Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2022 Apr 19;20(4):e3001580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001580

Longitudinal deep sequencing informs vector selection and future deployment strategies for transmissible vaccines

Megan E Griffiths 1,2,*, Alice Broos 1,2, Laura M Bergner 1,2, Diana K Meza 1,2, Nicolas M Suarez 1, Ana da Silva Filipe 1, Carlos Tello 3,4, Daniel J Becker 5, Daniel G Streicker 1,2
Editor: Andrew Fraser Read6
PMCID: PMC9017877  PMID: 35439242

Abstract

Vaccination is a powerful tool in combating infectious diseases of humans and companion animals. In most wildlife, including reservoirs of emerging human diseases, achieving sufficient vaccine coverage to mitigate disease burdens remains logistically unattainable. Virally vectored “transmissible” vaccines that deliberately spread among hosts are a potentially transformative, but still theoretical, solution to the challenge of immunising inaccessible wildlife. Progress towards real-world application is frustrated by the absence of frameworks to guide vector selection and vaccine deployment prior to major in vitro and in vivo investments in vaccine engineering and testing. Here, we performed deep sequencing on field-collected samples of Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus (DrBHV), a candidate vector for a transmissible vaccine targeting vampire bat–transmitted rabies. We discovered 11 strains of DrBHV that varied in prevalence and geographic distribution across Peru. The phylogeographic structure of DrBHV strains was predictable from both host genetics and landscape topology, informing long-term DrBHV-vectored vaccine deployment strategies and identifying geographic areas for field trials where vaccine spread would be naturally contained. Multistrain infections were observed in 79% of infected bats. Resampling of marked individuals over 4 years showed within-host persistence kinetics characteristic of latency and reactivation, properties that might boost individual immunity and lead to sporadic vaccine transmission over the lifetime of the host. Further, strain acquisitions by already infected individuals implied that preexisting immunity and strain competition are unlikely to inhibit vaccine spread. Our results support the development of a transmissible vaccine targeting a major source of human and animal rabies in Latin America and show how genomics can enlighten vector selection and deployment strategies for transmissible vaccines.


Deep sequencing of vampire bat betaherpesviruses reveals prevalent multi-strain, multi-year infections with predictable patterns of spread and no evidence of cross immunity, supporting the herpesvirus as a promising transmissible vaccine candidate for bat rabies.

Introduction

Zoonotic pathogens that transmit from wildlife to humans are challenging to both predict and control. Managing such pathogens within their wildlife reservoir hosts, rather than in dead-end hosts such as humans or livestock, has the potential to substantially reduce the associated health and economic burdens. Indeed, vaccination of wildlife has seen great successes, for example, in the control or elimination of rabies in carnivores using bait-delivered oral vaccines [1,2]. However, the ability to vaccinate sufficient proportions of wildlife populations to interrupt epidemiological dynamics remains a hurdle for most wildlife zoonoses. Vaccines that spread unaided between individuals, “transmissible vaccines,” have been proposed as a theoretical solution [35]. Introductions of such vaccines into a small number of individuals (e.g., by bait or inoculation of captured animals) could yield higher coverage and spatial dissemination of immunological protection than traditional vaccines, potentially with minimal financial or operational investments in deployment.

Modern conceptions of transmissible vaccines favour using viral vectors to express an immunogenic protein of the target pathogen [4]. By deliberately exploiting naturally occurring, innocuous, and host-specific viruses as vectors, this approach circumvents risks of evolutionary reversion to pathogenic phenotypes, sometimes observed when attenuated virus vaccines evolve following unforeseen transmission [4,6]. However, the success of virally vectored transmissible vaccines is directly underpinned by the biological and epidemiological characteristics of the vector virus from which they are derived. A first challenge is avoiding cross-immunity between the vaccine vector and the naturally occurring ancestral virus (i.e., capacity for “superinfection”) [3]. If multiple strains occur in nature and coinfections or serial coinfections (i.e., acquisition of a novel strain in an already infected individual) are readily observed, this would represent promising evidence for limited cross-immunity. A second challenge is that projecting how vaccines will spread within and between target populations is vital to determine whether they will attain sufficiently high coverage to dampen pathogen transmission. As considerable ethical and safety concerns preclude releasing engineered vaccines with undetermined dynamics of infection and spread, the prevalence and spatial distribution of wild-type ancestors provides the best possible approximation of candidate vector transmissibility [7]. Understanding these properties prior to the major investments required for vaccine construction and deployment is necessary, since patterns observed might reveal the need to consider alternative viral vector candidates.

Here, we studied the dynamics of Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus (DrBHV), a large DNA virus (Family: Herpesviridae) that infects common vampire bats [8,9]. Betaherpesviruses are promising transmissible vaccine vectors due to their host specificity, capacity to express foreign antigens, and largely innocuous effects on their hosts [3,4,10]. In most of Latin America, vampire bats are the primary reservoir of rabies virus, a zoonosis that causes sporadic and lethal outbreaks in humans and regular livestock mortality costing tens of millions of dollars annually [11]. This disease system is particularly suited to the use of transmissible vaccines, due to limited ability of existing interventions (bat culling and human/livestock vaccination) to reduce burden, the life history, and social behaviours of vampire bats that would facilitate vaccine transmission, and the epidemiology of rabies, which already exists on an extinction threshold [12,13].

While DrBHV shows promising levels of prevalence, individual vampire bats have multistrain infections, necessitating investigation of strain-specific spatial structure and prevalence, as well as interactions between strains that might inhibit vaccine spread [8]. Here, we aimed to answer several unresolved questions that underpin the biological suitability of DrBHV as a viral vector, how it could be deployed to natural populations, and the extent that vaccine spread would be predictable: (1) Do individual DrBHV strains reach sufficient prevalence and geographic range to plausibly dampen rabies transmission? (2) Are determinants of strain-specific prevalence consistent with weak competition among strains? (3) Is the geographic distribution of strains predictable by host genetic structure and expected landscape barriers to host movement? and (4) Do patterns of viral acquisition and viral genetic diversity within individual bats support superinfection and the latency and reactivation dynamics expected for betaherpesviruses? We answered these questions using a combination of longitudinal field studies of vampire bats from Peru, and deep sequencing.

Results

Variation in the prevalence and geographic range of DrBHV strains

Between 2013 and 2018, 132 saliva samples were collected from 110 vampire bats captured from 23 colonies (sample sites) in 8 departments of Peru (Fig 1A, inset). Unless otherwise noted, data from colonies within 10 km of each other (the expected vampire bat foraging distance [14]) were combined, creating 17 “groups” for later analysis (S1 Fig, S1 Table). A 12 kilobase pair (kbp) region of DrBHV, spanning the DNA polymerase (UL54), the glycoprotein B (UL55), and the terminase subunit (UL56), was amplified using a multiplex PCR in 7 overlapping 2-kbp amplicons and sequenced in paired 250-bp reads on an Illumina MiSeq. Due to the ubiquity of multistrain infections, most consensus sequences assembled from these reads were chimeric. Therefore, analyses were either carried out at the read level, using Phyloscanner [15] to extract reads that fully spanned a 150-bp window, or using “poolseq” approaches, which do not require all reads to originate from the same genome (see below). Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of the most variable 150-bp window within UL55 revealed 11 DrBHV strains, which were further supported by affinity propagation clustering of the same 150-bp sequences [16,17] (Fig 1A, S2 Fig). Strains 1 and 2 shared a most recent common ancestor and were found almost exclusively in southern Peru in the departments of Apurímac, Ayacucho, and Cusco (AAC; Fig 1B). Remaining strains included those with a limited geographic range (e.g., strains 5 and 8, common within the coastal department of Lima [LMA] but absent or rare elsewhere) and those which were widespread across Peru (e.g., strains 4 and 6, found in every department sampled). One sequence did not cluster within the 11 defined strains but was most closely related to strain 1, although found in a different department to all other strain 1 samples. This was speculated to have arisen as the result of a recent recombination that has not yet become fixed in the population and was removed from subsequent analyses.

Fig 1. Distinct geographic profiles of 11 circulating strains of DrBHV.

Fig 1

(A) Bayesian phylogeny of a 150-bp region of the UL55 glycoprotein B region of DrBHV. Tip colours and pie charts show the geographic origins of viruses within strains (see inset map). Pie chart size is proportional to the number of samples in which each strain was detected. Node colours represent posterior probability; support of <0.5 is not shown. (B) Prevalence maps of each DrBHV strain. Each map corresponds to a single strain, numbered S1 to S11 as in panel A. Points represents all colonies within 10 km with circle size proportional to sample size (range = 2 to 14, mean = 7.82) and colour indicating prevalence of infection (base map: https://gadm.org/maps/PER.html). Data underlying this figure can be found in (A) S1 Data and (B) S2 Data. DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

Averaged across the groups in which each strain was found, the observed prevalence of DrBHV strains ranged from 30% to 65%; however, local prevalence of some strains reached over 90% (Fig 1B). To understand the potential ecological and evolutionary determinants of this variation, we used a binomial generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) to investigate how prevalence was related to strain genetic diversity and geographic range, as well as the richness of locally cocirculating strains with which focal strains might compete. Both the relative nucleotide diversity and the geographic range of strains (measured as the minimum convex hull area of observed detections) were negatively associated with strain prevalence (Fig 2A and 2B, S2 Table). Comparison of test statistics to a null model derived by randomisation of the location meta-data associated with sequences showed that these relationships would not be expected to arise from chance (Fig 2). These results are consistent with the hypothesis that recently evolved strains (which all else equal would be expected to have lower genetic diversity [18]) attain high local prevalence and spread geographically, before being gradually replaced (S1 Text). In contrast, both at the coarse level of geographic group and the finer scale of sampling site, the number of locally cocirculating strains was unrelated to strain prevalence, implying that competition between strains is weak or undetectable (Fig 2C). We repeated this analysis using 12 strains defined by a different region of the genome, within UL54, to rule out any potential interference from selection acting on sequences from UL55. Nucleotide diversity remained negatively associated with prevalence (β = −1.208, SE = 0.559, z-value = −2.162, p-value = 0.031), but geographic range no longer showed any significant correlation. As above, the number of locally cocirculating strains had no significant relationship with strain prevalence, again supporting a lack of competition. These findings support the expectation that vaccine spread would be unimpeded by the circulation of preexisting DrBHV strains.

Fig 2. Relationships between strain genetic diversity, geographic range, and prevalence suggest strain emergence, spatial diffusion, and replacement.

Fig 2

Predicted relationships between strain-specific prevalence and (A) strain nucleotide diversity, (B) geographic range, and (C) the number of strains present in each geographic group sampled (a measure of potential competition between strains). Lines and shaded areas represent the regression slope and 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Points are raw data, corresponding to the observed prevalence of each strain in each group where it occurred, with point size proportional to sample size (range = 2 to 24). The dashed lines on each graph show the null expectation, averaged over 1,000 tip randomisations. Data underlying this figure can be found in S2 Data.

Parallel population structure of DrBHV and vampire bat hosts

To understand the observed spatial distribution of DrBHV strains and the potential geographic barriers to vaccine spatial spread, we next approximated levels of viral gene flow between geographic groups of vampire bats using pairwise F statistics (FST, proportion of the total genetic variance contained in a subpopulation relative to the total genetic variance). Our data comprised of short-read sequences with multiple DrBHV strains in each sample, which could not be reliably reconstructed into unmixed contigs. Therefore, each bat sample within a given geographic group was treated as a pool of virus samples and analysed using poolseq methodologies [19,20], and FST calculated from these pooled single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) read count data. Separate analyses considered SNPs found (a) across the full 12-kbp sequenced region; or (b) after removing reads from UL55 due to the increased possibility of selection on taking place on this gene encoding a viral glycoprotein. K-means clustering identified 3 groups, corresponding to (i) Huánuco, Amazonas, and Loreto; (ii) Lima and Cajamarca; and (iii) Ayacucho, Apurímac, and Cusco (Fig 3A). While low pairwise FST within each of these 3 clusters shows internal mixing of strains, group (iii) was the most removed, suggesting greater genetic isolation of DrBHV in these southern populations. DrBHV FST pairwise distance matrices (a) and (b) were strongly correlated (Mantel test: r = 0.83, p-value = 1 × 10−-4), suggesting that putative selection on UL55 did not alter the observed patterns of geographic relatedness. Overall, the population structure of DrBHV (a) mirrored that observed in vampire bat hosts using nuclear microsatellites (MS) (Fig 3, S1 Text; Mantel test on the pairwise distance matrices; r = 0.80, p-value = 1 × 10−4; full Mantel tests on S3 Table) and in patterns of isolation predicted by a least-cost distance (LCD) model based on elevational barriers to host/virus gene flow (Fig 3, S1 Text; Mantel test on the pairwise distance matrices; r = 0.81, p-value = 1 × 10−-4). This parallel population structure is consistent with the expected host specificity of DrBHV and suggests that the geographic spread of a released vaccine strain would be predictable from and constrained by landscape barriers to bat dispersal [21].

Fig 3. Parallel population structure of DrBHV and vampire bat hosts.

Fig 3

Multidimensional scaling plots of the pairwise FST between geographic groups of (A) DrBHV based on SNP read depth from UL54-56 and (B) D. rotundus MS data. Panel (C) shows a dendrogram representing LCDs between sampled colonies based upon elevation, with tips coloured by department of Peru (base map: https://www.evl.uic.edu/pape/data/WDB). Panel (A) shows 3 distinct clusters comprising (1) Loreto—purple, Amazonas—dark blue, and Huánuco—brown; (2) Lima—green and Cajamarca—blue; and (3) the southern region (Ayacucho, Cusco, and Apurímac). Panel (B) shows similar clustering with the exception that Cajamarca now clusters more closely with (1) than with (2). Panel (D) shows strong correlations between pairwise DrBHV Fst (a—based on the full complement of SNPs) and 3 other distances matrices: DrBHV Fst (b—SNPs from UL55 not included) (red), host microsatellite Fst (blue), and pairwise distances based on the least-cost landscape model (green). Data underlying this figure can be found in S3 Data. DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus; LCD, least-cost distance; MS, microsatellite; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.

Longitudinal sampling of vampire bats shows strain acquisition, long-term persistence, and within-host diversification of DrBHV

Multistrain infections were widespread across demographic groups of vampire bats. Among the 132 DrBHV-positive vampire bat saliva samples, 79% (n = 101) were infected by multiple strains (average: 2.4 strains per individual; range: 1 to 5 strains per individual, Fig 4A). A Poisson GLMM showed no significant effects of sex or age on the number of strains detected (p-value > 0.05 for both; S4 Table). Rather, the number of strains detected within individuals was positively correlated with the total number of locally available strains (β = 0.098, SE = 0.048, z-value = 2.055, p-value = 0.039).

Fig 4. Longitudinal sequencing shows strain acquisition and within-host persistence.

Fig 4

(A) Histogram of the number of DrBHV strains detected in each individual bat at a single time point. (B) GLM estimates of the effect of time between samples, bat sex, and strain availability on the number of strains gained between sample points shows that strain acquisition depends on local strain availability. (C) The total number of strains found in longitudinally sampled bats through time and whether strains were gained (green), lost (red), both (blue), or remained unchanged (grey) in the intervening period. (D) Haplotype network of strains found in Bat 9626 (marked with * in panel (C)), with separate strains circled. Tick marks represent the number of nucleotide changes between haplotypes. A single circle with both colours represents an identical variant found at both time points. The strain in (D-i) shows a decrease in intrastrain diversity between sampling points. Strain (D-ii) is found only at time point 1, demonstrating potential strain loss, while (D-iii) is only found at time point 2, illustrating strain acquisition. (D-iv) shows an increase in intrastrain diversity over time, indicating within-host persistence and evolution. Data underlying this figure can be found in S4 and S5 Data. DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus; GLM, generalised linear model.

We further investigated the dynamics of strain acquisition and loss using samples from 20 individually marked bats that were recaptured 1 to 2 times between 2013 and 2018. Deep sequencing revealed 12 instances of strain acquisition, occurring between 3 months and 4 years after initial sampling (Fig 4C). We used a Poisson GLM to test effects of bat sex, the time interval between sampling periods, the number of strains infecting a bat at its initial sampling (hereafter, “initial strain richness”), and the proportion of local strains remaining available for acquisition (i.e., those strains that were present in the area, but did not yet infect the focal bat) on how many strains were gained at later sampling instances. Bat sex, sampling interval, and initial strain richness had no effect on the number of strains gained by an individual. However, bats which had a small fraction of locally available strains at initial sampling acquired significantly more additional strains at later time points (β = 8.463, SE = 4.293, z-value = 1.971, p-value = 0.048; Fig 4B) than those with a higher fraction of locally available strains. Together with our earlier findings suggesting noncompetitive coexistence among strains at the population level (Fig 2), these results strongly suggest the absence of immunological barriers that would inhibit infection by novel strains, even in already multiply infected bats. A total of 11 out of 20 bats also apparently lost one or more DrBHV strains at later sampling instances, and none of the factors tested above explained the probability of strain loss or the number of strains lost.

Given that lifelong, persistent infection of salivary glands with varying levels of replication is a common feature of human and murine cytomegalovirus (HCMV and MCMV) [2225], we further investigated the dynamics of within-host persistence of DrBHV. In 16/20 longitudinally sampled bats, the same strain was detected across sampling instances and up to 4 years post initial detection (the maximum duration permitted by our sampling design). Since the frequency or efficiency of strain replication would be expected to promote evolutionary diversification, we next studied the genetic diversity of individual strains within-hosts (i.e., intrastrain diversity) through time [26]. Nine paired samples with persistent infections showed either increases or decreases in intrastrain diversity over time, suggesting viral replication and genetic bottlenecks potentially related to the establishment of latency, respectively. For example, Bat 9626 (Fig 4D) exemplified both patterns of intrastrain diversity (increases: 4D-iv; decreases: 4D-i) as well as strain gain (4D-iii) and strain loss (4D-ii) over a 3-month time period. Multiyear infections with evolutionary diversification but variable intrastrain genetic diversity within sampling instances is broadly consistent with long-term viral persistence within individual hosts via periodic phases of latency and reactivation.

Discussion

Focusing on a betaherpesvirus of common vampire bats, we demonstrate the power of spatially replicated, longitudinal deep sequencing to reveal cryptic strain-specific patterns in prevalence and geographic range while providing direct evidence for the within-host processes governing viral maintenance over long time periods. Viewed in light of DrBHV as a proposed viral vector of a transmissible rabies vaccine, our results show that vaccine spread between bats could achieve high population-level coverage and is unlikely to be inhibited by preexisting immunity or competition with naturally circulating strains. Our geographic and population genetic analyses also reveal how geographic heterogeneity in strain presence and spatial connectivity may be exploited to guide vaccine deployment. Such a vaccine, if developed, could be transformative for the prevention of human and animal rabies in Latin America.

A major concern with using naturally occurring viruses as transmissible vaccine vectors has been that cross-immunity from wild-type relatives could impede vaccine spread [3]. In our study, widespread multistrain infections, acquisitions of novel strains in longitudinally sampled bats, and evidence that neither strain acquisition nor population-level prevalence appeared to be limited by cocirculating strains suggests an absence of cross-immunity among DrBHV strains. This conclusion implies that the very high prevalence of natural DrBHV infection is unlikely to impede the spread of a hypothetical DrBHV-vectored rabies vaccine within vampire bat populations. The strain-specific geographic structure we observed could further enable selection of vector strains that are rare or absent in a region targeted for vaccination, thereby reducing the already unlikely potential for strain competition, and facilitating genomic monitoring of vaccine spread. A remaining uncertainty, however, is that natural selection is expected to purge antigenic inserts from viral vectors. Although techniques to reduce the loss of inserts are advancing [27], this phenomenon has potential to create competition between circulating vaccine strains and “ex-vaccine” strains that have reverted to wild type and may have a fitness advantage over remaining vaccine strains [28].

Although capacity for superinfection is advantageous for the spread of transmissible vaccine vectors, multistrain infections open possibilities for recombination, which has been cited as a safety concern [7]. Although we were unable to formally evaluate recombination in our data set due to the sequencing methods employed, recombination is common in herpesviruses [7,29,30] and may explain a divergent sequence that was observed only in a single individual. Thus, while recombination in DrBHV would be unsurprising, we are unaware of instances where recombination among betaherpesviruses has changed host range or pathogenicity. Indeed, it is expected that strong host specificity precludes exchange of genetic material along betaherpesviruses adapted to different host species since they are unlikely to co-occur in the same host. Regardless, we encourage in vitro tests of vaccine host range across a range of cell types derived from different host species and modifications of vaccine design if necessary.

Our results also provide insights into the expected dynamics of spatial spread that might follow release of a DrBHV-vectored rabies vaccine. Patterns of DrBHV strain structure mirrored the population genetic structure of vampire bats. One possible exception to this pattern was the northern Peruvian department of Cajamarca, which clustered with other northern sites according to bat MSs but instead with sites in the coastal department of Lima in DrBHV genetic structure (Fig 3). Importantly, however, a more comprehensive population genetic analysis showed host gene flow between Lima and Cajamarca, and our landscape model also supported connectivity between these regions; both findings are consistent with the sharing of DrBHV genetic diversity among these regions [21]. These commonalities reinforce the previously suggested host-specificity of DrBHV and suggest that barriers to bat gene flow limit DrBHV spread [8]. Such barriers are likely to include mountain ranges that restrict bat movement, as shown by the correlation between both host and virus population structures with a LCD of travel model based on elevation. Moreover, the strong correlation between landscape topography and viral genetic structure implies that virus spread might be anticipated even in the absence of host genetic data, facilitating eventual large-scale vaccine deployments by identifying relatively isolated areas that would not otherwise be reached by unaided spread. In the short term, isolated areas such as the one we identified in southern Peru might be exploited for small-scale trials, since potential for vaccine escape would be diminished.

We also observed that high prevalence DrBHV strains tended to have low genetic diversity and small geographic ranges (Fig 2). One possible explanation for this pattern is that strains emerge, attain high prevalence, and spread geographically before gradually declining in prevalence, consistent with predicted early SILI dynamics [31], which herpesviruses are thought to follow. Since we were unable to estimate strain age directly, a key assumption underlying this interpretation is that strain nucleotide diversity increases through time. Although this relationship is expected from theory, selection and population size may also affect nucleotide diversity [18]. While we cannot completely rule out these explanations, if nucleotide diversity was predominantly determined by current viral population sizes, we would expect a positive relationship between strain nucleotide diversity and prevalence rather than the negative relationship we observed. While selective sweeps that reduce genetic diversity might obscure the increase of nucleotide diversity through time, the relationship that we observed between diversity and prevalence was robust and was also observed when using strains defined using a section of UL54, which should experience less selective pressure than the UL55-enocded glycoprotein B. Encouragingly, a similar pattern between strain age and prevalence has been observed for HCMV, where genotype gB4 is consistently the least prevalent genotype [3236], despite being estimated as the oldest of the 4 glycoprotein B genotypes (S3 Fig, S1 Text). Although we emphasise the preliminary nature of this conclusion, if DrBHV-vectored vaccines behave similarly to wild-type DrBHV strains, our results suggest they would rise in prevalence, spread predictably within the bounds of bat population structure, and eventually become minor variants.

Our study confirms the expectation from other betaherpesviruses [37,38] that DrBHV establishes persistent infections within individuals. Additionally, given that intrastrain diversity appears likely to correlate with viral load (S1 Text) and shedding as might be expected [39], our results suggest that strain-specific virus shedding varies substantially over relatively short time periods, even during “active” infection. Unlike HCMV and MCMV, which cause lifelong infections, we observed several putative instances of strain loss. It is unclear whether these reflect strains which were present at undetectable levels at the time of sampling (i.e., latent in other bodily compartments), were outcompeted in PCR amplification by other strains undergoing higher replication, or true strain loss from the host. However, even if DrBHV infection proves not to be “lifelong,” the multiyear, latency, and reactivation dynamics suggested by our data imply that a DrBHV-vectored vaccine might enable prolonged protection against rabies. While vampire bats can live up to 17 years in the wild, typical lifespans are shorter (<5 years) [40], meaning that vaccines would in principle periodically boost during DrBHV reactivations to protect vampire bats against rabies through most of their lives, especially considering some persistence of rabies immunity beyond putative clearance of the DrBHV vaccine or loss of the antigenic insert. Such boosting could reduce the frequency at which long-term redeployment of vaccine would be required, as generations of bats should remain immune throughout their lifetime.

An unavoidable limitation of our strain-level analyses was that they required grouping viruses into epidemiologically relevant and tractable strains. In the absence of antigenic data, we used a clustering algorithm to operationally and reproducibly define strains as genetically similar clusters, and these were strongly supported in our phylogenetic analysis. Nevertheless, it is likely that some of the patterns we observed could be sensitive to how strains are defined. In particular, increasingly narrow strain definitions would be expected to create smaller observed geographic ranges, and additional sequencing might lead to discovery of new strains or separation of existing strains that could also influence their inferred geographic range. Importantly, however, altering strain definitions would not be expected alter our conclusions on the geographic spread of DrBHV (which did not require strain definition), superinfection, or within-host dynamics.

Several additional lines of investigation are needed to further develop DrBHV as a transmissible rabies vaccine. First, we emphasise that our study explored patterns in wild-type DrBHV strains to derive expectations for the dynamics of a still-hypothetical vaccine. Some of our findings, such as patterns of spatial structure, would not be expected to differ between wild-type and vaccine strains since they depend more on bat dispersal behaviour than viral genotype. Other findings, such as the capacity for superinfection and the duration of infections within hosts, may more plausibly be affected by genetic manipulation and should be retested after isolating DrBHV and engineering it with a view to maximise immunogenicity and evolutionarily stability. Fortunately, the established use of BHVs as vaccine vectors provides an informed starting point for this process [10,4143]. Second, the ubiquitous presence of DrBHV in apparently healthy vampire bats, the survival of bats with long-term infections, and the fact that most BHVs cause minimal disease in healthy hosts support the conclusion that DrBHV is innocuous. Nevertheless, pathological studies are necessary to rule out sublethal fitness costs, which may have implications for animal welfare. Third, while our data show that the spatial spread of a DrBHV vaccine may be predictable, the timescale of transmission and spatial spread remain critical unknowns. These might be addressed via a combination of captive bat experiments and field experiments using genetically tagged, but otherwise unmanipulated, DrBHV strains [44]. Potential interactions between vaccine and ex-vaccine strains and their implications for the long-term dynamics of vaccine spread and deployment strategies will also require experiments with captive bats and mathematical models, respectively. In the interim, models exploring strategies for transmissible vaccine deployment should incorporate sensitivity to the possible consequences of antigen loss. Finally, our sequencing focused on the glycoprotein B region of DrBHV. Long-read sequencing could provide deeper knowledge of strain diversity and distribution while providing longer sequences for phylogenetic analyses. Once dynamics of vaccine infection and spread are understood, pilot field studies and models will be needed to inform further large-scale deployment.

More broadly, viruses that multiply infect individual hosts are widespread in nature, including important human, livestock, and wildlife pathogens such as dengue viruses [45], human herpesviruses [46,47], bovine and equine rotaviruses [48,49], and avian influenza viruses [50,51]. Our study indicates the importance of differentiating multiple strains when evaluating virus dynamics. For example, PCR of a conserved region of DrBHV followed by Sanger sequencing suggested a countrywide prevalence of 97% [8], far higher than the strain averages observed here. Grouping multiple strains also would have vastly overestimated geographic range and disguised within-host dynamics, since all bats would have appeared to be persistently infected with one strain [8], as opposed to a complex mix of persistence, strain gain, and potentially strain loss over time [31]. Further, estimates of genetic structure from chimeric sequences derived from multistrain infections would have been uninformative, limiting the use of consensus sequences to infer viral spread. Herpesviruses in particular are often used as model systems for studying viral transmission dynamics in wild populations or for studying host connectivity [5254]. If multistrain infections are as ubiquitous in other host species as we observed in vampire bats, serological, PCR, or even Sanger sequencing (without cloning) would be unlikely to provide a realistic picture of virus population dynamics.

This study demonstrates the use of genomics as a crucial early step to evaluate the suitability of transmissible vaccine vectors for wildlife diseases prior to vaccine development. Our findings offer new lines of evidence that support the feasibility of a DrBHV-vectored rabies vaccine and reveal opportunities for spatially informed vaccine deployment to wild bat populations. Considering the potential for transmissible vaccines to inexpensively mitigate the large and recurring human health and agricultural losses caused by vampire bat rabies across Latin America, further investment in the development and testing of vaccine vectors would seem warranted.

Methods

Sample collection

Vampire bats were sampled between 2013 and 2018 at 23 colonies (sample sites) across 8 departments (Amazonas, Apurímac, Ayacucho, Cajamarca, Cusco, Huánuco, Lima, and Loreto) of Peru. Bats were captured using mist nets and harp traps and then placed in individual cloth bags before processing and sampling [55]. Bats were aged as juvenile, subadult, or adult by observation of epiphyseal–diaphyseal fusion [56]; sex and reproductive status were also recorded. Saliva swab samples were collected by allowing bats to chew on sterile cotton-tipped wooden swabs (Fisherbrand, UK) for 10 seconds. Whole blood samples were also collected on swabs after puncturing the propatagial vein with a sterile 23-gauge needle. All swabs were stored in either 1-ml RNALater (Ambion, UK, 12 hours at 4°C and then moved to −80°C), virus transport medium (VTM, phosphate-buffered saline supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum, and double-strength antibiotic/antimycotic [200 U/mL penicillin, 200 g/mL streptomycin, and 0.5 g/mL fungizone amphotericin B]), or PBS and then stored in dry ice in the field and at −80°C in the lab, until further analyses. Capture and sampling of bats was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Glasgow School of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences (Ref081/15) and by the University of Georgia Animal Care and Use Committee (A2014 04-016-Y3-A5). Field collections were authorised by the Peruvian government (RD-009-2015-SERFOR-DGGSPFFS, RD-264-2015-SERFOR-DGGSPFFS, RD-142-2015-SERFOR-DGGSPFFS, and RD-054-2016-SERFOR-DGGSPFFS).

Nucleic acid extraction

Nucleic acid extractions from swabs were performed on a Kingfisher Flex 96 automated extraction instrument (Thermo Fisher Scientific, UK) with the BioSprint One-For-All Vet Kit (QIAGEN, UK) using a modified version of the manufacturer’s protocol for purifying viral nucleic acids from swabs [55].

Primer design and screening of samples

A 12-kbp region of the DrBHV genome, spanning the putative UL54-56 coding regions, was selected for multiplex amplification due to the high variability of UL55, which encodes glycoprotein B and is often used in HCMV strain typing [36]. Primers were designed using Primal scheme [57] on the consensus sequence from a DrBHV short-read sequencing run spanning the full genome [8] (SRA SRR11789720) to produce 7 pairs of primers with overlapping 2-kbp amplicons (with an overlap of approximately 200 bp) spanning the chosen region. The primers were divided into 2 sets (odd and even numbered) for amplification reactions (S5 Table). PCRs were carried out using a high fidelity Q5 polymerase and 5× reaction buffer with 2.5μL of extracted DNA per reaction. The PCR programme consisted of a 30-second 98°C initial denaturation, followed by 45 cycles of denaturation at 98°C (15 seconds) and 65°C (5 minutes) annealing and extension and concluding with a 15-minute final extension at 65°C. PCR products were tested for amplification on a 1% agarose gel for 2-kb bands.

A total of 132 saliva samples from a range of colonies and years were positive for both sets of primers and were selected for sequencing. These samples included 42 saliva samples from 20 longitudinally sampled bats (2 to 3 samples per bat; 3- to 40-month intersampling period) for our studies of the temporal dynamics of within-host strain diversity.

Library preparation, sequencing, and sequence assembly

PCR products from the same sample were combined and purified using the QIAGEN PCR purification kit (QIAGEN), and the DNA concentration measured by Qubit (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Purified PCR products were adjusted to 100 ng in 55 μL for library preparation. The 2-kb amplicons were sheared in size for optimal Illumina sequencing, using a Covaris S220 Sonicator at peak power 450 watts, Duty factor 11.5, and 1,000 cycles per burst for 50 seconds. Peak size was 380 bp using an Agilent (UK) 2200 Tapestation system and within the optimum size range for paired 250-bp reads to be produced. Sequencing libraries were prepared using the KAPA HTP/LTP Library Preparation Kit (Roche, Germany) with NEBNext Multiplex Oligos for Illumina (Dual Index Primers Set 1) from NEB, UK, and sequenced on the Illumina MiSeq System (US) to produce an average of approximately 185,000 paired end reads of 250 bp per sample. Illumina reads were filtered, cleaned, and trimmed using trim_galore (https://github.com/rjorton/Allmond) [58,59] and aligned to the reference sequence (section of the consensus sequence from previous metagenomic sequencing [8]) using bowtie2 [60] and samtools [61], producing a bam alignment for each of the samples.

Delineation of circulating strains

Phyloscanner [15] was used to extract sequences from the bam alignments of each sample in 150-bp windows. This window size was the largest possible from a read length of 250 bp. Scanning across the amplified 12-kbp region identified an area of highest variability from 7,900 to 8,050, within the putative UL55 region. Phyloscanner was run on this window with a minimum read count of 250 reads and filtering of unpaired reads in order to discard low-quality sequences and those that may exist due to sequencing error. BEASTv1.10.4 [62] was used to produce a Bayesian phylogeny of these sequences using a HKY+gamma substitution model as selected by Jmodeltest2 [63] using the corrected Akaike information criterium (AICc). Tree prior Coalescent: Bayesian skyline, and strict clock was used for the final 1 × 10−7 generations run with a sampling frequency of 1,000 and a burn-in of 10%. These clock and tree priors were selected after testing both tree prior constant and Bayesian skyline, with strict clock at 1 × 10−6 generations, and finding both models to be in agreement, due to the lack of rigid assumptions about population and evolutionary dynamics. Tip dates were not included due to the short duration of sample collection compared to the estimated rate of evolution of the virus, as well as sampling date being unlikely to represent date of infection, and insufficient information was available to inform internal node priors. As such, branch lengths represent substitutions per site and are not timescaled. The maximum clade credibility tree was visualised in R [64] using ggtree [65]. The 11 strains of DrBHV were defined using apcluster in R [66], using both the distance matrix extracted from the DrBHV phylogeny and the distance matrix from the sequence data alone. This method was also used to define strains based on a 150-bp section of UL54.

Phylogeographic analysis

Allele read count data were extracted from each sample using the mpileup function of the SNP calling software “bcftools” [67]. SNPs with more than 2 alleles were removed, and the read counts pooled by origin group of each sample. The data were then analysed using poolfstat in R [19], which performs well even at low sample size and low coverage. Pairwise FST between pooled groups was calculated based on (a) all SNPs present in the 12-kb sequenced region covering putative UL54-56 coding regions; and (b) SNPs found in only UL54 (DNA polymerase) and UL56 (terminase subunit), with those from UL55 (glycoprotein B) removed due to the high likelihood of selection influencing this gene. Pairwise FST values were visualised in R using ggplot2 [68].

Statistical analyses

A GLMM with binomial distribution was used to determine the influence of DrBHV strain nucleotide diversity, strain range, and number of other strains in the same area on the prevalence of each strain in each geographic group. Nucleotide diversity was calculated for each strain using DnaSP [69] (S1 Text), and strain geographic range was calculated using sp in R [70], as the convex hull area based upon the coordinates of the sample sites in which each strain was found. Strain was used as a random effect. This analysis was repeated on strains defined as above for the most variable 150-bp region of UL54, in order to test the effects on prevalence without the potential influence of selection on UL55 (glycoprotein B). A randomisation test was also carried out, in which tree tips were randomly reassigned location metadata. The GLMM was applied to each random data set to produce a null distribution, which can be found in S2 Data.

The effects of bat age, sex, and the number of locally circulating strains on the number of strains within individual bats were investigated in a Poisson GLMM. Age was modelled as a categorical variable with 2 classes separating adults from younger bats (juveniles and subadults). Group was used as a random effect. All GLMMs were fit using the package lme4 [71] and visualised using the package ggeffects in R [72].

For longitudinal samples, the time between sampling points, bat sex, initial strain richness, and the proportion of local strains available for acquisition were evaluated using a Poisson GLM [71] on the number of strains gained/lost between sampling points. The results of the model were visualised using jtools in R [73]. Haplotype networks of longitudinal samples were created using DnaSP [69] and PopART [74]. Bat age was not tested in this model, as all bats that were longitudinally sampled were adults. Poisson GLMs were checked for overdispersion, and all models were checked for the normality of residuals.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Vampire bat colonies within 10 km sorted into groups.

Map of Peru showing the grouping of sample colonies within 10 km of each other into 17 groups (base map: https://gadm.org/maps/PER.html).

(TIFF)

S2 Fig. Affinity propagation clustering produces 11 clusters of DrBHV.

Plot of the 11 clusters produced by affinity propagation clustering and the similarity of each sequence (yellow = high similarity, dark blue = low similarity). Grey and red bars are used to separate clusters. The dendrogram shows relatedness between the clusters. Data underlying this figure can be found in S6 Data. DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

(TIFF)

S3 Fig. Age determination of HCMV glycoprotein B strains.

Bayesian phylogeny of HCMV glycoprotein B sequences with the age of nodes (million years). Panine herpesvirus 2 used as an outgroup with a set divergence date of 3.8 mya based on the divergence date of host species. Node bars represent 95% highest posterior densities for date estimates. Data underlying this figure can be found in S7 Data. HCMV, human cytomegalovirus.

(TIFF)

S1 Table. Coordinates of sample sites (bat colonies) and corresponding group designations

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Results of GLMMs testing the effects of nucleotide diversity, geographic area, and strain richness on strain prevalence.

GLMM, generalised linear mixed model.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Mantel tests comparing virus and host population structure and geographic determinants.

Comparisons between DrBHV pairwise FST (a) and (b), host MS pairwise FST, and LCD for travel between groups. DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus; LCD, least-cost distance; MS, microsatellite.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. Statistical tests and results of within-host DrBHV analyses.

DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

(XLSX)

S5 Table. Primers used for multiplex amplification of DrBHV.

DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

(XLSX)

S1 Text. Supporting methods and results text.

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Tree file for the DrBHV phylogeny shown in Fig 1.

DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

(TRE)

S2 Data. Prevalence of each strain of DrBHV per geographic group and results of null model statistical tests.

DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

(XLSX)

S3 Data. Distance matrices used to create Fig 3.

(XLSX)

S4 Data. Longitudinal samples strain data used to create Fig 4B and 4C.

(CSV)

S5 Data. Haplotype file for longitudinal samples taken from bat 9626 used to create Fig 4D.

(NEX)

S6 Data. Distance matrix based on DrBHV 150-bp sequences used to create S2 Fig.

DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

(XLSX)

S7 Data. Tree file for the HCMV phylogeny shown in S3 Fig.

HCMV, human cytomegalovirus.

(TRE)

Acknowledgments

We thank Roman Biek, Barbara Marble, Mafalda Viana, and Dan Haydon for their valuable feedback on the manuscript.

Abbreviations

AAC

Apurímac

Ayacucho

and Cusco

AICc

corrected Akaike information criterium

DrBHV

Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus

GLMM

generalised linear mixed model

HCMV

human cytomegalovirus

kbp

kilobase pair

LCD

least-cost distance

MCMV

murine cytomegalovirus

MS

microsatellite

SNP

single nucleotide polymorphism

VTM

virus transport medium

Data Availability

All aligned sequencing read files are available from the Sequence Read Archive (bioproject ID: PRJNA732673). Sample data is available from Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15067884.v1). All other relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

M.E.G. was supported by a Medical Research Council scholarship via the MRC-CVR PhD programme (MC_UU_12014/12) (https://mrc.ukri.org/). D.K.M. was supported by the Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0013/2018) (https://www.hfsp.org/) and the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT, 334795/472296) (https://www.conacyt.mx/). A.d.S.F. and N.S. were supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12014/12; MC_UU_12014/3). D.J.B. was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, (NSF DEB-1601052) (https://www.nsf.gov/), the ARCS Foundation (https://www.arcsfoundation.org/national-homepage), and the Explorer’s Club (https://www.explorers.org/). D.G.S., A.B. and L.M.B. were supported by a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship (217221/Z/19/Z) (https://wellcome.org/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Mähl P, Cliquet F, Guiot A-L, Niin E, Fournials E, Saint-Jean N, et al. Twenty year experience of the oral rabies vaccine SAG2 in wildlife: a global review. Vet Res [Internet] 2014. [cited 2021 Jan 5];45(1). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4423639/ doi: 10.1186/s13567-014-0077-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Maki J, Guiot A-L, Aubert M, Brochier B, Cliquet F, Hanlon CA, et al. Oral vaccination of wildlife using a vaccinia–rabies-glycoprotein recombinant virus vaccine (RABORAL V-RG): a global review. Vet Res [Internet] 2017. [cited 2019 Apr 23];48. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610451/ doi: 10.1186/s13567-017-0459-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Basinski AJ, Varrelman TJ, Smithson MW, May RH, Remien CH, Nuismer SL. Evaluating the promise of recombinant transmissible vaccines. Vaccine 2018. Jan 29;36(5):675–82. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.12.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bull JJ, Smithson MW, Nuismer SL. Transmissible Viral Vaccines. Trends Microbiol 2018. Jan 1;26(1):6–15. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2017.09.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Torres JM, Sánchez C, Ramírez MA, Morales M, Bárcena J, Ferrer J, et al. First field trial of a transmissible recombinant vaccine against myxomatosis and rabbit hemorrhagic disease. Vaccine 2001. Aug 14;19(31):4536–43. doi: 10.1016/s0264-410x(01)00184-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bull JJ. Evolutionary reversion of live viral vaccines: Can genetic engineering subdue it? Virus Evol [Internet]. 2015. Mar 1 [cited 2019 Jan 15];1(1). Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ve/article/1/1/vev005/2568688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sandbrink JB, Watson MC, Hebbeler AM, Esvelt KM. Safety and security concerns regarding transmissible vaccines. Nat Ecol Evol 2021. Apr;5(4):405–6. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01394-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Griffiths ME, Bergner LM, Broos A, Meza DK, Filipe A da S, Davison A, et al. Epidemiology and biology of a herpesvirus in rabies endemic vampire bat populations. Nat Commun 2020. Nov 23;11(1):5951. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19832-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Organization WH . WHO Expert Consultation on Rabies: second report [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2013. [cited 2019 Jun 24]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/85346 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bloom DC, Tran RK, Feller J, Voellmy R. Immunization by Replication-Competent Controlled Herpesvirus Vectors. J Virol [Internet] 2018. Jul 31 [cited 2019 Jun 13];92(16). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6069180/ doi: 10.1128/JVI.00616-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Benavides JA, Valderrama W, Recuenco S, Uieda W, Suzán G, Avila-Flores R, et al. Defining New Pathways to Manage the Ongoing Emergence of Bat Rabies in Latin America. Viruses. 2020. Sep 8;12(9). doi: 10.3390/v12091002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Blackwood JC, Streicker DG, Altizer S, Rohani P. Resolving the roles of immunity, pathogenesis, and immigration for rabies persistence in vampire bats. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013. Dec 17;110(51):20837–42. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308817110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Streicker DG, Fallas González SL, Luconi G, Barrientos RG, Leon B. Phylodynamics reveals extinction–recolonization dynamics underpin apparently endemic vampire bat rabies in Costa Rica. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2019. Oct 9;286 (1912):20191527. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.1527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Trajano E. Movements of Cave Bats in Southeastern Brazil, with Emphasis on the Population Ecology of the Common Vampire Bat, Desmodus rotundus (Chiroptera). Biotropica. 1996;28 (1):121–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wymant C, Hall M, Ratmann O, Bonsall D, Golubchik T, de Cesare M, et al. PHYLOSCANNER: Inferring Transmission from Within- and Between-Host Pathogen Genetic Diversity. Mol Biol Evol 2018. Mar 1;35(3):719–33. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fischer S, Freuling CM, Müller T, Pfaff F, Bodenhofer U, Höper D, et al. Defining objective clusters for rabies virus sequences using affinity propagation clustering. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2018. Jan 22;12(1):e0006182. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sjodin AR, Willig MR. Anthony SJ. Quantitative Delineation of Herpesviruses in Bats for use in Ecological Studies bioRxiv. 2019. Nov;26:856518. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sigwart J. Coalescent Theory: An Introduction. Syst Biol 2009. Feb 1;58(1):162–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hivert V, Leblois R, Petit EJ, Gautier M, Vitalis R. Measuring Genetic Differentiation from Pool-seq Data. Genetics 2018. Sep;210(1):315–30. doi: 10.1534/genetics.118.300900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Inbar S, Cohen P, Yahav T, Privman E. Comparative study of population genomic approaches for mapping colony-level traits. PLoS Comput Biol 2020. Mar 27;16(3):e1007653. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Streicker DG, Winternitz JC, Satterfield DA, Condori-Condori RE, Broos A, Tello C, et al. Host–pathogen evolutionary signatures reveal dynamics and future invasions of vampire bat rabies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016. Sep 27;113(39):10926–31. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1606587113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Campbell AE, Cavanaugh VJ, Slater JS. The salivary glands as a privileged site of cytomegalovirus immune evasion and persistence. Med Microbiol Immunol (Berl) 2008. Jun 1;197(2):205–13. doi: 10.1007/s00430-008-0077-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cohen JI. Herpesvirus latency. J Clin Invest 2020. Jul 1;130(7):3361–9. doi: 10.1172/JCI136225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Goodrum F, Caviness K, Zagallo P. Human Cytomegalovirus Persistence. Cell Microbiol 2012. May;14(5):644–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2012.01774.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shellam GR, Smith L, Gorman S. Chapter 1—Murine Cytomegalovirus and Other Herpesviruses. In: Fox JG, Davisson MT, Quimby FW, Barthold SW, Newcomer CE, Smith AL, editors. The Mouse in Biomedical Research (Second Edition) [Internet]. Burlington: Academic Press; 2007. [cited 2021 Feb 26]. p. 1–48. (American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine). Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123694546500297 doi: 10.2220/biomedres.28.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Poirier EZ, Vignuzzi M. Virus population dynamics during infection. Curr Opin Virol 2017. Apr 1;23:82–7. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2017.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Layman NC, Tuschhoff BM, Nuismer SL. Designing transmissible viral vaccines for evolutionary robustness and maximum efficiency. Virus Evol [Internet]. 2021. Jan 20 [cited 2021 Jul 27];7(1). Available from: doi: 10.1093/ve/veab002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nuismer SL, Basinski A, Bull JJ. Evolution and containment of transmissible recombinant vector vaccines. Evol Appl 2019. Jun 12;12(8):1595–609. doi: 10.1111/eva.12806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cudini J, Roy S, Houldcroft CJ, Bryant JM, Depledge DP, Tutill H, et al. Human cytomegalovirus haplotype reconstruction reveals high diversity due to superinfection and evidence of within-host recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2019. Mar 19;116(12):5693–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1818130116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Suárez NM, Wilkie GS, Hage E, Camiolo S, Holton M, Hughes J, et al. Human Cytomegalovirus Genomes Sequenced Directly From Clinical Material: Variation, Multiple-Strain Infection, Recombination, and Gene Loss. J Infect Dis 2019. Sep 1;220(5):781–91. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Plowright RK, Peel AJ, Streicker DG, Gilbert AT, McCallum H, Wood J, et al. Transmission or Within-Host Dynamics Driving Pulses of Zoonotic Viruses in Reservoir–Host Populations. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2016. Aug 4;10(8):e0004796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ciotti M, Cella E, Rittà M, Ciccozzi M, Cavallo R, Perno CF, et al. Cytomegalovirus Glycoprotein B Genotype Distribution in Italian Transplant Patients. Intervirology. 2017;60 (4):165–70. doi: 10.1159/000486593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Eren Dağlar D, Öngüt G, Çolak D, Özkul A, Mutlu D, Zeytinoğlu A, et al. [Determination of cytomegalovirus glycoprotein B genotypes in different geographical regions and different patient groups in Turkey]. Mikrobiyol Bul 2016. Jan;50(1):53–62. doi: 10.5578/mb.10880 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mujtaba G, Khurshid A, Sharif S, Alam MM, Aamir UB, Shaukat S, et al. Distribution of Cytomegalovirus Genotypes among Neonates Born to Infected Mothers in Islamabad, Pakistan. PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2016. Jul 1 [cited 2020 Jun 22];11(7). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4930188/ doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.White JL, Patel EU, Abraham AG, Grabowski MK, Arav-Boger R, Avery RK, et al. Prevalence, Magnitude, and Genotype Distribution of Urinary Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Shedding Among CMV-Seropositive Children and Adolescents in the United States. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019. Jul;6(7):ofz272. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wu K-G, Hung M-C, Chang Y-T, Chen C-J, Yang S-P, Liu C-Y, et al. Occurrence of human cytomegalovirus glycoprotein B genotypes in immunocompetent and immunosuppressed Taiwanese patients. Intervirology. 2011;54 (4):196–201. doi: 10.1159/000322382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Griffiths P, Baraniak I, Reeves M. The pathogenesis of human cytomegalovirus. J Pathol. 2015;235 (2):288–97. doi: 10.1002/path.4437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Krmpotic A, Bubic I, Polic B, Lucin P, Jonjic S. Pathogenesis of murine cytomegalovirus infection. Microbes Infect 2003. Nov 1;5(13):1263–77. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2003.09.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mani I, Gilbert P, Sankalé J-L, Eisen G, Mboup S, Kanki PJ. Intrapatient Diversity and Its Correlation with Viral Setpoint in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 CRF02_A/G-IbNG Infection. J Virol. 2002;76 (21):10745–55. doi: 10.1128/jvi.76.21.10745-10755.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lord RD, Muradali F, Lazaro L. Age Composition of Vampire Bats (Desmodus rotundus) in Northern Argentina and Southern Brazil. J Mammal 1976. Aug 27;57(3):573–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Barry PA, Deere JD, Yue Y, Chang WWL, Schmidt KA, Wussow F, et al. Cytomegalovirus-vectored vaccines for HIV and other pathogens. AIDS 2020. Mar 1;34(3):335–49. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002396 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Beverley PCL, Ruzsics Z, Hey A, Hutchings C, Boos S, Bolinger B, et al. A Novel Murine Cytomegalovirus Vaccine Vector Protects against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Immunol Author Choice 2014. Sep 1;193(5):2306–16. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1302523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Méndez AC, Rodríguez-Rojas C, Del Val M. Vaccine vectors: the bright side of cytomegalovirus. Med Microbiol Immunol (Berl) [Internet]. 2019. Mar 21 [cited 2019 Jun 13]; Available from: doi: 10.1007/s00430-019-00597-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Khanal S, Fennessey CM, O’Brien SP, Thorpe A, Reid C, Immonen TT, et al. In Vivo Validation of the Viral Barcoding of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus SIVmac239 and the Development of New Barcoded SIV and Subtype B and C Simian-Human Immunodeficiency Viruses. J Virol. 2019. PubMed PMID: Dec 12;94(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bharaj P, Chahar HS, Pandey A, Diddi K, Dar L, Guleria R, et al. Concurrent infections by all four dengue virus serotypes during an outbreak of dengue in 2006 in Delhi, India. Virol J 2008. Jan 9;5(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-5-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Sarkar A, Das D, Ansari S, Chatterjee RP, Mishra L, Basu B, et al. Genotypes of glycoprotein B gene among the Indian symptomatic neonates with congenital CMV infection. BMC Pediatr 2019. Aug 22;19(1):291. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1666-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Walling DM, Edmiston SN, Sixbey JW, Abdel-Hamid M, Resnick L, Raab-Traub N. Coinfection with multiple strains of the Epstein-Barr virus in human immunodeficiency virus-associated hairy leukoplakia. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1992. Jul 15;89(14):6560–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.14.6560 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Garaicoechea L, Miño S, Ciarlet M, Fernández F, Barrandeguy M, Parreño V. Molecular characterization of equine rotaviruses circulating in Argentinean foals during a 17-year surveillance period (1992–2008). Vet Microbiol 2010. Sep 8;148(2–4):150–60. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.08.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Reidy N, Lennon G, Fanning S, Power E, O’Shea H. Molecular characterisation and analysis of bovine rotavirus strains circulating in Ireland 2002–2004. Vet Microbiol 2006. Oct 31;117(2–4):242–7. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2006.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Balmer O, Tanner M. Prevalence and implications of multiple-strain infections. Lancet Infect Dis 2011. Nov 1;11(11):868–78. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70241-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sharp GB, Kawaoka Y, Jones DJ, Bean WJ, Pryor SP, Hinshaw V, et al. Coinfection of wild ducks by influenza A viruses: distribution patterns and biological significance. J Virol 1997. Aug 1;71(8):6128–35. doi: 10.1128/JVI.71.8.6128-6135.1997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Erazo D, Pedersen AB, Gallagher K, Fenton A. Who acquires infection from whom? Estimating herpesvirus transmission rates between wild rodent host groups. Epidemics 2021. Jun 1;35:100451. doi: 10.1016/j.epidem.2021.100451 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Knowles SCL, Fenton A, Pedersen AB. Epidemiology and fitness effects of wood mouse herpesvirus in a natural host population. J Gen Virol. 2012;93 (Pt 11):2447–56. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.044826-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Moreira Marrero L, Botto Nuñez G, Malta L, Delfraro A, Frabasile S. Ecological and Conservation Significance of Herpesvirus Infection in Neotropical Bats. EcoHealth [Internet]. 2021. Jun 28 [cited 2021 Jul 2]; Available from: doi: 10.1007/s10393-021-01530-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Bergner LM, Orton RJ, da Silva Filipe A, Shaw AE, Becker DJ, Tello C, et al. Using noninvasive metagenomics to characterize viral communities from wildlife. Mol Ecol Resour 2019. Jan;19(1):128–43. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Anthony ELP. Age determination in bats. Pp. 47–58. Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats (Kunz TH, ed.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Quick J, Grubaugh ND, Pullan ST, Claro IM, Smith AD, Gangavarapu K, et al. Multiplex PCR method for MinION and Illumina sequencing of Zika and other virus genomes directly from clinical samples. Nat Protoc 2017. Jun;12(6):1261–76. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Andrews Simon. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. 2010; [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnetjournal 2011. May 2;17(1):10–2. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 2012. Apr;9(4):357–9. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinforma Oxf Engl 2009. Aug 15;25(16):2078–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Suchard MA, Lemey P, Baele G, Ayres DL, Drummond AJ, Rambaut A. Bayesian phylogenetic and phylodynamic data integration using BEAST 1.10. Virus Evol [Internet]. 2018. Jun 8 [cited 2019 Mar 19];4(1). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6007674/ doi: 10.1093/ve/vey016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and high-performance computing. Nat Methods 2012. Jul 30;9(8):772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.R Core Team. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing [Internet]. 2014. [cited 2021 May 10]. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Yu G, Smith DK, Zhu H, Guan Y, Lam TT-Y. ggtree: an r package for visualization and annotation of phylogenetic trees with their covariates and other associated data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017;8 (1):28–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Bodenhofer U, Kothmeier A, Hochreiter S. APCluster: an R package for affinity propagation clustering. Bioinformatics 2011. Sep 1;27(17):2463–4. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Li H. A statistical framework for SNP calling, mutation discovery, association mapping and population genetical parameter estimation from sequencing data. Bioinformatics 2011. Nov 1;27(21):2987–93. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis [Internet]. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2009. [cited 2021 Jun 1]. (Use R!). Available from: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387981413 [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Rozas J, Ferrer-Mata A, Sánchez-DelBarrio JC, Guirao-Rico S, Librado P, Ramos-Onsins SE, et al. DnaSP 6: DNA Sequence Polymorphism Analysis of Large Data Sets. Mol Biol Evol 2017. Dec 1;34(12):3299–302. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Bivand RS, Pebesma E, Gómez-Rubio V. Applied Spatial Data Analysis with R [Internet]. 2nd ed. New York: : Springer-Verlag; 2013. [cited 2021 May 10]. (Use R!). Available from: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781461476177 [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015. Oct 7;67(1):1–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Lüdecke D. ggeffects: Tidy Data Frames of Marginal Effects from Regression Models. J Open Source Softw 2018. Jun 29;3(26):772. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Long JacobA. jtools: Analysis and Presentation of Social Scientific Data. 2020; Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=jtools
  • 74.Leigh JW, Bryant D. popart: full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol Evol. 2015;6 (9):1110–6. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Paula Jauregui, PhD

28 Jul 2021

Dear Dr. Griffiths,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Multi-strain dynamics and phylogeographic structure of a candidate viral vector supports the development of a transmissible vaccine for vampire bat rabies" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Jul 30 2021 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, please expect delays in the editorial process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Biology

pjaureguionieva@plos.org

Decision Letter 1

Paula Jauregui, PhD

24 Sep 2021

Dear Dr Griffiths,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Multi-strain dynamics and phylogeographic structure of a candidate viral vector supports the development of a transmissible vaccine for vampire bat rabies" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. Thank you also for your patience as we completed our editorial process, and please accept my apologies for the delay in providing you with our decision. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by two independent reviewers.

You will see that the reviewers find your conclusions interesting and important for the field, however they also raise several concerns that would need to be addressed in order for us to consider the manuscript further for publication. Reviewer 1 mentions a general issue regarding the reliance on a small segment of glycoprotein, which will be important for you to address. Reviewer 2 would like you to clarify several points and to tone down some of the claims made in the abstract.

In light of the reviews (attached below), we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome re-submission of a revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 3 months.

Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point by point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type.

3. Resubmission Checklist

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this resubmission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision and fulfil the editorial requests:

a) *Published Peer Review*

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. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

b) *PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

c) *Blot and Gel Data Policy*

Please provide the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

d) *Blurb*

Please also provide a blurb which (if accepted) will be included in our weekly and monthly Electronic Table of Contents, sent out to readers of PLOS Biology, and may be used to promote your article in social media. The blurb should be about 30-40 words long and is subject to editorial changes. It should, without exaggeration, entice people to read your manuscript. It should not be redundant with the title and should not contain acronyms or abbreviations. For examples, view our author guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-blurb

e) *Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

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

Sincerely,

Ines

--

Ines Alvarez-Garcia, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

ialvarez-garcia@plos.org

on behalf of

Paula Jauregui, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Biology

pjaureguionieva@plos.org

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

Reviewers' comments

Rev. 1:

In this paper, the authors extend their previous work investigating the suitability of Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus (DrBHV) as a vector for a transmissible vaccine targeting rabies in vampire bats. The primary advance of this work over previous results reported by this group (Griffiths et al. 2020) is the substantially increased scope of viral sequencing and the analysis of viral sequences collected from bats that were captured and later recaptured. The increased scope of viral sequencing allows the prevalence of individual strains to be established and the analysis of recaptured animals allows the temporal dynamics of viral infections and super infections to be studied. These are fundamental properties that must be understood in the development of any transmissible vaccine platform. The authors' analyses suggest that individual strains of DrBHV reach locally high prevalence and that superinfection is possible. These are both promising and important results. Although I am generally convinced by the authors' overall conclusions, I do have some questions and concerns about methods the authors use and the robustness of some of the specific claims made throughout. Below, I detail these questions and concerns.

The most obvious limitation of this work is the reliance on a 150 bp segment of a viral glycoprotein. This is a very small proportion of the viral genome that likely experiences strong (and potentially spatially and temporally variable) selection imposed by the host. Because of this, I was not convinced that: A) analyses of Fst for this region tell us much of anything about patterns of viral gene flow among regions, or that B) nucleotide diversity tells us much of anything about the age of a strain. In addition to violations of neutrality, the potential for recombination of this small region onto different viral genomic backgrounds also muddies the water with respect to these conclusions. I would like to see these issues addressed and their potential consequences for the authors' conclusions discussed. For instance, if nucleotide diversity has been shaped by repeated selective sweeps within strains, how would this influence the authors' conclusions?

Figure 1b is a bit challenging to interpret quickly because colors indicate different things in the different panels. Explaining that the different panels in B are each showing one of the strains would help speed interpretation.

Lines 144-147. I appreciate what the authors are trying to do here, but using pairwse Fst as an estimate of viral gene flow is tenuous at best because: 1) Fst depends on population size as well as gene flow and the authors estimates of strain specific prevalence suggest substantial differences in population size, 2) these results are gleaned from a 150bp fragment and so may not be representative of the genome as a whole, and 3) the glycoprotein is likely under selection that potentially varies spatially. I need to be convinced by the authors that this is a robust conclusion, because I currently am not.

Lines 154-157. Does this really show host specificity? What about just general movement corridors used by multiple bat species? This seems consistent with host specificity but not demonstrative of host specificity.

Lines 162-174. "strain age (approximated as relative nucleotide diversity given that the nucleotide diversity of a strain would be expected to increase over time)." This seems extremely speculative and tenuous at best. Nucleotide diversity could be proportional to the age of a strain if evolution is purely neutral. But, even then, does the increase in nucleotide diversity within a strain not also depend on population size? Given the authors demonstration that strain prevalence (and presumably thus population size) varies wildly, is there actually any reason to expect that nucleotide diversity is indicative of age? This would not be true at equilibrium where we know the expected value of nucleotide diversity is equal to 4 * N * mu. Add onto this the very likely existence of selection and my confidence in this analysis becomes quite low. Here, too, I need to be convinced by the authors that this is a robust conclusion, because I currently am not.

Lines 221-226. I do not follow the logic here. The two sentences seem directly contradictory. Specifically, how is this statement "bats with higher initial strain richness acquired fewer additional strains at later time points" consistent with this statement "with strain acquisition dependent on the number of locally available strains, rather than how many an individual is infected with." I must be missing something, but no matter how many times I read these they seem to directly contradict one another.

Lines 260-264. "A major concern with using naturally occurring, innocuous, and host-specific viruses as transmissible vaccine vectors has been that cross-immunity from natural circulation of wild-type ancestors could impede vaccine spread [3]." This is, of course, only part of the challenge. If a TV rapidly dumps its antigenic cargo then it must compete with a genetically identical strain that presumably has the advantage of no longer carrying the antigenic insert. This is obviously not something that can be addressed with a field study, but this should be clearly articulated here to make it clear we have much more to learn about the dynamics of superinfection with genetically identical strains.

Lines 437-439. "Tree prior Coalescent: constant size, and strict clock were used, 1x107 generations run with a sampling frequency of 1000, and a burn-in of 10%." This is way outside my area of expertise, but what are the consequences of assuming a constant population size and clocklike evolution in a case where: 1) the authors argue lineages arise and expand (population size not constant) and 2) the GPC is a strong candidate for periodic selection and decidedly non-clocklike evolution?

In summary, the core results of this work are robust and of broad interest. To the best of my knowledge, this is the most comprehensive study to date of the natural ecology and evolution of a betaherpesvirus that may prove to be a useful vector for a recombinant vector transmissible vaccine. The most important and novel results are the description of strain specific prevalence over space and the demonstration that superinfection appears to occur in individuals that have been studied over time. A weakness of this work, however, is that the authors over-interpret their results with respect to their more elaborate conclusions. I think the work would benefit from focusing on the robustly supported core results and eliminating the speculative conclusions about gene flow, strain dynamics over space and time, and boosting. This is not to say I believe those results are incorrect, just that the results presented here do not provide sufficiently robust support for these conclusions.

Rev. 2:

Griffiths et al. have submitted the manuscript "Multi-strain dynamics and phylogeographic structure of a candidate viral vector supports the development of a transmissible vaccine for vampire bat rabies", which attempts to unravel the phylogeography, host-use and multi-strain dynamics of the Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus (DrBHV) in Peru. The authors overarching aim is to lay necessary groundwork for the potential suitability of DrBHV as a transmissible vaccine (a vaccine vectored by a naturally occurring, avirulent virus) for rabies.

In summary, the authors convincingly demonstrate that DrBHV is genetically heterogeneous, with at least 11 strains (of varying intra-strain heterogeneity) being found to circulate in bat populations across Peru. Strains were found to largely vary according to host population structure as well as elevation. In addition to a considerable prevalence of DrBHV, bats were investigated for multi-strain dynamics, revealing that multiple strains of the virus are often supported by hosts. A small number of bats were also examined chronologically, revealing that infections apparently become cleared or are (re)acquired over the course of a bat's lifetime.

However, the study does not fully evaluate whether the DrBHV system can be effectively exploited as a transmissible vaccine, as several important factors were not directly tested. The authors highlight some of these outstanding gaps in the discussion, which are very much appreciated, but mention of other issues in the discussion would be worthwhile. For example, is there experimental evidence showing that DrBHV is innocuous in bats? (This may be known, but reference to the relevant studies could be given). Can inserts be purged by selection? This could seem to be a potential issue with transmissible vaccines generally. If so, what steps could be taken to prevent insert loss in the DrBHV system? For readers unfamiliar with the topic, consideration of such issues would be useful. The abstract could also benefit from being toned down a bit, e.g. this sentence seems slightly overreaching "Our results catalyse the development of a transmissible, multi-year, self-boosting vaccine targeting the most important source of human and animal rabies in Latin America".

Overall I support the publication of this interesting manuscript. In addition to the above contextual improvements, there are some points that the authors should consider to help clarify the ms.

Major points

The Mantel tests (or their description) seem fairly crucial to the study, but they are slightly difficult to interpret and/or appear at odds with the written text. This may be a misunderstanding on my part, but it could benefit from a bit of clarification. The first test compares "Fst values for DrBHV and host microsatellites, grouped by the Department from which sequences originated". The p-value is close to being significant, but this is not necessarily noteworthy. However, the second mantel test compares either Fst values of DrBHV or bat microsatellites with "least cost distance model outputs". It is not very clear which of the former it is because in the results it reads as though the DrBHV Fsts are used, whereas in the methods, the second test "compare the matrices of microsatellite Fst values grouped by bat colony, with the least cost distance model outputs for travel between colonies". This should be cleared up, and the second test is also highly significant (P=1x10-4) so it is hard to reconcile it/interpret alongside the first mantel test.

From the phylogeny in Fig. 1, it looks like there could be some "singleton" viral sequences that don't fit into the strain categories, e.g. the sequence at the very bottom of the phylogeny, sister to "S1" and a sequence between "S1" and "S2" that appears to be a singleton too. How were these treated, or is it just an issue with the figure graphic formatting?

On a similar theme, can strain divergence levels be somehow validated by comparing against existing full-genome sequences (if available, e.g. from single-strain infected bats)? I imagine this is probably not possible given current data availability, and the authors acknowledge the potential shortcoming of the strain ID in the discussion already, so this may be a moot point.

The precise (lat,long) sampling sites are also not given. This would be useful information for meta-analyses etc. Ditto regarding availability of qPCR data.

Figure 2 analyses of strain age, range and prevalence are also very important to the study, and overall I find the correlations to be convincing. But what is the situation at a closer scale? From the methods (although this is also a little bit unclear), it reads as though there could be multiple sampling locations per group (within a 10km range). Was sampling carried out consistently in different "groups" and are similar patterns of strain prevalence/diversity observable on this finer sampling scale. E.g. wrt strain competition, are strain number and prevalence at individual sampling locations also uncorrelated? I mention it because transmission and competition dynamics might be more meaningful at that scale. Although I must also confess that my knowledge of vampire bat ecology is insufficient to argue this convincingly! Also I fully understand that it may not be possible to test this idea given the study's sampling design, but if it were somehow possible, it might be interesting to look at briefly. More detail about the sampling strategy (sites per group, lat/long locations, distances etc) wouldn't go amiss either.

Fig 2B also appears quite bimodal. What is happening there and can the model account for that?

I am somewhat agnostic about the inclusion of the dated HCMV phylogeny, as the age of the gB4 genotype is scarcely greater than some of the others, e.g. gB3. On the other hand I can also see the reasoning behind the analysis.

Minor points

Line 106 typo "superinfection and the of"

Line 108 typo "vampire bats Peru"

Line 629. Oddly formatted reference 40

Fig 1. A very minor point but the lineages and the geographic locations vary in (very broadly) opposite directions: i.e. uppermost lineages have a more southerly distribution and vice versa. Would be visually nice to reverse that somehow.

Decision Letter 2

Roland G Roberts

7 Feb 2022

Dear Dr Griffiths,

Thank you for submitting your revised Research Article entitled "Multi-strain dynamics and phylogeographic structure of a candidate viral vector supports the development of a transmissible vaccine for vampire bat rabies" for publication in PLOS Biology. I've taken over the handing of your manuscript while my colleague Dr Paula Jauregui is on maternity leave. I have now obtained advice from one of the original reviewers and have discussed their comments with the Academic Editor. 

Based on the reviews, we will probably accept this manuscript for publication, provided you satisfactorily address the remaining points raised by the reviewer. Please also make sure to address the following data and other policy-related requests.

IMPORTANT:

a) Please change your title to something more appealing and explicit. We suggest "Field genomics informs candidate vector selection and deployment strategies of a transmissible vaccine for vampire bat rabies"

b) Please address the remaining requests from reviewer #1.

c) Please address my Data Policy requests below; specifically, we need you to supply the numerical values underlying 1AB, 2ABC, 3ABCD, 4ABCD, S2, S3 (including treefiles). Please also cite the location of the data clearly in each relevant main and supplementary Fig legend, e.g. “Data underlying this Figure can be found in S1 Data”.

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

-  a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

-  a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

-  a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript. 

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information  

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that 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. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. 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 as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

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

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Roli Roberts

Roland G Roberts, PhD,

Senior Editor,

rroberts@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

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

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797 

I note that you supply some raw data in your Figshare deposition; however, we also require the numerical values that underlie the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication. 

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it: 1AB, 2ABC, 3ABCD, 4ABCD, S2, S3 (including treefiles). NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

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

DATA NOT SHOWN?

- Please note that per journal policy, we do not allow the mention of "data not shown", "personal communication", "manuscript in preparation" or other references to data that is not publicly available or contained within this manuscript. Please either remove mention of these data or provide figures presenting the results and the data underlying the figure(s).

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

REVIEWER'S COMMENTS:

Reviewer #1:

The authors have done a very comprehensive job of revising their manuscript and have directly addressed my previous concerns. Including the additional analyses based on pooled full length sequences represents a significant investment by the authors in a thoughtful revision. We still disagree here and there on the strength of some specific conclusions, but this is now more a matter of opinion than anything else. There is just one last substantive issue that had not occurred to me during my original reading but which I can now not quite put to rest. This is the consequences of using affinity propagation to define strains as genetically similar clusters. What is bothering me about this is that it seems it would place a cap on the possible amount of nucleotide diversity that could be found within a "strain" before it is split by the algorithm into a new strain. Thus, only genetically similar sequences could be widespread and prevalent without being split out into separate strains. Could this lead to spurious conclusions about relationships between prevalence, range, and genetic diversity? I don't know the answer here and could be way off base, but it might be worth thinking a bit about what the null relationship should be between nucleotide diversity and prevalence or range when strains are defined as genetically similar clusters. I suspect the correct null is not the absence of a relationship.

Decision Letter 3

Roland G Roberts

21 Feb 2022

Dear Dr Griffiths,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Andrew Read, I'm pleased to say that we can in principle accept your Research Article "Longitudinal deep sequencing informs vector selection and future deployment strategies for transmissible vaccines" for publication in PLOS Biology, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email that will follow this letter and that you will usually receive within 2-3 business days, during which time no action is required from you. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have any requested changes.

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS: We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. 

Sincerely, 

Roli Roberts

Roland G Roberts, PhD 

Senior Editor 

PLOS Biology

rroberts@plos.org

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Vampire bat colonies within 10 km sorted into groups.

    Map of Peru showing the grouping of sample colonies within 10 km of each other into 17 groups (base map: https://gadm.org/maps/PER.html).

    (TIFF)

    S2 Fig. Affinity propagation clustering produces 11 clusters of DrBHV.

    Plot of the 11 clusters produced by affinity propagation clustering and the similarity of each sequence (yellow = high similarity, dark blue = low similarity). Grey and red bars are used to separate clusters. The dendrogram shows relatedness between the clusters. Data underlying this figure can be found in S6 Data. DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

    (TIFF)

    S3 Fig. Age determination of HCMV glycoprotein B strains.

    Bayesian phylogeny of HCMV glycoprotein B sequences with the age of nodes (million years). Panine herpesvirus 2 used as an outgroup with a set divergence date of 3.8 mya based on the divergence date of host species. Node bars represent 95% highest posterior densities for date estimates. Data underlying this figure can be found in S7 Data. HCMV, human cytomegalovirus.

    (TIFF)

    S1 Table. Coordinates of sample sites (bat colonies) and corresponding group designations

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Results of GLMMs testing the effects of nucleotide diversity, geographic area, and strain richness on strain prevalence.

    GLMM, generalised linear mixed model.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Mantel tests comparing virus and host population structure and geographic determinants.

    Comparisons between DrBHV pairwise FST (a) and (b), host MS pairwise FST, and LCD for travel between groups. DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus; LCD, least-cost distance; MS, microsatellite.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. Statistical tests and results of within-host DrBHV analyses.

    DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

    (XLSX)

    S5 Table. Primers used for multiplex amplification of DrBHV.

    DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Text. Supporting methods and results text.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Tree file for the DrBHV phylogeny shown in Fig 1.

    DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

    (TRE)

    S2 Data. Prevalence of each strain of DrBHV per geographic group and results of null model statistical tests.

    DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Data. Distance matrices used to create Fig 3.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Data. Longitudinal samples strain data used to create Fig 4B and 4C.

    (CSV)

    S5 Data. Haplotype file for longitudinal samples taken from bat 9626 used to create Fig 4D.

    (NEX)

    S6 Data. Distance matrix based on DrBHV 150-bp sequences used to create S2 Fig.

    DrBHV, Desmodus rotundus betaherpesvirus.

    (XLSX)

    S7 Data. Tree file for the HCMV phylogeny shown in S3 Fig.

    HCMV, human cytomegalovirus.

    (TRE)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer response 4.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer comments_3.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All aligned sequencing read files are available from the Sequence Read Archive (bioproject ID: PRJNA732673). Sample data is available from Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15067884.v1). All other relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES