there's anything the journal should know or you'd like more information, please get in touch via plosgenetics@plos.org.

Acceptance letter

Geraldine Butler, Joseph Heitman

11 Jun 2024

PGENETICS-D-24-00143R1

Mendelian segregation and high recombination rates facilitate genetic analyses in <i>Cryptosporidium parvum<i>.

Dear Dr Sibley,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Mendelian segregation and high recombination rates facilitate genetic analyses in <i>Cryptosporidium parvum<i>." has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics! Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out or your manuscript is a front-matter piece, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Genetics and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Lilla Horvath

PLOS Genetics

On behalf of:

The PLOS Genetics Team

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom

plosgenetics@plos.org | +44 (0) 1223-442823

plosgenetics.org | Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Yellow oocyst populations vary in GFP and mCherry expression in vitro and in vivo on different days of infection.

    (A) ALI was infected with Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-GFP oocysts, after 3 days post infection (dpi) transwells were scraped, bleached, and the expression of F1 oocysts were examined by flow cytometry. The Δtk-GFP oocysts produced by self-fertilization are more frequent than Δuprt-mCherry oocysts or outcrossed “yellow” oocysts. Yellow oocysts (mCherry+/GFP+) have two different populations that vary slightly in expression. GFPhi/mCherrymid and GFPmid/mCherryhi yellow oocysts occur at similar rates and likely differ based on the genotype of macrogamont”mother” of the oocyst. (B) A third population of mCherry+/GFP+ oocysts (GFPhi/mCherryhi) can be found in ALI cultures harvested at 4 days post infection using methods described above. These oocysts are likely the result of F1 yellow macrogamonts mating with green and red microgamonts and are indicative that a second round of meiosis has begun. (C) The GFPhi/mCherrymid and GFPmid/mCherryhi yellow oocyst populations can also be found in samples collected from Ifngr1−/− mice infected with Δuprt-mCherry and Δtk-mGFP harvested after 3 days of infection. (D) Similarly, a third population of GFPhi /mCherryhi yellow oocysts can be found in samples collected from mice at 4 days post infection using methods described above. To capture only F1 oocysts all experiments utilized only oocysts harvested at 3 dpi.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Parentally inherited cytosolic fluorescent proteins are degraded before germline encoded fluorescent proteins are expressed in progeny from F1 ‘yellow’ oocysts.

    Yellow bars represent the time (hours post infection) where parentally inherited cytosolic fluorescent proteins were expressed in F1 ‘yellow’ progeny and black dots indicate when these parentally inherited proteins were degraded. The colored dot represents the time when the germline encoded fluorescent protein began to be expressed and were continuously expressed throughout the first phase of merogony. The progeny from an individual F1 “yellow” oocyst were analyzed across 5 videos in two independent experiments. Each row represents progeny from an individual F1 “yellow” oocyst (n = 5) across two independent experiments (S1 Dataset).

    (TIF)

    pgen.1011162.s002.tif (681.5KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. The ABC gene was successfully tagged in Cryptosporidium parvum.

    (A) A diagram of the ABC-3HA-CFP targeting vector and the expected sizes for the 5’ Ins (1419 bp) and 3’ Ins (501 bp) amplicons used for the confirmation of proper insertion by PCR. (B) PCR analysis of ABC-3HA-CFP oocysts amplified in four NSG mice. WT, wild type. M1-4, DNA purified from fecal samples collected from each mouse used for amplification. The 5′ Ins and 3’ Ins products are specific for the 5′ and 3’ insertion sites of the integrated construct. Primers are identified in S2 Table. (C) ABC-HA-CFP oocysts purified from mouse feces were used for infection of HCT-8 cells, fixed at 18 hpi and stained with rabbit anti-GFP (also recognizes CFP), rat anti-HA, and VVL-Biotin all at 1:500. Followed by a secondary stain of Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rabbit IgG, Alexa Fluor 568 goat anti-rat IgG, and Alexa Fluor 647 Streptavidin all at a 1:1000 dilution. Hoechst was used for nuclear staining at 1:2000. (C) Fecal pellets collected from NSG mice from 3 to 30 days post infection were used for nanoluciferase assays and expressed as relative luminescence units (RLU) per milligram of feces. Each point represents a single sample from an individual mouse (n = 4). (D) DNA purified from fecal pellets collected during amplification were used for a qPCR analysis and expressed as gDNA equivalents per milligram of feces. Each point represents a single sample from an individual mouse (n = 4).

    (TIF)

    pgen.1011162.s003.tif (1.5MB, tif)
    S4 Fig. The Enolase gene was successfully tagged in Cryptosporidium parvum.

    (A) A diagram of the Enolase-3HA targeting vector and the expected sizes for the 5’ Ins (749 bp) and 3’ Ins (517 bp) amplicons used for the confirmation of proper insertion by PCR. (B) PCR analysis of Enolase-3HA oocysts amplified in three NSG mice. WT, wild type. M1-3, DNA purified from fecal samples collected from each mouse used for amplification. The 5′ Ins and 3’ Ins products are specific for the 5′ and 3’ insertion sites of the integrated construct. Primers are identified in S2 Table. (C) Enolase-HA oocysts purified from mouse feces were used for infection of HCT-8 cells, fixed at 18 hpi and stained with rat anti-HA at 1:500 and VVL-Biotin at 1:500. Followed by a secondary stain of Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rat and Alexa Fluor 647 Streptavidin at a 1:1000 dilution. Hoechst was used to stain nuclei at 1:2000. (C) Fecal pellets collected from NSG mice from 3 to 27 days post infection were used for nanoluciferase assays and expressed as relative luminescence units (RLU) per milligram of feces. Each point represents a single sample from an individual mouse (n = 3). (D) DNA purified from fecal pellets collected during amplification were used for a qPCR analysis and expressed as gDNA equivalents per milligram of feces. Each point represents a single sample from an individual mouse (n = 3).

    (TIF)

    pgen.1011162.s004.tif (1.1MB, tif)
    S1 Movie. Progeny from outcrossed oocysts infect HCT-8 cells and display a tetratype segregation pattern.

    Freshly excysted F1 progeny from outcrossed oocysts infect HCT-8 cells and move through first round of merogony as captured by video time-lapse microscopy. Cells were grown on HCT-8 cells at 37°C. Images were acquired every 20 min for 30 hours.

    (MP4)

    Download video file (1.6MB, mp4)
    S1 Table. Key reagents and resources used in the experiments.

    (DOCX)

    pgen.1011162.s006.docx (26.3KB, docx)
    S2 Table. All primers used for the construction of the ABC-HA-CFP and Enolase-HA transgenic parasites.

    (DOCX)

    pgen.1011162.s007.docx (19.8KB, docx)
    S1 Dataset. Source data files for Figs 14 and S2 and Table 1.

    (XLSX)

    pgen.1011162.s008.xlsx (55.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Resposne to reviewers.docx

    pgen.1011162.s009.docx (28.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files, and source data are provided as a supplementary file.


    Articles from PLOS Genetics are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES