Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Dec 19.
Published in final edited form as: Syst Appl Microbiol. 2016 Mar 12;39(3):220–222. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2016.03.001

Wolbachia pipientis should not be split into multiple species: A response to Ramírez-Puebla et al., “Species in Wolbachia? Proposal for the designation of ‘Candidatus Wolbachia bourtzisii’, ‘Candidatus Wolbachia onchocercicola’, ‘Candidatus Wolbachia blaxteri’, ‘Candidatus Wolbachia brugii’, ‘Candidatus Wolbachia taylori’, ‘Candidatus Wolbachia collembolicola’ and ‘Candidatus Wolbachia multihospitum’ for the different species within Wolbachia supergroups”

Amelia RI Lindsey a,*, Seth R Bordenstein b,c, Irene LG Newton d, Jason L Rasgon e
PMCID: PMC5167362  NIHMSID: NIHMS836025  PMID: 27021523

In their recent paper, Ramírez-Puebla et al. [26] propose the designation of species for a selection of Wolbachia lineages. While this study considers the largest number of Wolbachia strains in genomic analyses to date, there are several shortcomings and oversights, which render the conclusions problematic. The authors state that Wolbachia taxonomy has been understudied, and they disregard the caution implemented in other phylogenetic and phylogenomic studies to not define species [5,10,13,22]. As an obligate intracellular symbiont, Wolbachia is intimately connected to its host. For this reason, and because Wolbachia cannot be cultured axenically, host phenotypes and phylogenetic relationships of Wolbachia strains are the most well studied aspects of Wolbachia biology rather than Wolbachia themselves. The strain designations used across the Wolbachia literature provide information on the host animal (ex: strain wMel infects Drosophila melanogaster), allowing results to be interpreted in the appropriate biological context. Below we outline three major concerns with the framework proposed by Ramirez-Puebla et al., and argue that applying species status to Wolbachia lineages is premature.

First, the datasets used by the authors are unsound. While the authors have gathered a large amount of the publically available Wolbachia genomes, sequence data known to be unreliable was used in their analyses. For example, the sequences available for the wAna strain (from Drosophila ananassae) represent a combination of host genomic inserts of Wolbachia from lateral gene transfer events and sequence from the Wolbachia infection [18]. Additionally, for genome strains wDacA and wDacB (from Dactylopius coccus), the authors do not provide primary sequence data, instead stating that their analysis will be published at a later time. Defining species status should be held to higher standards and publicly available datasets that the community can evaluate. Ramirez-Puebla et al. present low in silico DNA–DNA hybridization (DDH) and average nucleotide identity (ANI) values comparing wDacA to other A supergroup strains. Because the authors sequenced wDacA co-infecting with wDacB (a B supergroup Wolbachia strain), the data produced may be a combination of both strains or potential lateral gene transfer events, as often happens with Wolbachia [6,10,18,24]. The evidence for phage and chromosomal genetic exchange across supergroups between co-infecting strains further complicates species designations [2,8,23], though we appreciate that some Wolbachia supergroups evolve cohesively to a degree despite frequent ecological overlap in coinfected hosts [10].

Second, and as previous studies recognized [5,13], the stability of any systematic framework is fundamentally dependent on data completeness for each candidate taxonomic grouping. As is evident by several recent studies that have identified novel Wolbachia supergroups, the field is still discovering new Wolbachia diversity [1,4,14,19]. Currently, there are 16 reported supergroups, denoted A–Q [1,4,14,15,21,27]. Supergroup G was de-commissioned as it was based on a recombinant from supergroups A and B [3]. Ramírez-Puebla et al. acknowledge the large number of Wolbachia supergroups, but only examine genomic data from strains representing six of these supergroups (A–F). They suggest that the name “Wolbachia pipientis” applies only to supergroup B, and propose new species names for seven other clades. This system of nomenclature would leave a total of ten supergroups nameless (supergroups H–Q), and it is unclear how these groups would be incorporated into their framework in future. Importantly, for two supergroups (C and D), there is a severely limited quantity of genomic data; two of the proposed species (Candidatus Wolbachia blaxteri and Candidatus Wolbachia taylori) are each based on data from a single Wolbachia strain. This should deter biologists from splitting each supergroup into two species (Candidatus Wolbachia onchocercicola and Candidatus Wolbachia blaxteri for supergroup C, and Candidatus Wolbachia brugii and Candidatus Wolbachia taylori for supergroup D). It is not clear how remaining members of the C and D supergroups not analyzed by Ramírez-Puebla et al. are to be classified. This could be especially problematic for strains that are found to cluster closely with, for example, supergroup D, but are sister to the clade of Candidatus Wolbachia brugii + Candidatus Wolbachia taylori.

Third, the utility of new species designations is not evident to us and presumably other researchers in the Wolbachia community. A combination of both genetic distance and functional divergence should be taken into consideration when devising taxonomic frameworks. For example, there are many closely related Wolbachia strains in supergroup A (referred to as Candidatus Wolbachia bourtzisii in Ramírez-Puebla et al.) that infect Drosophila spp. and have vastly different consequences for their hosts [16]. Also, the proposed nomenclature could easily cause confusion. While a transitional process is expected when adopting new nomenclature, several of the suggested species names provide confusing descriptors for the clades. The name suggested for supergroup E is “Candidatus Wolbachia collembolicola” due to the fact that this clade is found infecting Collembolan hosts. However, there is evidence that this clade is not specific to Collembola, and can infect Dipteran species as well (J. Rasgon, unpublished data). The clade that would make up Candidatus Wolbachia onchocercicola (a subset of the C supergroup) includes Wolbachia strains that do not infect the genus Onchocerca [11]. However, all hosts of both the C and D supergroup strains are members of the Onchocercidae family.

The authors reference Pfarr et al. [25] as a source of support for splitting Wolbachia into species. Given the sequencing of additional genomes, discovery of many new supergroups, and discovery of novel phenotypes since then, the arguments made in Pfarr et al. are no longer as strong. Pfarr et al. argue that the nematode-infecting Wolbachia should be classified differently because they are obligate, infect a different taxon of hosts, and have genomes with different features. However, we now know of obligate Wolbachia strains infecting various arthropods [9,17,20,28,29], the F supergroup that infects both arthropods and nematodes [7], and that the Wolbachia infecting Trichogramma wasps share some similarities with the nematode-infecting strains, such as the absence of phages [12]. It is clear that Wolbachia do not “bin” nicely according to the criteria in Pfarr et al.

It is well understood that the Wolbachia clade is diverse and contains a number of distinct lineages identifiable to the community in the current supergroup classification system. Therefore, for these reasons and those above, we recommend to the community that they continue to use the previously designated strain names and supergroups for clarity in the field. Should there be further evidence and community support for species designations within this unique clade of bacteria, a comprehensive and voluntary Wolbachia consortium should work together to propose nomenclature, as has been previously done in the field (International Wolbachia Conference, Heron Island, Australia, August 2004).

Acknowledgments

Wolbachia work in our labs is supported by grants NSF IOS 1456545 to ILGN, NSF IOS 1456778 to SRB, NIH R21HD086833 to SRB, NIH NIAID R01AI116636 to JLR, NSF DEB DDIG 1501227 to ARIL, and a Robert and Peggy van den Bosch Memorial Scholarship in Biological Control to ARIL.

References

  • 1.Augustinos AA, Santos-Garcia D, Dionyssopoulou E, Moreira M, Papapanagiotou A, Scarvelakis M, Doudoumis V, Ramos S, Aguiar AF, Borges PAV, Khadem M, Latorre A, Tsiamis G, Bourtzis K. Detection and characterization of Wolbachia infections in natural populations of aphids: Is the hidden diversity fully unraveled? PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e28695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Baldo L, Bordenstein S, Wernegreen JJ, Werren JH. Widespread recombination throughout Wolbachia genomes. Mol Biol Evol. 2006;23:437–449. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msj049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Baldo L, Werren JH. Revisiting Wolbachia supergroup typing based on WSP: spurious lineages and discordance with MLST. Curr Microbiol. 2007;55:81–87. doi: 10.1007/s00284-007-0055-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bing XL, Xia WQ, Gui JD, Yan GH, Wang XW, Liu SS. Diversity and evolution of the Wolbachia endosymbionts of Bemisia (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) whiteflies. Ecol Evol. 2014;4:2714–2737. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bordenstein SR, Paraskevopoulos C, Dunning Hotopp JC, Sapountzis P, Lo N, Bandi C, Tettelin H, Werren JH, Bourtzis K. Parasitism and mutualism in Wolbachia: what the phylogenomic trees can and cannot say. Mol Biol Evol. 2009;26:231–241. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msn243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Brelsfoard C, Tsiamis G, Falchetto M, Gomulski LM, Telleria E, Alam U, Doudoumis V, Scolari F, Benoit JB, Swain M, Takac P, Malacrida AR, Bourtzis K, Aksoy S. Presence of extensive Wolbachia symbiont insertions discovered in the genome of its host Glossina morsitans morsitans. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8:e2728. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Casiraghi M, Bordenstein SR, Baldo L, Lo N, Beninati T, Wernegreen JJ, Werren JH, Bandi C. Phylogeny of Wolbachia pipientis based on gltA, groEL and ftsZ gene sequences: clustering of arthropod and nematode symbionts in the F supergroup, and evidence for further diversity in the Wolbachia tree. Microbiology. 2005;151:4015–4022. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.28313-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chafee ME, Funk DJ, Harrison RG, Bordenstein SR. Lateral phage transfer in obligate intracellular bacteria (Wolbachia): verification from natural populations. Mol Biol Evol. 2010;27:501–505. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msp275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dedeine F, Vavre F, Fleury F, Loppin B, Hochberg ME, Bouletreau M. Removing symbiotic Wolbachia bacteria specifically inhibits oogenesis in a parasitic wasp. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98:6247–6252. doi: 10.1073/pnas.101304298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ellegaard KM, Klasson L, Naslund K, Bourtzis K, Andersson SGE. Comparative genomics of Wolbachia and the bacterial species concept. PLoS Genet. 2013;9:e1003381. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ferri E, Bain O, Barbuto M, Martin C, Lo N, Uni S, Landmann F, Baccei SG, Guerrero R, de Souza Lima S, Bandi C, Wanji S, Diagne M, Casiraghi M. New insights into the evolution of Wolbachia infections in filarial nematodes inferred from a large range of screened species. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e20843. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gavotte L, Henri H, Stouthamer R, Charif D, Charlat S, Bouletreau M, Vavre F. A survey of the bacteriophage WO in the endosymbiotic bacteria Wolbachia. Mol Biol Evol. 2007;24:427–435. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msl171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gerth M, Gansauge MT, Weigert A, Bleidorn C. Phylogenomic analyses uncover origin and spread of the Wolbachia pandemic. Nat Commun. 2014;5:5117. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Glowska E, Dragun-Damian A, Dabert M, Gerth M. New Wolbachia supergroups detected in quill mites (Acari: Syringophilidae) Infect Genet Evol. 2015;30:140–146. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2014.12.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Haegeman A, Vanholme B, Jacob J, Vandekerckhove TTM, Claeys M, Borgonie G, Gheysen G. An endosymbiotic bacterium in a plant-parasitic nematode: member of a new Wolbachia supergroup. Int J Parasitol. 2009;39:1045–1054. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2009.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hoffmann AA, Ross PA, Rasic G. Wolbachia strains for disease control: ecological and evolutionary considerations. Ecol Evol. 2015;8:751–768. doi: 10.1111/eva.12286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hosokawa T, Koga R, Kikuchi Y, Meng XY, Fukatsu T. Wolbachia as a bacteriocyte-associated nutritional mutualist. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107:769–774. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911476107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hotopp JCD, Clark ME, Oliveira D, Foster JM, Fischer P, Torres MC, Giebel JD, Kumar N, Ishmael N, Wang SL, Ingram J, Nene RV, Shepard J, Tomkins J, Richards S, Spiro DJ, Ghedin E, Slatko BE, Tettelin H, Werren JH. Widespread lateral gene transfer from intracellular bacteria to multicellular eukaryotes. Science. 2007;317:1753–1756. doi: 10.1126/science.1142490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Konecka E, Olszanowski Z. A screen of maternally inherited microbial endosymbionts in oribatid mites (Acari: Oribatida) Microbiology. 2015;161:1561–1571. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.000114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kremer N, Charif D, Henri H, Bataille M, Prevost G, Kraaijeveld K, Vavre F. A new case of Wolbachia dependence in the genus Asobara: Evidence for parthenogenesis induction in Asobara japonica. Heredity. 2009;103:248–256. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2009.63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lo N, Casiraghi M, Salati E, Bazzocchi C, Bandi C. How many Wolbachia supergroups exist? Mol Biol Evol. 2002;19:341–346. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lo N, Paraskevopoulos C, Bourtzis K, O’Neill SL, Werren JH, Bordenstein SR, Bandi C. Taxonomic status of the intracellular bacterium Wolbachia pipientis. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007;57:654–657. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.64515-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Metcalf JA, Bordenstein SR. The complexity of virus systems: the case of endosymbionts. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2012;15:546–552. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2012.04.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nikoh N, Tanaka K, Shibata F, Kondo N, Hizume M, Shimada M, Fukatsu T. Wolbachia genome integrated in an insect chromosome: evolution and fate of laterally transferred endosymbiont genes. Genome Res. 2008;18:272–280. doi: 10.1101/gr.7144908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pfarr K, Foster J, Slatko B, Hoerauf A, Eisen JA. On the taxonomic status of the intracellular bacterium Wolbachia pipientis: should this species name include the intracellular bacteria of filarial nematodes? Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007;57:1677–1678. doi: 10.1099/ijs.0.65248-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ramirez-Puebla ST, Servin-Garciduenas LE, Ormeno-Orrillo E, Vera-Ponce de Leon A, Rosenblueth M, Delaye L, Martinez J, Martinez-Romero E. Species in Wolbachia? Proposal for the designation of ‘Candidatus Wolbachia bourtzisii’, ‘Candidatus Wolbachia onchocercicola’, ‘Candidatus Wolbachia blaxteri’, ‘Candidatus Wolbachia brugii’, ‘Candidatus Wolbachia taylori’ ‘Candidatus Wolbachia collembolicola’ and ‘Candidatus Wolbachia multihospitum’ for the different species within Wolbachia supergroups. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2015;38:390–399. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2015.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ros VID, Fleming VM, Feil EJ, Breeuwer JAJ. How diverse is the genus Wolbachia? Multiple-gene sequencing reveals a putatively new Wolbachia supergroup recovered from spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75:1036–1043. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01109-08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Russell JE, Stouthamer R. The genetics and evolution of obligate reproductive parasitism in Trichogramma pretiosum infected with parthenogenesis-inducing Wolbachia. Heredity. 2011;106:58–67. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2010.48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Stouthamer R, Russell JE, Vavre F, Nunney L. Intragenomic conflict in populations infected by Parthenogenesis Inducing Wolbachia ends with irreversible loss of sexual reproduction. BMC Evol Biol. 2010;10:12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES