Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2024 Jul 1;20(7):e1012349. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1012349

Host JAK-STAT activity is a target of parasitoid wasp virulence strategies

Susanna E Brantley 1, Corinne M Stouthamer 2, Pooja Kr 3, Mary L Fischer 3, Joshua Hill 3, Todd A Schlenke 2,*, Nathan T Mortimer 3,4,*
Editor: David S Schneider5
PMCID: PMC11244843  PMID: 38950076

Abstract

Innate immune responses that allow hosts to survive infection depend on the action of multiple conserved signaling pathways. Pathogens and parasites in turn have evolved virulence factors to target these immune signaling pathways in an attempt to overcome host immunity. Consequently, the interactions between host immune molecules and pathogen virulence factors play an important role in determining the outcome of an infection. The immune responses of Drosophila melanogaster provide a valuable model to understand immune signaling and host-pathogen interactions. Flies are commonly infected by parasitoid wasps and mount a coordinated cellular immune response following infection. This response is characterized by the production of specialized blood cells called lamellocytes that form a tight capsule around wasp eggs in the host hemocoel. The conserved JAK-STAT signaling pathway has been implicated in lamellocyte proliferation and is required for successful encapsulation of wasp eggs. Here we show that activity of Stat92E, the D. melanogaster STAT ortholog, is induced in immune tissues following parasitoid infection. Virulent wasp species are able to suppress Stat92E activity during infection, suggesting they target JAK-STAT pathway activation as a virulence strategy. Furthermore, two wasp species (Leptopilina guineaensis and Ganaspis xanthopoda) suppress phenotypes associated with a gain-of-function mutation in hopscotch, the D. melanogaster JAK ortholog, indicating that they inhibit the activity of the core signaling components of the JAK-STAT pathway. Our data suggest that parasitoid wasp virulence factors block JAK-STAT signaling to overcome fly immune defenses.

Author summary

Following infection, host immune responses are triggered to provide protection against the invading pathogen. The proper function of these responses depends on the activity of multiple immune signaling pathways. These pathways act in a coordinated manner to orchestrate the immune response, and any disruption can render the host susceptible to infection. Because of this sensitivity, many pathogen species have evolved virulence mechanisms that target host signaling pathways and disrupt their function. We are using the interaction between Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila-infecting parasitoid wasps to study this relationship between host signaling and pathogen virulence. Parasitoids infect fly larvae, and during infection, transfer virulence protein containing venom into the host, providing a mechanism to alter host signaling. This study is focused on one key immune signaling pathway, the highly conserved JAK-STAT pathway. We find that many virulent parasitoid species restrict the activity of the host JAK-STAT pathway, providing a clue as to their virulence strategy. JAK-STAT signaling plays many additional roles in health and disease, and so this system provides a good model to further understand this important pathway.

Introduction

Innate immune mechanisms are evolutionarily ancient host defenses against invading pathogens. These innate mechanisms include both humoral and cell-mediated responses to infection and are coordinated by numerous immune signaling pathways [1]. Many of these pathways are highly conserved across taxa [2,3], including the signaling pathways underlying humoral responses such as the Toll/Toll-like Receptor pathway [47], and the pathways involved in cell-mediated immunity such as JAK-STAT, JNK and calcium signaling [813]. Following infection, the coordinated function of these signaling pathways is required for host resistance to infection [14,15]; the activation, duration and strength of each signaling event is therefore tightly regulated, and dysregulated immune signaling can result in immune deficiency [1618]. In turn, pathogens have evolved an array of virulence factors that allow them to subvert host immune responses [1921]. Conserved immune signaling pathways are commonly targeted by pathogen virulence factors across diverse host and pathogen taxa [12,2226], reflecting their important role in host defense.

Drosophila melanogaster is a commonly used model of human health and disease, and studies into fly immunity have been key to understanding innate immune signaling [2729]. Flies are naturally infected by a wide range of pathogens including microbes, viruses and macroparasites, and mount specific responses to each class of pathogen [30]. Parasitoid wasps are a common macroparasite of Drosophila species, and the Drosophila-parasitoid system has been used as a model to study the co-evolution and molecular mechanisms underlying host-parasite interactions [3135]. Numerous parasitoid wasp species infect flies in nature, and during infection these wasps inject an egg along with virulence factor containing venom into the hemocoel of fly larvae. This triggers a host cellular immune response known as encapsulation [32,36]. In the cellular encapsulation response, circulating macrophage-like hemocytes known as plasmatocytes are activated by parasitoid infection and become the first hemocytes to encounter and bind to the foreign tissue [12,37]. Infection also triggers the production of lamellocytes, an induced hemocyte type that is required for the encapsulation of parasitoid eggs and other pathogens that are too large to be phagocytosed [38]. These specialized hemocytes can be derived from hemocyte precursors in the hematopoietic lymph gland as well as from the transdifferentiation of circulating and sessile plasmatocytes, via an intermediate prelamellocyte form (also known as podocytes or lamellocyte intermediates) [3945]. Following their production, lamellocytes migrate towards and spread over the foreign tissue, forming a continuous capsule and killing the encapsulated object [37,46,47].

The production of lamellocytes is linked with activity of the JAK-STAT signal transduction pathway [48]. JAK-STAT pathway activation is initiated by the production and release of cytokines from the Unpaired (Upd) family: Upd1, Upd2, and Upd3 [4952]. Upd proteins are secreted cytokines that bind to and activate the Domeless (Dome) cytokine receptor [50,53]. Activation of Dome triggers the activity of the Janus Kinase (JAK) ortholog Hopscotch (Hop), which in turn phosphorylates the Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription (STAT) ortholog Stat92E [50,53,54]. Phosphorylated Stat92E can then enter the nucleus to drive transcription of downstream target genes [5456]. JAK-STAT pathway activity leads to the production of lamellocytes both in response to macroparasite infection [48,57], and as a consequence of gain-of-function mutations in the hop or Stat92E genes, which cause the precocious differentiation of lamellocytes in naïve flies [5861]. Conversely, loss-of-function mutations in hop lead to reduced hemocyte counts and weakened encapsulation ability [48,57].

Parasitoids that can successfully infect a host species are considered to be virulent with respect to that host, and this virulence is largely determined by parasitoid venom activity [62]. Drosophila-infecting parasitoid species have evolved diverse venom-mediated virulence strategies to overcome host immunity, and many of these mechanisms target host hemocyte production or function [12,26,46,6370]. Notably, multiple species of Drosophila-infecting parasitoids employ venom factors that specifically target host lamellocytes [38,46,7074], suggesting that inhibition of the production or activity of lamellocytes may be an effective parasitoid virulence strategy. Based on the key role of the pathway in lamellocyte production, we predict that parasitoids might suppress host lamellocyte production and encapsulation by specifically targeting the JAK-STAT pathway.

In this work, we ask if diverse Drosophila-infecting parasitoids species show evidence of suppressing JAK-STAT signaling, and whether these species target a common or distinct phase of JAK-STAT pathway activity. To test these ideas, we challenged larvae with a panel of parasitoid wasp species from the Family Figitidae. Many figitid wasps are virulent against D. melanogaster and have a wide range of venom activities that inhibit host lamellocyte function or target these immune cells for destruction. For instance, the well-studied parasitoid species Leptopilina heterotoma and Leptopilina boulardi both target host lamellocytes, but through the use of distinct strategies [63]. L. heterotoma venom induces lysis of host lamellocytes, resulting in a decreased population of this important cell type [75]. By contrast, L. boulardi venom contains a RhoGAP domain protein that induces morphological changes in lamellocytes and renders them incapable of participating in the encapsulation response in the absence of cell death [26]. Interestingly, previous gene expression data suggest that these species both may inhibit host JAK-STAT signaling by suppressing the expression of Upd ligands [63], adding support for the hypothesis that JAK-STAT signaling may be a common target of parasitoid venoms. Additional figitid species also target host lamellocytes. Leptopilina victoriae, a member of the L. heterotoma species group, inhibits the ability of lamellocytes to adhere to the encapsulated parasitoid egg by effecting the N-glycosylation state of lamellocyte surface proteins [46], however, it is unknown if the relevant venom activity inhibits the N-glycosylation process or acts as a deglycosylase. We also include a largely unstudied parasitoid species, Leptopilina guineaensis. The virulence strategy of L. guineaensis is unknown, but it is a virulent parasitoid of D. melanogaster [76].

There is additional evidence that figitid parasitoids can also indirectly disrupt host lamellocyte populations through the targeted elimination of hemocyte precursor cells. This has been previously reported for both L. heterotoma and L. victoriae [72]. In the case of L. heterotoma, precursor apoptosis happens in coordination with the lysis of mature lamellocytes [77], but the mechanism is less clear for L. victoriae. There are reported instances of intraspecies differences in virulence [78], and it is possible that L. victoriae may provide an additional example of this phenomenon. While the L. victoriae strains used in this manuscript (LvHaw and LvPhil) inhibit lamellocyte function (via alterations to cell surface protein N-glycosylation) in the absence of decreased lamellocyte production [46], Chiu and Govind demonstrate that an unspecified L. victoriae strain induces apoptosis of hemocyte precursor cells in the hematopoietic lymph gland [72].

In addition, the figitid wasps contain two genera, Leptopilina and Ganaspis, which are found in overlapping regions of the world but belong to distinct species groups [79], allowing us to address the conservation of virulence strategies. Our study also includes Ganaspis xanthopoda, a virulent parasitoid of D. melanogaster [80]. G. xanthopoda infection depletes the host lamellocyte population similar to L. heterotoma, although the mechanism by which its venom acts, i.e., via lysis of mature lamellocytes, apoptosis of precursor cells, or another unidentified strategy, is unknown [81].

The Figitidae are particularly appropriate for this study since along with these virulent species, the family also includes species that are successfully encapsulated by D. melanogaster. These wasp species are referred to as avirulent, and can be assayed to investigate host immune function and for comparison with virulent species. In our study, we use two species which are avirulent with respect to D. melanogaster. Leptopilina clavipes is a specialist that successfully infects mushroom eating flies [82], and as such its venom is unable to inhibit D. melanogaster immunity [46]. Leptopilina maia is a newly discovered species with an unknown host range and virulence strategy [83], but given its avirulence with respect to D. melanogaster, it is likely that it also targets a distinct group of host species.

Our results show that this panel of virulent parasitoid wasp species suppress JAK-STAT pathway activity following infection. We find that parasitoids likely target the JAK-STAT pathway through distinct mechanisms, with different species inhibiting either the upstream activation or the activity of the core signaling components of the pathway. Our findings demonstrate that parasite virulence mechanisms have converged on a strategy of host JAK-STAT activity disruption.

Results

JAK-STAT pathway activation following parasitoid infection

To characterize the tissue specificity of JAK-STAT pathway activation in the context of the immune response to wasp infection, we assayed pathway activity using Stat92E activity reporter flies (10XStat92E-GFP) [84] in naïve larvae, and larvae infected with an avirulent parasitoid wasp. 10XStat92E-GFP flies express GFP in response to JAK-STAT pathway activation (Fig 1A) such that GFP fluorescence can be used as a relative measure of pathway activity [84]. In naïve reporter flies, GFP expression was observed in cells of the gut (S1A Fig), but no expression was observed in immune tissues such as the hemocytes (Fig 1B and 1C), fat body (Fig 1F), body wall muscle (Fig 1G) or lymph gland (S1B Fig). To characterize reporter expression following infection, we challenged 10XStat92E-GFP larvae with the avirulent parasitoid Leptopilina clavipes (strain LcNet), a species that induces a robust immune response and is usually encapsulated by D. melanogaster [46]. We found that LcNet infection alters the pattern of 10XStat92E-GFP activity: at 48 hours post infection (hpi), GFP fluorescence was detected in hemocytes (Fig 1D and 1E), fat body (Fig 1H), and body wall muscles (Fig 1I), but not in the lymph gland (S1C Fig). In addition, as previously reported [48,57], we show that larvae heterozygous for a Stat92E mutant allele (Stat92E06346,ry / +, ry) have a significantly reduced ability to encapsulate LcNet eggs (F = 13.5, p = 0.021) (Fig 1J). Our data suggest that JAK-STAT signaling in these tissues may play an important role in the host encapsulation response to macroparasite infection.

Fig 1. Drosophila melanogaster JAK-STAT signaling pathway activity is induced in immune tissues following wasp infection.

Fig 1

(A) A schematic to illustrate the D. melanogaster JAK-STAT pathway. The pathway can be activated by the interaction between upd and dome or by gain of function mutations in hop or Stat92E. The 10XStat92E-GFP transgene expression serves as a readout of pathway activity. (B-I) GFP expression in 10XStat92E-GFP larval hemocytes (B,D: brightfield, C,E: GFP), fat body (F,H) and body wall muscle (G,I) was imaged 48 hours following infection by the avirulent wasp L. clavipes (strain LcNet) and in age-matched naïve larvae as indicated. 10XStat92E-GFP activity is induced in hemocytes (compare C vs E), fat body (F vs H) and body wall muscle (G vs I) following LcNet infection. (J) Encapsulation of LcNet eggs in larvae heterozygous for Stat92E06346 compared to the genetic background control. The data are shown as box plots with the mean proportions of each of three replicates visualized as open circles (y; ry n = 65; y; Stat92E06346, ry/+, ry n = 80). * p < 0.05 compared to y; ry genetic background control by Analysis of Variance of Aligned Rank Transformed Data test.

Lamellocyte production and changes to hemocyte concentration are induced by JAK-STAT activity in diverse tissues

D. melanogaster resistance to parasitoid infection is influenced by the total number of circulating hemocytes, the induction of lamellocytes, and also the concentrations of hemocyte types following infection [48,76,8587]. To investigate the tissue specific roles of JAK-STAT activity in inducing changes in the host hemocyte population, we expressed a constitutively active form of Stat92E (Stat92ECA) [61] in immune tissues using the UAS-GAL4 system [88]. Specifically, we expressed Stat92ECA in hemocytes using He-Gal4, in fat body using C833-Gal4, in body wall muscle using Mef2-Gal4, in the Posterior Signaling Center (PSC) of the lymph gland using Dot-Gal4, and in the Medullary zone (MZ) of the lymph gland using unc-5GMR93E08 (hereafter referred to as MZ-Gal4) [60,8992]. For each experiment we determined the number of each type of circulating hemocyte. The effect of Gal4 expression was controlled for by outcrossing each Gal4 line to the w1118 genetic background control.

We found that hemocyte-specific expression of Stat92ECA failed to induce an increase in the total number of circulating hemocytes (Fig 2A), but that this expression led to a significant increase in the number of lamellocytes (Fig 2B). To further explore the effect of JAK-STAT signaling in hemocytes, we used the χ2 test to determine whether the expression of Stat92ECA in hemocytes altered the observed distribution of hemocytes across each type compared to the expected numbers calculated from the background control. We found that Stat92ECA expression had a significant effect on the concentration of hemocyte types (χ2 = 548.8, p = 4.99 x 10−4). To investigate the effect on each hemocyte type we plotted the χ2 residuals for each cell type (Fig 2C), as a measure of the contribution of each cell type to the overall effect. This demonstrates that the concentration of plasmatocytes is decreased in these larvae coincident with an increase in the concentration of prelamellocytes and lamellocytes, suggesting that Stat92ECA expression in hemocytes is driving the transdifferentiation of plasmatocytes into lamellocytes via the prelamellocyte intermediate stage, as is also observed following parasitoid infection [39] or upon organism-wide JAK-STAT activation [45].

Fig 2. JAK-STAT activity in immune tissues is sufficient for lamellocyte production.

Fig 2

(A) The total number of circulating hemocytes from larvae expressing a constitutively active form of Stat92E (Stat92ECA, white) compared to a w1118 control cross (cyan). The data are shown as box plots with mean hemocyte number of each replicate visualized as open circles. (B) Lamellocyte numbers from larvae expressing a constitutively active form of Stat92E (Stat92ECA, black) compared to w1118 controls (cyan). The data are shown as box plots with mean lamellocyte number of each replicate visualized as open circles. For A-B, * indicates p < 0.05 compared to the respective w1118 control cross by Welch two sample t-test. (C) χ2 standardized residuals plotted for plasmatocytes (cyan), prelamellocytes (magenta) and lamellocytes (black) following expression of Stat92ECA in each tissue. Hemocyte concentrations were significantly altered by Stat92ECA expression in hemocytes, fat body and body wall muscle. * indicates p < 0.05 compared to the respective w1118 control cross by χ2 test.

Further, we found that expression of Stat92ECA in the fat body, the major site of humoral immune signaling, promoted lamellocyte differentiation without significant changes to the total number of circulating hemocytes (Fig 2A and 2B). Fat body expression of Stat92ECA also altered the overall concentration of hemocytes (χ2 = 23.41, p = 1.99 x 10−3). In contrast to the case of Stat92ECA expression in hemocytes, this alteration in the fat body appeared to be driven solely by an increase in lamellocytes (Fig 2C). This suggests that fat body expression of Stat92ECA may induce the production of lamellocytes from non-circulating precursor cells. These contradictory results may be reconciled by considering that the number of lamellocytes produced is markedly less when Stat92ECA is expressed in fat body in comparison with hemocyte expression. Following fat body Stat92ECA expression, lamellocytes only account for 1.3% of the circulating hemocytes. This modest increase may not be sufficient to significantly impact the total number of hemocytes, and indeed we see that fat body Stat92ECA expression caused a small, but not statistically significant increase in hemocyte number (1516 ± 176 hemocytes/larva in Stat92ECA expression compared to 1313 ± 90.1 hemocytes/larva in control, p = 0.189). This suggests that the contribution of fat body signaling to lamellocyte production is limited, perhaps explaining why inhibition of JAK-STAT signaling in the fat body has minimal consequences for host defense following infection [57].

The larval body wall muscle has recently been shown to play a vital role in host defense to parasitoid infection, an effect mediated by JAK-STAT signaling [57]. Accordingly, we found that muscle-specific expression of Stat92ECA with the Mef2-Gal4 driver was sufficient to induce both an increase in the total number of circulating hemocytes (Fig 2A) and the production of lamellocytes (Fig 2B), and altered the overall proportion of cell types in the hemocyte population (χ2 = 203.6, p = 5.0 x 10−4). The increase in total circulating hemocytes suggests that muscle JAK-STAT activity is likely triggering the production of hemocytes via the release from sessile hemocyte populations or the lymph gland into circulation. These newly produced hemocytes are likely differentiating into lamellocytes as reflected by the increased lamellocyte numbers and increases in the concentrations of both prelamellocytes and lamellocytes (Fig 2C).

Finally, we expressed Stat92ECA in two distinct cell populations within the lymph gland: the PSC and MZ. We found that Stat92ECA expression in either of these lymph gland cell types did not induce an increase in hemocyte number or lamellocyte production (Fig 2A and 2B), nor did it alter the concentration of hemocyte types in circulation (Dot-Gal4: χ2 = 1.467, p = 0.42; MZ-Gal4: χ2 = 2.549, p = 0.28) (Fig 2C). This is consistent with the described role of JAK-STAT signaling in restricting hematopoiesis within the lymph gland [9395], and the lack of pathway activity in lymph gland cells following infection (S1C Fig).

The virulence mechanisms of multiple parasitoid species target the JAK-STAT pathway

To test whether Drosophila-infecting parasitoid species can manipulate host JAK-STAT signaling, we challenged Stat92E activity reporter flies (10XStat92E-GFP) with a panel of diverse wasp species and strains (Fig 3). We found that immune challenge induced wasp-specific patterns of 10XStat92E-GFP activity in hemocytes (Fig 4A and 4B), fat body (Table 1 and S2 Fig), and body wall muscle (Table 2 and S3 Fig) at 24hpi and 48hpi. Infection with two species of avirulent wasps, Leptopilina clavipes (strain LcNet) and Leptopilina maia (strain LmAtl) [83,96] both induce a high level of 10XStat92E-GFP activity in hemocytes (Fig 4A and 4B), fat body (Table 1) and body wall muscle (Table 2).

Fig 3. Phylogenetic tree of parasitoid species and strains used in this study.

Fig 3

Phylogeny was constructed using COI sequences given in S1 Table. The place and date of collection is also given for each strain.

Fig 4. GFP fluorescence is altered in 10XStat92E-GFP hemocytes following wasp infection by multiple wasp strains.

Fig 4

GFP intensity measured as corrected total cell fluorescence in 10XStat92E-GFP hemocytes at (A) 24 and (B) 48 hours post infection. Avirulent wasps LcNet and LmAtl induce the highest GFP fluorescence in comparison to multiple virulent wasp strains. Data are plotted as the average corrected total cell fluorescence ± standard error. The mean corrected total cell fluorescence of each replicate of 180 blood cells is visualized with open circles. * p < 0.05 compared to naïve control by Dunnett’s test.

Table 1. 10XStat92E-GFP activity in fat body following wasp infection by multiple wasp strains.

(-, +, ++) indicates estimated observed fluorescence intensity. Examples of qualitative levels of GFP fluorescence are shown in S2 Fig.

Treatment 24h post-infection 48h post-infection
Naïve - -
GxUg - -
GxHaw - -
LbG486 + +
Lb17 + +
LgCam ++ ++
LgSA - -
LvPhil - +
LvHaw - +
Lh14 - -
LhSw - -
LmAtl ++ ++
LcNet ++ ++

Table 2. 10XStat92E-GFP activity in body wall muscle tissue following wasp infection by multiple wasp strains.

(-, +, ++) indicates estimated observed fluorescence intensity. Examples of qualitative levels of GFP fluorescence are shown in S3 Fig.

Treatment 24h post-infection 48h post-infection
Naïve - -
GxUg + +
GxHaw - -
LbG486 - -
Lb17 - -
LgCam - -
LgSA - -
LvPhil - -
LvHaw - -
Lh14 - -
LhSw - -
LmAtl ++ ++
LcNet ++ ++

In hemocytes, the levels of 10XStat92E-GFP activity were highly induced at 24hpi (Fig 4A) following LmAtl and LcNet infection, and although they began to decrease, remained significantly elevated at 48hpi (Fig 4B). In contrast, infection with multiple strains of the virulent parasitoid species Ganaspis xanthopoda, Leptopilina boulardi, Leptopilina guineaensis, Leptopilina victoriae and Leptopilina heterotoma [33,46,74,76,81] induced lower levels of GFP fluorescence in hemocytes 24hpi (Fig 4A) and 48hpi (Fig 4B). GFP fluorescence levels in hemocytes from 10XStat92E-GFP larvae infected with either of two strains of L. guineaensis (LgCam and LgSA) or L. heterotoma (Lh14 and LhSw) were indistinguishable from naïve controls at both time points, suggesting that the venoms of these wasps are either able to prevent the upstream activation of the JAK-STAT pathway or to inhibit the activity of the core signaling components following pathway activation in hemocytes. A moderate level of 10XStat92E-GFP fluorescence was induced in hemocytes following infection by at least one strain of G. xanthopoda (GxHaw), L. boulardi (Lb17) or L. victoriae (LvHaw), but these levels were significantly lower than those induced by L. clavipes infection (GxHaw: t = -7.91, p < 1.0 x 10−4; Lb17: t = -4.83, p < 1.0 x 10−4; LvHaw: t = -4.83, p < 1.0 x 10−4, all compared with LcNet at 48hpi). These data suggest that venoms from these virulent wasp strains are able to limit JAK-STAT pathway activity in host hemocytes to below the levels induced by infection with an avirulent species.

In the fat body (Table 1), infection by LgCam induced a comparable level of 10XStat92E-GFP activity to infection by the avirulent strains LcNet or LmAtl. Interestingly, a second strain of L. guineaensis (LgSA) did not induce GFP fluorescence in the fat body, underlining the potential differences in virulence mechanisms between strains [34,78]. Infection by either of two strains each of L. boulardi (Lb17 and LbG486) and L. victoriae (LvPhil and LvHaw) led to a low level of GFP fluorescence in the fat body following infection, but infection by the other virulent parasitoid species did not induce fat body 10XStat92E-GFP activity, suggesting that these wasps inhibit JAK-STAT activation in this tissue.

In the body wall muscle (Table 2), infection by G. xanthopoda strain GxUg induced a moderate level of 10XStat92E-GFP activity. With the exception of GxUg, none of the other virulent parasitoid species, including the G. xanthopoda strain GxHaw, induced a visible level of GFP fluorescence in the body wall muscle following infection. In contrast, avirulent strains LcNet and LmAtl resulted in strong 10XStat92E-GFP activity. Again, this suggests that the activation of the JAK-STAT pathway in body wall muscle is targeted by the venoms of these virulent parasitoid wasp species.

Parasitoid virulence mechanisms target JAK-STAT at distinct steps of pathway activation

Our results show that JAK-STAT signaling is active in immune tissues following parasitoid infection and suggest that it can be modulated by wasp virulence mechanisms. Next, we wanted to test whether these parasitoid species are inhibiting the activation of the JAK-STAT pathway or the function of the core pathway components downstream of activation. To differentiate between these possibilities, we used the hop gain of function mutant fly strain, hopTum [59]. hopTum is a temperature-sensitive gain of function mutation, such that at restrictive temperatures hop activation becomes independent of upstream signaling leading to elevated JAK-STAT signaling even in the absence of pathway induction by upd cytokines [58]. This results in the production of large numbers of lamellocytes in naïve flies [54]. Lamellocytes are adhesive cells, and in the absence of parasitoid eggs or another target for encapsulation in hopTum mutants, they bind to each other resulting in melanized cell nodules that are often referred to as “melanotic tumors” (Fig 5A) [97]. Because hopTum mutants express a constitutively active form of JAK, we predict that parasitoid species that inhibit pathway activation upstream of JAK would have no effect on the melanotic tumor phenotype, whereas parasitoid species that block the function of the core components of the pathway would suppress the melanotic tumor phenotype.

Fig 5. Wasp virulence strategies target host encapsulation ability downstream of JAK.

Fig 5

(A) The hopTum melanotic tumor phenotype observed in a mutant pupa. (B) Penetrance of hopTum phenotype 72 hours after wasp infection and in age-matched naïve control. Data are plotted as the average penetrance ± standard error of replicates of thirty observed pupae. The mean penetrance of each replicate is visualized with open circles. * p < 0.05 compared to naïve control by Dunnett’s test. (C) Calculated relative fluorescence intensity of GFP in primary hemocytes isolated from hopTum; 10XStat92E-GFP larvae and incubated with LgCam venom or PBS control. Data are displayed as the mean fit (point) of the effect of incubation on fluorescence intensity ± standard error. * p < 0.05 compared to PBS control treated hemocytes by Analysis of Variance. (D) Encapsulation of LgCam eggs in larvae expressing Stat92ECA in hemocytes compared to w1118 control cross. Data are expressed as mean proportion encapsulated ± standard error of three replicates. The mean encapsulation proportion of each replicate is visualized with open circles (He-GAL4 x w1118 n = 50; He-GAL4 x UAS-Stat92ECA n = 55). * p < 0.05 compared to w1118 control cross by Analysis of Variance of Aligned Rank Transformed Data test. (E-F) Total count of circulating hemocytes (E) and lamellocyte number (F) in hopTum naïve larvae (cyan) or hopTum larvae infected by the indicated parasitoid (black). The data are shown as box plots with mean hemocyte (E) or lamellocyte (F) number of each replicate visualized as open circles. * indicates p < 0.05 compared to naïve larvae by Welch two sample t-test.

We infected hopTum flies with the panel of wasp species and strains and observed the effect of wasp infection on the penetrance of the melanotic tumor phenotype. Infection by multiple strains of two wasp species, L. guineaensis (LgCam and LgSA) and G. xanthopoda (GxUg and GxHaw) significantly reduced the penetrance of the melanotic tumor phenotype in hopTum flies (Fig 5B). These findings suggest that the virulence mechanisms of L. guineaensis and G. xanthopoda may act by inhibiting JAK-STAT pathway function downstream of activation.

We further explored this idea focusing on the virulent L. guineaensis strain LgCam. LgCam infection led to a significant decrease both in tumor penetrance in the hopTum mutant background (Fig 5B), and in 10XStat92E-GFP activity in hemocytes (Fig 4A and 4B) and body wall muscle (Table 2). To test the hypothesis that LgCam venom blocks JAK-STAT function downstream of pathway activation, we incubated primary hemocyte cultures derived from hopTum; 10XStat92E-GFP larvae with purified LgCam venom in phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Hemocytes from these larvae have constitutively elevated JAK-STAT activity and 10XStat92E-GFP expression, and we predict that if LgCam venom is sufficient to block JAK-STAT pathway activity downstream of hop activation, then we will see decreased GFP fluorescence in hemocytes incubated with LgCam venom compared to hemocytes incubated with PBS control. We found that 1 hour of LgCam venom incubation was sufficient to significantly lower GFP fluorescence intensity compared to incubation with PBS alone (F = 13.2, p = 3.4 x 10−4) (Fig 5C). This suggests that LgCam venom components are inhibiting JAK-STAT via core pathway activity, rather than through an indirect effect of infection or pathway activation.

To test whether this JAK-STAT inhibition contributes to parasitoid success, we expressed Stat92ECA in hemocytes and measured the encapsulation rate of LgCam eggs. If LgCam virulence is dependent on inhibiting JAK-STAT pathway activity in hemocytes, we would expect that Stat92ECA expression would confer some degree of host resistance. We found that while none of the eggs in control larvae were encapsulated, flies expressing Stat92ECA in hemocytes showed a significantly increased rate of LgCam encapsulation (F = 36, p = 3.88 x 10−3) (Fig 5D). The virulence mechanism of L. guineaensis was previously unknown, but our findings support the idea that LgCam virulence targets core JAK-STAT pathway function, likely at the level of Stat92E activity.

Suppression of the hopTum melanotic tumor phenotype is correlated with alterations to the circulating hemocyte population

To determine how the virulence strategies of these virulent parasitoid species affect hemocyte production in hopTum larvae, we measured the numbers of the different hemocyte types at 48hpi. In wild type flies infected by the avirulent parasitoid strain LcNet, increased numbers of lamellocytes are observed at 48hpi [46]. We found that LcNet infection also induced higher numbers of circulating lamellocytes in the hopTum background compared to naïve hopTum larvae (t = 2.85, p = 0.03) (Fig 5E and 5F), indicating that hopTum mutants are capable of responding to parasitoid infection by further elevating lamellocyte numbers. We found that infection with strains of L. guineaensis and G. xanthopoda did not lead to a decrease in the total number of circulating hemocytes (Fig 5E). However, we found that infection by the G. xanthopoda strain GxUg led to a significant decrease in lamellocyte numbers in infected hopTum mutant larvae (t = -2.89, p = 0.047) (Fig 5F). Infection by the closely related strain GxHaw and the L. guineaensis strains LgCam and LgSA also led to a consistent decrease in lamellocyte numbers (Fig 5F), although these values were not below an α value of 0.05 (GxHaw: t = -1.65, p = 0.104; LgCam: t = -2.133, p = 0.082; LgSA: t = -1.56, p = 0.106).

Based on previous findings that the concentration of hemocyte types in circulation is an important factor in host defense [48] and our observation that ectopic JAK-STAT expression in immune tissues altered this concentration (Fig 2C), we hypothesized that there may be a correlation between melanotic tumor penetrance and the concentration of hemocyte types. We determined the proportion of each hemocyte type in hopTum larvae infected by all parasitoid species and strains and tested for a correlation between these proportions and the penetrance of the melanotic tumor phenotype following the respective infection. We found that relative numbers of plasmatocytes (ρ = -0.033, p = 0.915) (Fig 6A) or prelamellocytes (ρ = -0.341, p = 0.255) (Fig 6B) were not correlated with hopTum melanotic tumor penetrance. However, we found a significant correlation between relative lamellocyte numbers and melanotic tumor phenotype penetrance (ρ = 0.555, p = 0.025) (Fig 6C), in which high tumor penetrance was associated with a higher proportion of circulating lamellocytes.

Fig 6. Correlations between relative hemocyte counts and tumor penetrance in wasp-infected flies.

Fig 6

Scatterplots of relative counts of (A) plasmatocytes, (B) prelamellocytes, and (C) lamellocytes quantified 48hpi plotted against the penetrance of the hopTum melanotic tumor phenotype following infection or in age-matched naïve larvae. Data are shown for hopTum mutants infected by each wasp strain and naïve controls. The linear regression line for each correlation was calculated and plotted. 95% confidence intervals are shaded in gray. Plasmatocyte and prelamellocyte proportions do not correlate with percent tumor penetrance. In contrast, relative lamellocyte numbers are positively correlated with percent tumor penetrance.

Discussion

Our data demonstrate that the JAK-STAT signaling pathway is active in D. melanogaster immune tissues following parasitoid wasp infection and that pathway activity in these tissues can induce the production of lamellocytes, likely via distinct mechanisms. JAK-STAT activation in hemocytes, via the hemocyte-specific expression of the constitutively active Stat92ECA, led to the production of lamellocytes without an increase in the overall circulating hemocyte count. Previous studies that have shown through lineage tracing experiments that a subset of plasmatocytes transdifferentiate into lamellocytes as part of the immune response against parasitic wasps [39,40,45]. Our data suggest that this transdifferentiation may be stimulated by JAK-STAT activity specifically in hemocytes.

In agreement with recent work [57], we found that expression of Stat92ECA in the body wall muscle using the Mef2-Gal4 driver induced an overall increase in the number of circulating hemocytes and the production of lamellocytes, suggesting that JAK-STAT activity in the body wall muscle may act through a non-autonomous signaling mechanism to induce the production of new hemocytes that differentiate into lamellocytes. We observe a similar trend when Stat92ECA expression is driven in the fat body by C833-Gal4, although far fewer lamellocytes were produced and the increase in hemocyte numbers did not reach significance. The origin of the de novo lamellocyte population following JAK-STAT activation in the body wall muscle or fat body is unclear from these data, but two hypotheses can be suggested. First, lamellocytes can be produced in the lymph gland from prohemocytes [98]. Perhaps a cytokine signal downstream of JAK-STAT activation is secreted from peripheral tissues to stimulate lamellocyte differentiation and release of new hemocytes into circulation from the lymph gland. A second hypothesis is that a cytokine produced by JAK-STAT signaling in the body wall muscle or fat body is received by the sessile hemocyte population. These blood cells are found adjacent to the body wall muscle and remain out of circulation in wild type, naïve flies. When marked with GFP, these cells can be observed as a distinct banding pattern on the fly cuticle [99,100]. However, upon wasp infection, this banding pattern disappears, suggesting that the sessile hemocytes have entered circulation [42,60]. Differentiation of these cells into lamellocytes may be the source of the excess lamellocytes we observed following expression of Stat92ECA in the body wall muscle or fat body.

Consistent with the induction of lamellocyte differentiation by Stat92ECA expression, we found that wasp infection led to JAK-STAT activity in the hemocytes, body wall muscle, and fat body. The requirement for JAK-STAT activity in the encapsulation response [48,57] suggests that the pathway could be a likely target for wasp virulence factors, and indeed we found that the virulent wasp strains we tested seemed to induce lower levels of JAK-STAT activity in the immune tissues of their fly hosts than the avirulent wasp strains LcNet and LmAtl. Based on our observations, we conclude that this pathway inhibition may take on several forms. For instance, in hemocytes, strains of L. guineaensis and L. heterotoma suppress JAK-STAT signaling to the level of naïve flies, suggesting a complete inhibition of pathway activation or function. On the other hand, hemocytes infected by GxHaw induced a peak of signaling at 24hpi but were indistinguishable from naïve flies by 48hpi, suggesting that GxHaw infection may act to shorten the duration of pathway activity. Conversely, JAK-STAT signaling in hemocytes of Lb17 and LvHaw infected flies was not active at 24hpi but showed elevated signaling at 48hpi. This is potentially indicative of a delay in pathway activation. Similar effects were seen in the ability of virulent wasps to manipulate host JAK-STAT activity in body wall muscle and fat body, although such patterns are more difficult to discern from qualitative data. The virulence of these wasp species suggests that along with the strength of pathway activity, the timing and duration of JAK-STAT signaling may also play a key role in host resistance.

The functional significance of the ability of wasps to target the JAK-STAT pathway as a virulence mechanism is evident in our observation that flies with overactive JAK-STAT pathway activity in hemocytes are less susceptible to the virulent wasp LgCam. The resistance conferred by Stat92ECA expression was incomplete, demonstrating that either LgCam is so effective at inhibiting the JAK-STAT pathway that its virulence mechanism can even perturb heightened pathway activity or that hemocyte-specific inhibition of JAK-STAT activity is not the sole mechanism of LgCam virulence. Instead, the inhibition of JAK-STAT signaling in the body wall muscle or the manipulation of distinct signaling pathways may also play important roles.

Our findings suggest that successful wasp parasites may be able to suppress host JAK-STAT signaling as a virulence strategy, either via preventing pathway activation by blocking upstream signaling mechanisms, or by directly inhibiting the core components of the JAK-STAT signaling pathway (Fig 7). To distinguish between these possibilities, we tested the ability of the parasitoid strains to inhibit the melanotic tumor phenotype resulting from the hopTum mutation. hopTum is a gain of function mutation in the D. melanogaster JAK that renders its activation independent of upstream signaling [58,59]. We predicted that parasitoid strains that block the upstream activation of the JAK-STAT pathway would have no effect on the hopTum mutant phenotype, whereas strains that directly inhibit core JAK-STAT signaling components would suppress melanotic tumor formation. We found that strains of two species of virulent wasps, L. guineaensis and G. xanthopoda, not only limited JAK-STAT activity in hemocytes and body wall muscle, but also decreased the penetrance of the tumor phenotype in hopTum mutants. This suggests that L. guineaensis and G. xanthopoda virulence strategies likely target core components of the JAK-STAT pathway (Fig 7). This idea is supported by the finding that purified LgCam venom can inhibit hopTum activity in primary hemocyte cultures, in the absence of immune induction or extrinsic pathway activation (Fig 5C). This finding also provides our first insight into the previously unknown virulence mechanism of L. guineaensis.

Fig 7. Drosophila-infecting parasitoids inhibit the host JAK-STAT pathway.

Fig 7

Schematic illustrating the phases of JAK-STAT signal transduction: upstream activation, core signaling components, and signaling outputs including 10XStat92E-GFP expression, and the phase of pathway activity inhibited by each parasitoid species we screened. For each species, the different strains appear to act at the same phase, so only species names are given for simplicity.

Strains of the additional virulent parasitoid species L. heterotoma, L. boulardi, and L. victoriae limited JAK-STAT pathway activity in host immune tissues but had no effect on the penetrance of the hopTum phenotype. This suggests that these parasitoid strains may inhibit the upstream mechanisms leading to JAK-STAT activation (Fig 7). In D. melanogaster, the JAK-STAT pathway is activated when the Dome receptor binds to ligands from the Upd cytokine family [4953]. In particular, Upd2 and Upd3 are linked to antiparasitoid immunity [57]. These cytokines are produced by multiple tissues following infection, injury, or other stress [57,101,102]. The virulence strategies of L. heterotoma, L. boulardi, and L. victoriae may therefore block pathway activation by impairing the expression or function of the Upd proteins or by interfering with the ability of Dome to bind its ligands or transduce the cytokine signal by activating Hop. Previous studies of host gene expression found that there was no induction of expression of the upd genes following infection with either L. heterotoma strain Lh14 and L. boulardi strain Lb17 [63]. These cytokines are required for JAK-STAT pathway activation and the encapsulation of parasitoid eggs following infection [57], so the lack of upd induction suggests that this is a possible mechanism for the JAK-STAT inhibition seen in L. heterotoma and L. boulardi. L. victoriae may use a similar mechanism of upstream inhibition, although this remains to be thoroughly tested.

It has been demonstrated that individual wasp strains employ very specific virulence strategies against D. melanogaster [31,34,78], and our findings suggest that this extends to their anti-JAK-STAT strategies as well. These mechanisms of interference should be investigated further to better understand the ways that natural parasites may manipulate conserved signaling pathways involved in host immune responses. D. melanogaster is a widely used system for understanding JAK-STAT pathway functions. While there are four JAKs and seven STATs in the human system, D. melanogaster has only one JAK (hop) and one STAT (Stat92E), providing a much simpler system, but one with similar functionality and sequence conservation to the human JAK-STAT pathway [8,103]. Since its discovery more than twenty years ago, the JAK-STAT pathway has been shown to play an essential role in mammalian hematopoiesis similar to the mechanisms by which JAK-STAT signaling regulates cellular differentiation in D. melanogaster. Notably, the JAK-STAT signaling pathway is conserved across Drosophilids but might be activated in different tissues, times, and signal strengths across species. Experiments conducted in this study focused on a specific strain of D. melanogaster, but many of the parasitoid wasps’ natural host ranges include other fly species, and there is also intraspecific variation in host immunity. In future work, we believe understanding the evolution of signaling and virulence mechanisms across strains and species could further our insights into the mechanisms of JAK-STAT signaling in the immune system. Drosophilids and Drosophila-infecting parasitoid wasps thus provide an excellent model system to study the highly conserved JAK-STAT signaling pathway in vivo.

Materials and methods

Insects

Flies were maintained on standard Drosophila medium of cornmeal, yeast, and molasses. The He-Gal4 (BDSC_8699), C833-Gal4 (BDSC_6988), Dot-Gal4 (BDSC_6903), unc-5GMR93E08 (MZ-Gal4; BDSC_48001), w1118 (BDSC_5905), y1; ry506 (BDSC_4405), ry506,P{ry[+t7.2] = PZ}Stat92E06346/TM3,ryRK,Sb1,Ser1 (BDSC_11681), and hopTum (BDSC_8492) strains were obtained from the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (Bloomington, IN) (RRID:SCR_006457). Mef2-Gal4 (BDSC_27390) was provided by Dr. A. Vrailas-Mortimer [104]. The constitutively active Stat92E transgene w1118;UAS-Stat92EΔNΔC (referred to as UAS-Stat92ECA) [61] and the JAK-STAT reporter strain 10xStat92E-GFP (BDSC_26197) [84] were provided by Dr. E. Bach. Wasp strains (Fig 3) were obtained and maintained as described in [76]. Briefly, all wasps were maintained on the D. melanogaster strain Canton S, with the exception of avirulent strains LcNet and LmAtl, which were maintained on D. virilis. Strain LbG486 was provided by Dr. D. Hultmark, LcNet was provided by Dr J. van Alphen, GxUg, LgCam and LgSA were provided by Dr. J. Pool. All other wasp strains were collected by the Schlenke lab.

Hemocyte counts

All crosses and experiments were carried out at 25°C with the exception of experiments carried out with hopTum temperature sensitive mutants, which were incubated at 28°C for up to 72 hours after a 24-hour wasp infection at 25°C. For Stat92ECA expression hemocyte counts, crosses between Gal4 virgin females and UAS-Stat92ECA or w1118 (wild type control) males were done at 25°C, in three replicates per treatment. Wandering third instar larvae were selected for hemocyte counts. For hopTum hemocyte counts, flies were allowed to lay eggs for 24 hours at 25°C. Egg lay plates were then placed at 28°C and incubated for 48 hours. Thirty early third instar larvae were picked from egg lay plates and transferred to 35mm diameter Petri dishes, in three replicates per treatment. For infection treatments, three female wasps were allowed to oviposit for 24 hours at 25°C. Following wasp infection, wasps were removed and the infected and control naïve larvae were shifted to 28°C. Hemocytes were counted at 24 and 48 hours after being moved to 28°C. From each cross, three sets of 5 larvae were bled into 20 μL of 1X Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS), pH 7.4 with 0.01% PTU (to prevent blood cell lysis and melanization). The hemolymph dilution was transferred to a disposable hemocytometer (Incyto C-Chip DHC-N01). Hemocytes from sixteen 0.25 x 0.25 x 0.1 mm squares were counted for each replicate.

Imaging

Wasp infections of 10xStat92E-GFP reporter flies were carried out as described above at 25°C, and imaging took place 24 and 48 hours after wasp infection. Five larvae were dissected under immersion oil from each of three replicate plates. For quantification of 10xStat92E-GFP corrected total cell fluorescence, 20 blood cells from each of the 5 larvae were analyzed for fluorescence in comparison to background using ImageJ software [12]. hopTum flies were imaged as pupae after 72 hours of incubation at 28°C following wasp infection to allow adequate time for development of the tumor phenotype. Penetrance was determined by phenotyping larvae for presence or absence of melanotic tumors.

Wasp encapsulation

To measure wasp egg encapsulation ability, 30 late second instar larvae were placed on 35mm Petri dishes filled with standard Drosophila medium together with 3 female wasps at 25°C. Larvae were dissected 72hpi and the number of encapsulated eggs and hatched wasp larvae were counted. Experiments were performed in triplicate.

Venom purification

To separate the effects of venom activity from the infection and immune response process, venom was purified from dissected venom apparatuses as described in [105]. Briefly, dissected venom apparatuses were homogenized on ice in non-lysing conditions in 1X PBS, pH 7.4, supplemented with 0.5 mM EDTA and 1X Halt protease inhibitor cocktail (Thermo Scientific). Venom apparatus cells were pelleted by centrifugation at 12000 g at 4°C, and the supernatant containing venom was used to assess activity.

Ex vivo venom assays

To assess the ability of parasitoid venom to inhibit host JAK-STAT signaling, hopTum;10xStat92E-GFP larvae were raised at 28°C and dissected to establish primary hemocyte cultures. Third instar larvae were dissected into 1X PBS, pH7.4, with 0.01% PTU in multi well slides (Tekdon). Primary hemocyte cultures were mixed with 10 wasp equivalents of venom or PBS control and transferred into Tali Cellular Analysis slides (Invitrogen). After a 1-hour incubation period, GFP fluorescence intensity was determined using a Tali Image-Based Cytometer (Invitrogen) as described in [70].

Statistics

Welch two sample t-tests were used to compare immune cell count data between UAS-Stat92ECA and w1118 crossed to each Gal4 driver. To look for changes in the distribution of immune cell types, we used the χ2 test. For each Gal4 driver, the proportion of each hemocyte type in the control w1118 cross used as the probability estimate and p values were simulated using 2000 replicates [106]. χ2 standardized residuals were plotted for each cell type in each comparison to estimate the contribution of cell type to the overall χ2 value. Residuals > |2| suggest a significant impact on the score [107].

Corrected total cell fluorescence values were analyzed by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunnett’s test for pairwise comparisons to the naïve control or LcNet infected larvae as indicated in the text. To analyze hopTum phenotypic penetrance data, we used generalized linear models with quasibinomial errors. Dunnett’s test was used for pairwise comparisons to the control genotype. The proportion of encapsulated parasitoid eggs was compared between genotypes using the Analysis of Variance of Aligned Rank Transformed Data test. Correlation coefficients (ρ) between hemocyte concentrations and the penetrance of the hopTum melanotic tumor phenotype were calculated using Spearman’s rank correlation. Mixed linear models, with replicate as a random effect, were used to test for differences in 10xStat92E-GFP fluorescence intensity between venom and control treated primary hemocyte cultures.

All statistics were done in the R statistical computing environment [106] using the plyr [108], reshape2 [109], multcomp [110], ARTool [111], lme4 [112], lmerTest [113], and effects [114] packages. Graphs were produced using the ggplot2 and ggpubr packages [115,116].

Phylogenetics

Phylogenetic analyses were conducted in MEGA X [117,118] using COI DNA sequences for the parasitoid strains used in the study (S1 Table). Evolutionary history was inferred by using the Maximum Likelihood method and Kimura 2-parameter model with 1000 bootstrap replicates [119]. The initial tree for the heuristic search was obtained automatically by applying Neighbor-Join and BioNJ algorithms to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the Maximum Composite Likelihood (MCL) approach in MEGA X, and then selecting the topology with superior log likelihood value. Branches corresponding to partitions reproduced in less than 50% of the bootstrap replicates were collapsed. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. The resulting phylogenetic trees were visualized using FigTree (version 1.4.3, http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/).

Supporting information

S1 Table. Species and strains names for all parasitoids used in this study.

Accession numbers for COI sequence data are given.

(DOCX)

ppat.1012349.s001.docx (13.8KB, docx)
S1 Fig

Brightfield (A-C) and fluorescence (A’-C’) images of 10xSTAT92E-GFP larvae. Strong fluorescence is seen in gut cells (A,A’). No fluorescence in seen in lymph gland dissected from naïve (B,B’) or LcNet infected (C,C’) larvae.

(TIF)

ppat.1012349.s002.tif (2.6MB, tif)
S2 Fig

Brightfield (A-C) and fluorescence (A’-C’) images of fat bodies dissected from 10xSTAT92E-GFP larvae. Images are representative of the expression categories used in Table 1. A’ is representative of ‘-‘, B’ is representative of ‘+’ and C’ is representative of ‘++’.

(TIF)

ppat.1012349.s003.tif (4.1MB, tif)
S3 Fig. Fluorescent images of body wall muscle from 10xSTAT92E-GFP larvae.

Images are representative of the expression categories used in Table 2. A is representative of ‘-‘, B is representative of ‘+’ and C is representative of ‘++’. All images were taken at the posterior end.

(TIF)

ppat.1012349.s004.tif (1.3MB, tif)

Acknowledgments

We thank members of the Mortimer lab for comments on the manuscript, Drs. Alysia Vrailas-Mortimer and Erika Bach for D. melanogaster stocks, and Drs. Dan Hultmark, Jacques van Alphen and John Pool for parasitoid strains. We would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their supportive comments and constructive suggestions on our work. We feel that our manuscript has been substantially improved by this review process. Stocks obtained from the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (NIH P40OD018537) were used in this study. The ISU Confocal Microscopy Facility was funded by NSF grant DBI-1828136.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available from Open Science Framework with the identifier DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8SWHM.

Funding Statement

Research reported in this manuscript was supported by National Institutes of Health (https://www.nih.gov/) Awards R35GM133760 to NTM and R01AI081879 to TAS. The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kimbrell DA, Beutler B. The evolution and genetics of innate immunity. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2: 256–267. doi: 10.1038/35066006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hoffmann JA, Kafatos FC, Janeway CA, Ezekowitz RA. Phylogenetic perspectives in innate immunity. Science. 1999;284: 1313–1318. doi: 10.1126/science.284.5418.1313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Silverman N, Maniatis T. NF-κB signaling pathways in mammalian and insect innate immunity. Genes Dev. 2001;15: 2321–2342. doi: 10.1101/gad.909001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Medzhitov R. Toll-like receptors and innate immunity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2001;1: 135–145. doi: 10.1038/35100529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Imler JL, Hoffmann JA. Toll receptors in innate immunity. Trends Cell Biol. 2001;11: 304–311. doi: 10.1016/s0962-8924(01)02004-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lemaitre B, Nicolas E, Michaut L, Reichhart J-M, Hoffmann JA. The dorsoventral regulatory gene cassette spätzle/Toll/cactus controls the potent antifungal response in Drosophila adults. Cell. 1996;86: 973–983. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80172-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Valanne S, Wang J-H, Rämet M. The Drosophila Toll signaling pathway. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950. 2011;186: 649–656. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1002302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Agaisse H, Perrimon N. The roles of JAK/STAT signaling in Drosophila immune responses. Immunol Rev. 2004;198: 72–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Villarino AV, Kanno Y, Ferdinand JR, O’Shea JJ. Mechanisms of Jak/STAT signaling in immunity and disease. J Immunol. 2015;194: 21–27. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1401867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Delaney JR, Stöven S, Uvell H, Anderson KV, Engström Y, Mlodzik M. Cooperative control of Drosophila immune responses by the JNK and NF-κB signaling pathways. EMBO J. 2006;25: 3068–3077. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7601182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Arthur JSC, Ley SC. Mitogen-activated protein kinases in innate immunity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13: 679–692. doi: 10.1038/nri3495 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mortimer NT, Goecks J, Kacsoh BZ, Mobley JA, Bowersock GJ, Taylor J, et al. Parasitoid wasp venom SERCA regulates Drosophila calcium levels and inhibits cellular immunity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110: 9427–9432. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222351110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Vig M, Kinet J-P. Calcium signaling in immune cells. Nat Immunol. 2009;10: 21–27. doi: 10.1038/ni.f.220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Boutros M, Agaisse H, Perrimon N. Sequential activation of signaling pathways during innate immune responses in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2002;3: 711–722. doi: 10.1016/S1534-5807(02)00325-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Thaiss CA, Levy M, Itav S, Elinav E. Integration of innate immune signaling. Trends Immunol. 2016;37: 84–101. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2015.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Leiding JW, Ballow M. Precision medicine in the treatment of primary immunodeficiency diseases. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;18: 159–166. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yazdani R, Abolhassani H, Rezaei N, Azizi G, Hammarström L, Aghamohammadi A. Evaluation of known defective signaling-associated molecules in patients who primarily diagnosed as Common Variable Immunodeficiency. Int Rev Immunol. 2016;35: 7–24. doi: 10.3109/08830185.2015.1136306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Arjunaraja S, Snow AL. Gain-of-function mutations and immunodeficiency: at a loss for proper tuning of lymphocyte signaling. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;15: 533–538. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.McGuire VA, Arthur JSC. Subverting Toll-Like Receptor signaling by bacterial pathogens. Front Immunol. 2015;6. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Schmid-Hempel P. Immune defence, parasite evasion strategies and their relevance for ‘macroscopic phenomena’ such as virulence. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2009;364: 85–98. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mitchell TJ. Molecular basis of virulence. Arch Dis Child. 1998;78: 197–200. doi: 10.1136/adc.78.3.197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jones RM, Wu H, Wentworth C, Luo L, Collier-Hyams L, Neish AS. Salmonella AvrA coordinates suppression of host immune and apoptotic defenses via JNK pathway blockade. Cell Host Microbe. 2008;3: 233–244. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2008.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Royan SV, Jones RM, Koutsouris A, Roxas JL, Falzari K, Weflen AW, et al. Enteropathogenic E. coli non-LEE encoded effectors NleH1 and NleH2 attenuate NF-κB activation. Mol Microbiol. 2010;78: 1232–1245. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2010.07400.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.West C, Rus F, Chen Y, Kleino A, Gangloff M, Gammon DB, et al. IIV-6 inhibits NF-κB responses in Drosophila. Viruses. 2019;11. doi: 10.3390/v11050409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Thoetkiattikul H, Beck MH, Strand MR. Inhibitor κB-like proteins from a polydnavirus inhibit NF-κB activation and suppress the insect immune response. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102: 11426–11431. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0505240102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Colinet D, Schmitz A, Depoix D, Crochard D, Poirié M. Convergent use of RhoGAP toxins by eukaryotic parasites and bacterial pathogens. PLOS Pathog. 2007;3: e203. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.0030203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lemaitre B, Hoffmann J. The host defense of Drosophila melanogaster. Annu Rev Immunol. 2007;25: 697–743. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.25.022106.141615 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Williams MJ. Drosophila hemopoiesis and cellular immunity. J Immunol Baltim Md 1950. 2007;178: 4711–4716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Parsons B, Foley E. Cellular immune defenses of Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Comp Immunol. 2016;58: 95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2015.12.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Brennan CA, Anderson KV. Drosophila: The genetics of innate immune recognition and response. Annu Rev Immunol. 2004;22: 457–483. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.22.012703.104626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dubuffet A, Colinet D, Anselme C, Dupas S, Carton Y, Poirié M. Variation of Leptopilina boulardi success in Drosophila hosts: What is inside the black box? In: Parasitology B-A in, editor. Academic Press; 2009. pp. 147–188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kim-Jo C, Gatti J-L, Poirié M. Drosophila cellular immunity against parasitoid wasps: A complex and time-dependent process. Front Physiol. 2019;10: 603. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Carton Y, Bouletreau M, Van Alphen JJM, Van Lenteren JC. The Drosophila parasitic wasps. 3rd ed. The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila. 3rd ed. London: Academic Press; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mathé-Hubert H, Kremmer L, Colinet D, Gatti J-L, Van Baaren J, Delava É, et al. Variation in the venom of parasitic wasps, drift, or selection? Insights From a multivariate QST analysis. Front Ecol Evol. 2019;7. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2019.00156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mortimer NT. Parasitoid wasp virulence: A window into fly immunity. Fly (Austin). 2013;7: 242–248. doi: 10.4161/fly.26484 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Carton Y, Nappi AJ. Drosophila cellular immunity against parasitoids. Parasitol Today. 1997;13: 218–227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Russo J, Dupas S, Frey F, Carton Y, Brehelin M. Insect immunity: early events in the encapsulation process of parasitoid (Leptopilina boulardi) eggs in resistant and susceptible strains of Drosophila. Parasitology. 1996;112 (Pt 1): 135–142. doi: 10.1017/s0031182000065173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rizki TM, Rizki RM. Lamellocyte differentiation in Drosophila larvae parasitized by Leptopilina. Dev Comp Immunol. 1992;16: 103–110. doi: 10.1016/0145-305x(92)90011-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Anderl I, Vesala L, Ihalainen TO, Vanha-aho L-M, Andó I, Rämet M, et al. Transdifferentiation and proliferation in two distinct hemocyte lineages in Drosophila melanogaster larvae after wasp infection. PLOS Pathog. 2016;12: e1005746. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005746 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Honti V, Csordás G, Márkus R, Kurucz E, Jankovics F, Andó I. Cell lineage tracing reveals the plasticity of the hemocyte lineages and of the hematopoietic compartments in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Immunol. 2010;47: 1997–2004. doi: 10.1016/j.molimm.2010.04.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lanot R, Zachary D, Holder F, Meister M. Postembryonic hematopoiesis in Drosophila. Dev Biol. 2001;230: 243–257. doi: 10.1006/dbio.2000.0123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Márkus R, Laurinyecz B, Kurucz E, Honti V, Bajusz I, Sipos B, et al. Sessile hemocytes as a hematopoietic compartment in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106: 4805–4809. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801766106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rizki MTM. Alterations in the haemocyte population of Drosophila melanogaster. J Morphol. 1957;100: 437–458. doi: 10.1002/jmor.1051000303 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tattikota SG, Cho B, Liu Y, Hu Y, Barrera V, Steinbaugh MJ, et al. A single-cell survey of Drosophila blood. Lemaître B, Akhmanova A, Lemaître B, editors. eLife. 2020;9: e54818. doi: 10.7554/eLife.54818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Stofanko M, Kwon SY, Badenhorst P. Lineage tracing of lamellocytes demonstrates Drosophila macrophage plasticity. PloS One. 2010;5: e14051. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mortimer NT, Kacsoh BZ, Keebaugh ES, Schlenke TA. Mgat1-dependent N-glycosylation of membrane components primes Drosophila melanogaster blood cells for the cellular encapsulation response. PLoS Pathog. 2012;8: e1002819. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002819 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Carton Y, Poirié M, Nappi AJ. Insect immune resistance to parasitoids. Insect Sci. 2008;15: 67–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7917.2008.00188.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sorrentino RP, Melk JP, Govind S. Genetic analysis of contributions of Dorsal group and JAK-Stat92E pathway genes to larval hemocyte concentration and the egg encapsulation response in Drosophila. Genetics. 2004;166: 1343–1356. doi: 10.1534/genetics.166.3.1343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Harrison DA, McCoon PE, Binari R, Gilman M, Perrimon N. Drosophila unpaired encodes a secreted protein that activates the JAK signaling pathway. Genes Dev. 1998;12: 3252–3263. doi: 10.1101/gad.12.20.3252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chen H-W, Chen X, Oh S-W, Marinissen MJ, Gutkind JS, Hou SX. mom identifies a receptor for the Drosophila JAK/STAT signal transduction pathway and encodes a protein distantly related to the mammalian cytokine receptor family. Genes Dev. 2002;16: 388–398. doi: 10.1101/gad.955202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hombría JC-G, Brown S, Häder S, Zeidler MP. Characterisation of Upd2, a Drosophila JAK/STAT pathway ligand. Dev Biol. 2005;288: 420–433. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.09.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Wright VM, Vogt KL, Smythe E, Zeidler MP. Differential activities of the Drosophila JAK/STAT pathway ligands Upd, Upd2 and Upd3. Cell Signal. 2011;23: 920–927. doi: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2011.01.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Brown S, Hu N, Hombría JC. Identification of the first invertebrate interleukin JAK/STAT receptor, the Drosophila gene domeless. Curr Biol CB. 2001;11: 1700–1705. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00524-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hou XS, Melnick MB, Perrimon N. marelle acts downstream of the Drosophila HOP/JAK kinase and encodes a protein similar to the mammalian STATs. Cell. 1996;84: 411–419. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81286-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Yan R, Small S, Desplan C, Dearolf CR, Darnell JE. Identification of a STAT gene that functions in Drosophila development. Cell. 1996;84: 421–430. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81287-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kwon E-J, Park H-S, Kim Y-S, Oh E-J, Nishida Y, Matsukage A, et al. Transcriptional regulation of the Drosophila raf proto-oncogene by Drosophila STAT during development and in immune response. J Biol Chem. 2000;275: 19824–19830. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M001114200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Yang H, Kronhamn J, Ekström J-O, Korkut GG, Hultmark D. JAK/STAT signaling in Drosophila muscles controls the cellular immune response against parasitoid infection. EMBO Rep. 2015;16: 1664–1672. doi: 10.15252/embr.201540277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Luo H, Hanratty WP, Dearolf CR. An amino acid substitution in the Drosophila hopTum-l Jak kinase causes leukemia-like hematopoietic defects. EMBO J. 1995;14: 1412–1420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Hanratty WP, Dearolf CR. The Drosophila Tumorous-lethal hematopoietic oncogene is a dominant mutation in the hopscotch locus. Mol Gen Genet MGG. 1993;238: 33–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zettervall C-J, Anderl I, Williams MJ, Palmer R, Kurucz E, Ando I, et al. A directed screen for genes involved in Drosophila blood cell activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101: 14192–14197. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0403789101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Ekas LA, Cardozo TJ, Flaherty MS, McMillan EA, Gonsalves FC, Bach EA. Characterization of a dominant-active STAT that promotes tumorigenesis in Drosophila. Dev Biol. 2010;344: 621–636. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2010.05.497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Cavigliasso F, Mathé-Hubert H, Gatti J-L, Colinet D, Poirié M. Parasitic success and venom composition evolve upon specialization of parasitoid wasps to different host species. Peer Community J. 2021;1. doi: 10.24072/pcjournal.28 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Schlenke TA, Morales J, Govind S, Clark AG. Contrasting infection strategies in generalist and specialist wasp parasitoids of Drosophila melanogaster. PLOS Pathog. 2007;3: e158. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.0030158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Furihata SX, Matsumoto H, Kimura MT, Hayakawa Y. Venom components of Asobara japonica impair cellular immune responses of host Drosophila melanogaster. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol. 2013;83: 86–100. doi: 10.1002/arch.21093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Moreau SJM, Vinchon S, Cherqui A, Prévost G. Components of Asobara venoms and their effects on hosts. Adv Parasitol. 2009;70: 217–232. doi: 10.1016/S0065-308X(09)70008-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Colinet D, Dubuffet A, Cazes D, Moreau S, Drezen J-M, Poirié M. A serpin from the parasitoid wasp Leptopilina boulardi targets the Drosophila phenoloxidase cascade. Dev Comp Immunol. 2009;33: 681–689. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2008.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Coulette Q, Lemauf S, Colinet D, Prévost G, Anselme C, Poirié M, et al. Biochemical characterization and comparison of aspartylglucosaminidases secreted in venom of the parasitoid wasps Asobara tabida and Leptopilina heterotoma. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0181940. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Labrosse C, Stasiak K, Lesobre J, Grangeia A, Huguet E, Drezen JM, et al. A RhoGAP protein as a main immune suppressive factor in the Leptopilina boulardi (Hymenoptera, Figitidae)–Drosophila melanogaster interaction. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2005;35: 93–103. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2004.10.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Moreau SJM, Eslin P, Giordanengo P, Doury G. Comparative study of the strategies evolved by two parasitoids of the genus Asobara to avoid the immune response of the host, Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Comp Immunol. 2003;27: 273–282. doi: 10.1016/s0145-305x(02)00101-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Trainor JE, Kr P, Mortimer NT. Immune cell production is targeted by parasitoid wasp virulence in a Drosophila–parasitoid wasp interaction. Pathogens. 2021;10: 49. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10010049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Labrosse C, Eslin P, Doury G, Drezen JM, Poirié M. Haemocyte changes in D. melanogaster in response to long gland components of the parasitoid wasp Leptopilina boulardi: a Rho-GAP protein as an important factor. J Insect Physiol. 2005;51: 161–170. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2004.10.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Chiu H, Govind S. Natural infection of D. melanogaster by virulent parasitic wasps induces apoptotic depletion of hematopoietic precursors. Cell Death Differ. 2002;9: 1379–1381. doi: 10.1038/sj.cdd.4401134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Rizki RM, Rizki TM. Parasitoid virus-like particles destroy Drosophila cellular immunity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87: 8388–8392. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.21.8388 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Rizki TM, Rizki RM, Carton Y. Leptopilina heterotoma and L. boulardi: strategies to avoid cellular defense responses of Drosophila melanogaster. Exp Parasitol. 1990;70: 466–475. doi: 10.1016/0014-4894(90)90131-u [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Rizki RM, Rizki TM. Effects of lamellolysin from a parasitoid wasp on Drosophila blood cells in vitro. J Exp Zool. 1991;257: 236–244. doi: 10.1002/jez.1402570214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Kacsoh BZ, Schlenke TA. High hemocyte load is associated with increased resistance against parasitoids in Drosophila suzukii, a relative of D. melanogaster. PloS One. 2012;7: e34721. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034721 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Ramroop JR, Heavner ME, Razzak ZH, Govind S. A parasitoid wasp of Drosophila employs preemptive and reactive strategies to deplete its host’s blood cells. PLOS Pathog. 2021;17: e1009615. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Cavigliasso F, Mathé-Hubert H, Kremmer L, Rebuf C, Gatti J-L, Malausa T, et al. Rapid and differential evolution of the venom composition of a parasitoid wasp depending on the host strain. Toxins. 2019;11. doi: 10.3390/toxins11110629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Fontal-Cazalla F m., Buffington M l., Nordlander G, Liljeblad J, Ros-Farré P, Nieves-Aldrey J l., et al. Phylogeny of the Eucoilinae (Hymenoptera: Cynipoidea: Figitidae). Cladistics. 2002;18: 154–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2002.tb00147.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Govind S, Melk JP, Morales J. Developmental arrest and physical entrapment eliminates supernumerary Ganaspis xanthopoda parasitoids in Drosophila melanogaster. J Parasitol. 2000;86: 463–470. doi: 10.1645/0022-3395(2000)086[0463:DAAPEE]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Chiu H, Sorrentino RP, Govind S. Suppression of the Drosophila cellular immune response by Ganaspis xanthopoda. In: Beck G, Sugumaran M, Cooper EL, editors. Phylogenetic Perspectives on the Vertebrate Immune System. Springer US; 2001. pp. 161–167. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-1291-2_14 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Pannebakker BA, Garrido NRT, Zwaan BJ, Van Alphen JJM. Geographic variation in host-selection behaviour in the Drosophila parasitoid Leptopilina clavipes. Entomol Exp Appl. 2008;127: 48–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00666.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Lue C-H, Driskell AC, Leips J, Buffington ML. Review of the genus Leptopilina (Hymenoptera, Cynipoidea, Figitidae, Eucoilinae) from the Eastern United States, including three newly described species. J Hymenopt Res. 2016;53: 35–76. doi: 10.3897/jhr.53.10369 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Bach EA, Ekas LA, Ayala-Camargo A, Flaherty MS, Lee H, Perrimon N, et al. GFP reporters detect the activation of the Drosophila JAK/STAT pathway in vivo. Gene Expr Patterns GEP. 2007;7: 323–331. doi: 10.1016/j.modgep.2006.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Sorrentino RP, Carton Y, Govind S. Cellular immune response to parasite infection in the Drosophila lymph gland is developmentally regulated. Dev Biol. 2002;243: 65–80. doi: 10.1006/dbio.2001.0542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Gerritsma S, Haan A de, Zande L van de, Wertheim B. Natural variation in differentiated hemocytes is related to parasitoid resistance in Drosophila melanogaster. J Insect Physiol. 2013;59: 148–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2012.09.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Prévost G, Eslin P. Hemocyte load and immune resistance to Asobara tabida are correlated in species of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup. J Insect Physiol. 1998;44: 807–816. doi: 10.1016/s0022-1910(98)00013-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Brand AH, Perrimon N. Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes. Development. 1993;118: 401–415. doi: 10.1242/dev.118.2.401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Hrdlicka L, Gibson M, Kiger A, Micchelli C, Schober M, Schöck F, et al. Analysis of twenty-four Gal4 lines in Drosophila melanogaster. genesis. 2002;34: 51–57. doi: 10.1002/gene.10125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Haghighi AP, McCabe BD, Fetter RD, Palmer JE, Hom S, Goodman CS. Retrograde control of synaptic transmission by postsynaptic CaMKII at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction. Neuron. 2003;39: 255–267. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00427-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Sinenko SA, Shim J, Banerjee U. Oxidative stress in the haematopoietic niche regulates the cellular immune response in Drosophila. EMBO Rep. 2012;13: 83–89. doi: 10.1038/embor.2011.223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Tokusumi T, Tokusumi Y, Brahier M, Lam V, Stoller-Conrad J, Kroeger P, et al. Screening and analysis of Janelia FlyLight project enhancer-Gal4 strains identifies multiple gene enhancers active during hematopoiesis in normal and wasp-challenged Drosophila larvae. G3 Bethesda Md. 2017;7: 437–448. doi: 10.1534/g3.116.034439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Makki R, Meister M, Pennetier D, Ubeda J-M, Braun A, Daburon V, et al. A short receptor downregulates JAK-STAT signalling to control the Drosophila cellular immune response. PLoS Biol. 2010;8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Gao H, Wu X, Fossett N. Upregulation of the Drosophila Friend of GATA Gene u-shaped by JAK/STAT Signaling Maintains Lymph Gland Prohemocyte Potency. Mol Cell Biol. 2009;29: 6086–6096. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00244-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Rodrigues D, Renaud Y, VijayRaghavan K, Waltzer L, Inamdar MS. Differential activation of JAK-STAT signaling reveals functional compartmentalization in Drosophila blood progenitors. Shim J, editor. eLife. 2021;10: e61409. doi: 10.7554/eLife.61409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Kacsoh BZ, Bozler J, Schlenke TA. A role for nematocytes in the cellular immune response of the drosophilid Zaprionus indianus. Parasitology. 2014;141: 697–715. doi: 10.1017/s0031182013001431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Harrison DA, Binari R, Nahreini TS, Gilman M, Perrimon N. Activation of a Drosophila Janus kinase (JAK) causes hematopoietic neoplasia and developmental defects. EMBO J. 1995;14: 2857–2865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Evans CJ, Hartenstein V, Banerjee U. Thicker than blood. Dev Cell. 2003;5: 673–690. doi: 10.1016/S1534-5807(03)00335-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Williams MJ, Wiklund M-L, Wikman S, Hultmark D. Rac1 signalling in the Drosophila larval cellular immune response. J Cell Sci. 2006;119: 2015–2024. doi: 10.1242/jcs.02920 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Ratheesh A, Belyaeva V, Siekhaus DE. Drosophila immune cell migration and adhesion during embryonic development and larval immune responses. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2015;36: 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2015.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Chakrabarti S, Visweswariah SS. Intramacrophage ROS primes the innate immune system via JAK/STAT and Toll activation. Cell Rep. 2020;33: 108368. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.108368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Cho B, Spratford CM, Yoon S, Cha N, Banerjee U, Shim J. Systemic control of immune cell development by integrated carbon dioxide and hypoxia chemosensation in Drosophila. Nat Commun. 2018;9: 2679. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04990-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Zeidler MP, Bausek N. The Drosophila JAK-STAT pathway. JAK-STAT. 2013;2. doi: 10.4161/jkst.25353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Vrailas-Mortimer A, del Rivero T, Mukherjee S, Nag S, Gaitanidis A, Kadas D, et al. A muscle-specific p38 MAPK/Mef2/MnSOD pathway regulates stress, motor function, and life span in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2011;21: 783–795. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2011.09.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Goecks J, Mortimer NT, Mobley JA, Bowersock GJ, Taylor J, Schlenke TA. Integrative approach reveals composition of endoparasitoid wasp venoms. PLOS One. 2013;8: e64125. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; 2021. Available: https://www.R-project.org. [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Sharpe D. Chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what? Pract Assess Res Eval. 2019;20. doi: 10.7275/tbfa-x148 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Wickham H. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. J Stat Softw. 2011;40: 1–29. doi: 10.18637/jss.v040.i01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Wickham H. Reshaping data with the reshape package. J Stat Softw. 2007;21: 1–20. doi: 10.18637/jss.v021.i12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J Biom Z. 2008;50: 346–363. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200810425 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Wobbrock JO, Findlater L, Gergle D, Higgins JJ. The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Association for Computing Machinery; 2011. pp. 143–146. doi: 10.1145/1978942.1978963 [DOI]
  • 112.Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67: 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw. 2017;82: 1–26. doi: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Fox J, Weisberg S. Visualizing fit and lack of fit in complex regression models with predictor effect plots and partial residuals. J Stat Softw. 2018;87: 1–27. doi: 10.18637/jss.v087.i09 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Kassambara A. ggpubr: “ggplot2” based publication ready plots. 2020. Available: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr. [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35: 1547–1549. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Stecher G, Tamura K, Kumar S. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) for macOS. Mol Biol Evol. 2020. [cited 20 Feb 2020]. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msz312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Kimura M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol. 1980;16: 111–120. doi: 10.1007/BF01731581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

David S Schneider, James J Collins III

30 Jan 2024

Dear Mortimer,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Host JAK/Stat activity is a target of parasitoid wasp virulence strategies" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Both reviewers were supportive of this manuscript. Reviewer two brings up a genetic point that I would like to see discussed, at least in rebuttal. Why are only gain-of-function alleles included in this study. Formally, I think this says that this signaling pathway can sufficient but doesn't address necessity. To me, it is the loss of function phenotype that suggests a process is naturally involved in the immune response. Can you at least address this problem and explain why you didn't test loss-of-function mutations?

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

David S. Schneider

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

James Collins III

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************

Both reviewers were supportive of this manuscript. Reviewer two brings up a genetic point that I would like to see discussed, at least in rebuttal. Why are only gain-of-function alleles included in this study. Formally, I think this says that this signaling pathway can sufficient but doesn't address necessity. To me, it is the loss of function phenotype that suggests a process is naturally involved in the immune response. Can you at least address this problem and explain why you didn't test loss-of-function mutations?

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: Encapsulation by hemocytes is a primary immune defense in insects against endoparasitoids. In Drosophila, lamellocytes are a hemocyte type that is required for capsule formation, while lamellocyte production is further known to be regulated by the JAK-STAT pathway. Several species and strains of larval endoparasitoids are known to parasitize D. melanogaster. In a previous study, the authors reported the Lh14 strain of Leptopilina heterotoma and Lb17 strain of Leptobilina boulardi disable by unknown mechanisms induction of unpaired (upd) which are secreted cytokines that activate the JAK-STAT pathway and lamellocyte production. This comparative study elaborates further on these findings by examining these and other species/strains of Drosophila endoparasitoids to assess how they affect JAK-STAT signaling. In the first part of the study, the authors used an ‘avirulent’ strain of Leptopilina clavipes named LcNet and Stat92E reporter flies to show that Stat92E expression in hemocytes and the larval body wall increase lamellocyte but not other hemocyte types in circulation (Fig. 1, 2). In the second part of the study the authors report variable effects on induction of JAK-STAT signaling in different tissues (hemocytes, fat body, body wall) after parasitism by different species/strains of wasps (Fig. 2-5).

My overall assessment is that the study brings new comparative results to the literature that further advance the field by showing that virulent species/strains of parasitoids evade encapsulation by differentially affecting the JAK-STAT pathway. The study does not identify the underlying virulence factors responsible for these effects. However, the results position the authors to identifying the virulence factors involved and their functions in future investigations. Approaches and interpretation of results were overall appropriate and support key conclusions in the opinion of this reviewer. The main areas for improvement are with the presentation. Key suggestions are itemized below.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents data to support that parasitoid wasps can inhibit the JAK-STAT pathway which plays a role in lamellocyte proliferation, which is the cellular immune response against parasitoid wasps in Drosophila melanogaster. The intro/background should probably include more on the different parasitoid wasps; in particular is D.melanogaster a natural host for them in the wild. Strengths include examination of different species and strains of parasitoid wasps and use of genetic tools (STAT GFP reporter, gain-of-function constructs or mutants for the pathway) to tease out the cell types and do epistasis. Their investigation of the interplay between parasitoid wasp and the host immune response and the specific role and targeting of the JAK-STAT pathway was pretty interesting. The main weakness was the reliance on one assay for much of the work (GFP reporter) and the use of only gain-of-function mutations. With all the different strains it did seem like more information could be presented, as the more functional assays (i.e., encapsulation) were limited to just a single parasitoid strain. The support of the manuscript’s main hypothesis (of parasitoid wasp inhibition of JAK-STAT as a way to counter the host immune response) would be stronger if they showed the data for more strains (along the avirulence to virulence spectrum) and still saw a clear correlation with many strains that inhibition of JAK-STAT resulted in decreased encapsulation. The work also did not present loss-of-function mutations and if that resulted in loss of an immune response to the avirulent strains. The experiments mentioned above seem rather obvious so it did make me wonder if the results of those experiments failed to support the manuscript’s main hypothesis or if they were being saved for another manuscript.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: Approaches and interpretation of results were overall appropriate and support key conclusions in the opinion of this reviewer.

Reviewer #2: They should look at loss-of-function of JAK-STAT pathway to determine if it's needed for the anti-parasitoid wasp immune response.

They should look at encapulation which would be more of an end functional assay for all the strains ideally (or at least strains that represent the different levels of inhibition of the JAK-STAT pathway) to see if their hypothesis of inhibition of JAK-STAT results in more parasitoid success in the host.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: The main areas for improvement are with the presentation. Key suggestions are itemized below.

Introduction

1. I thought the biggest weakness of the Introduction is that it doesn’t present a few key things readers need to fully follow what is presented in the Results. First, the authors present very little information about the different species and strains of larval endoparasitoids that parasitize D. melanogaster and associated differences in virulence. In turn, neither the Introduction nor Results provide the reader much information about the species/strains the authors used in the study but I conclude this kind of information is needed to understand why the authors chose to include the species/strains they used and why these choices were made. The authors also don’t mention their prior findings about Lh14 and Lb17 suppressing upd expression (reference 64) until the middle of the Discussion section, when instead it’s an obviously crucial part of the rationale for the experiments that were conducted in this study. It thus would be much more logical in my opinion to get key these points into the Introduction and in effect make clearer the goal of this study was to further advance prior findings by asking if all larval endoparasitoids that show evidence of suppressing the production/activity of lamellocytes do so by: 1) targeting JAK-STAT signaling and 2) targeting the same or different stages of JAK-STAT signaling. As written, the reader more or less has to put this rationale together on their own after reading the whole paper. Just citing references 12, 26, 38, 46 and 64-75 do not adequately provide the information readers need because these studies focus on only a subset of the species/strains the authors included in this manuscript. I thus suggest revising the Introduction to better introduce key features of the parasitoids the authors report results for and the prior findings they conducted on Lh14 and Lb17, so that the reader better understands overall rationale.

2. The authors also could do a better job of explaining what determines whether a given species/strain of wasp is ‘virulent’ versus ‘avirulent’. As a reviewer, I know this comes down to prior studies, mostly published, showing that species/strains which successfully develop and emerge at high frequencies (that is, successfully parasitize D. melanogaster) are virulent while those that don’t are avirulent. In many cases, but not all, avirulence has further been shown to result in a high frequency of wasp eggs being encapsulated. As alluded to by the authors in the Methods (pg 21) the primary hosts for the ‘avirulent’ species they used isn’t D. melanogaster. But some readers are not going to be well-versed on these points and what supports them in the greater literature. So, I think it’s incumbent on the authors to be clearer about this literature and the evidence supporting their classification of the species/strains they used in the study as virulent versus avirulent in the introduction, so that everyone can better follow the comparative studies the authors prioritized in the results shown in the second part of the study.

Results

3. The authors mostly present their results as means ± an error value but it’s increasingly more standard in the literature to present actual data points in graphs that give readers a much better sense of how robustly assays were replicated and spread in the data being presented. Some journals have further made this an absolute requirement for publication. I would thus suggest the authors need to do this for most/all of the data they’re presenting in the paper.

4. Given the importance of the wasp species and strains used in the study, I would elevate Fig. S2 to being a main figure, that readers would be able to more readily see when reading the main text.

5. I didn’t find Table 1 and Table 2 to be very helpful and would suggest presenting the actual fluorescence intensity data in Fig. S3 and S4 along with the qualitative results that are currently shown. This approach would also be complementary to to how the hemocyte data are presented in Fig. 3A. More complete S3 and S4 figures and dropping Table 1 and 2 would in my opinion be better for readers.

6. I thought it was an odd choice to present total hemocyte counts and lamellocyte numbers in Fig. 2 and 4 as cells per ml when fly larvae are so small and numbers of circulating hemocytes are on levels of ul of hemolymph (or less) per larva. Just seems slghtly misleading to present the data on a per ml basis when the methods suggest hemolymph volumes weren’t even measured (triplicate pools of 5 larvae bled into PBS). I would suggest hemocytes per larva would be more appropriate for what the authors actually counted (or a better explanation of how cells per ml were estimated given the methods reported on page 22). The authors also need to clearly state in the methods how numbers of lamellocytes were determined and distinguished from other cell types given total cell counts are reported to derive from using a hemocytometer where distinguishing cell types solely on the basis of morphology can be difficult.

7. Total number of larvae dissected per replicate and more detail is needed in the methods for readers to fully follow the encapsulation data reported in Fig. 4D.

8. Given the similar effect of GxUG, GxHaw LgCam and LgSA on hopTum flies (Fig. 4), I wasn’t clear why the venom assays the authors report were restricted to only LgCam. Would seem at minimum the authors want to look at and report outcomes using venom from at least one of the Ganapsis xanthopoda strains as well to make sure venom from this species also contains a component that similarly (or not) inhibited JAK-STAT as reported for LgCam in Fig. 4C.

Discussion

Overall, pretty clear but as noted above certain points not mentioned until the discussion like earlier findings for Lh14 and Lb17 should in my opinion be moved to the introduction. The discussion linking the assays using avirulent wasps to the greater literature on lamellocyte production/origins was fine in my opinion and does a good job of synthesizing key points/conclusions outside of maybe needing to bring in the point there are 3 unpaired paralogs with most evidence to my knowledge focusing on upd2 and 3 in regard to immune functions. This maybe should get worked into what the authors have written and potential routes of origin for lamellocytes from cells in hematopoietic organs versus sessile hemocytes elsewhere in the body. Other small points the authors potentially should mention in regard to successful parasitism is that the author’s results focus on the idea individual wasp species/strains employ very specific virulence strategies against D. melanogaster. I’m sure this is partially true but the literature also indicates D. melanogaster and other drosophilids exhibit genetic differences across their geographic ranges that also considerably influence permissiveness to. Thus, virulence and avirulence as used in this study is affected in part by the authors conducting their experiments in Canton strain flies. It also means that while

Decision Letter 1

James J Collins III

17 Jun 2024

Dear Mortimer,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Host JAK/Stat activity is a target of parasitoid wasp virulence strategies' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

James J Collins III

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

James Collins III

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: I had no major concerns about the original submission but listed several minor concerns that primarily focused on presentation, some of the figures, data analysis, and the opinion that vFig. 4 should extend beyond LgCam. The authors adopted many but not all of my original suggestions. The revisions improve the manuscript and I'm fine with the authors not adopting everything I originally suggested as the points that weren't adopted are not critical to the primary results the authors present or overall interpretation. I also was okay with the authors' response to the other reviewer's points about the lack of loss of function data in this study, as I was aware of other studies in the literature that had examined the effects of loss of function JAK-Stat mutants on encapsulation in melanogaster that the authors now cite. I thus am overall satisfied with the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2: I'm happy with their revisions to address my previous concerns.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: See above

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: See above

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

James J Collins III

26 Jun 2024

Dear Mortimer,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Host JAK-STAT activity is a target of parasitoid wasp virulence strategies," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

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 scientific or type-setting 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. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, 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 open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Species and strains names for all parasitoids used in this study.

    Accession numbers for COI sequence data are given.

    (DOCX)

    ppat.1012349.s001.docx (13.8KB, docx)
    S1 Fig

    Brightfield (A-C) and fluorescence (A’-C’) images of 10xSTAT92E-GFP larvae. Strong fluorescence is seen in gut cells (A,A’). No fluorescence in seen in lymph gland dissected from naïve (B,B’) or LcNet infected (C,C’) larvae.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1012349.s002.tif (2.6MB, tif)
    S2 Fig

    Brightfield (A-C) and fluorescence (A’-C’) images of fat bodies dissected from 10xSTAT92E-GFP larvae. Images are representative of the expression categories used in Table 1. A’ is representative of ‘-‘, B’ is representative of ‘+’ and C’ is representative of ‘++’.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1012349.s003.tif (4.1MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Fluorescent images of body wall muscle from 10xSTAT92E-GFP larvae.

    Images are representative of the expression categories used in Table 2. A is representative of ‘-‘, B is representative of ‘+’ and C is representative of ‘++’. All images were taken at the posterior end.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1012349.s004.tif (1.3MB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers (1).docx

    ppat.1012349.s005.docx (25.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available from Open Science Framework with the identifier DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8SWHM.


    Articles from PLOS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES