Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2022 May 17;18(5):e1010489. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010489

Adaptive immune defense prevents Bartonella persistence upon trans-placental transmission

Lena K Siewert 1,2,¤, Christoph Dehio 1,*,#, Daniel D Pinschewer 2,*,#
Editor: Congli Yuan3
PMCID: PMC9113594  PMID: 35580143

Abstract

Vertical transmission of Bartonella infection has been reported for several mammalian species including mice and humans. Accordingly, it is commonly held that acquired immunological tolerance contributes critically to the high prevalence of Bartonellae in wild-ranging rodent populations. Here we studied an experimental model of Bartonella infection in mice to assess the impact of maternal and newborn immune defense on vertical transmission and bacterial persistence in the offspring, respectively. Congenital infection was frequently observed in B cell-deficient mothers but not in immunocompetent dams, which correlated with a rapid onset of an antibacterial antibody response in infected WT animals. Intriguingly, B cell-deficient offspring with congenital infection exhibited long-term bacteremia whereas B cell-sufficient offspring cleared bacteremia within a few weeks after birth. Clearance of congenital Bartonella infection resulted in immunity against bacterial rechallenge, with the animals mounting Bartonella-neutralizing antibody responses of normal magnitude. These observations reveal a key role for humoral immune defense by the mother and offspring in preventing and eliminating vertical transmission. Moreover, congenital Bartonella infection does not induce humoral immune tolerance but results in anti-bacterial immunity, questioning the contribution of neonatal tolerance to Bartonella prevalence in wild-ranging rodents.

Author summary

Vertical transmission of Bartonella has been reported in small rodents but also in at least one human case. The prevalence of these bacteria in the wild is extremely high. While a protective antibody response clearly controls the infection in the experimental model, observations from the wild indicate that this might not always be the case. This led to the long-standing hypothesis that Bartonella might induce immunological tolerance. To study if transplacental transmission of these bacteria results in immunological tolerance in the offspring, we used a mouse model of Bartonella taylorii infection. We infected wildtype and immunocompromised females (Rag1-/- and μMT) and observed that transmission only occurred in mothers lacking a functional B-cell response. Immunocompetent offspring, however, cleared the infection and were protected from reinfection by the same Bartonella strain due to the presence of protective antibodies. Thus, even though transplacental transmission of Bartonella is possible under the right circumstances, we find no evidence for immunological tolerance or persistent infection in the offspring.

Introduction

Bartonellae are gram-negative, facultative intracellular bacteria, which are transmitted by blood-sucking arthropods [13], establish long-lasting intra-erythrocytic bacteremia and can cause significant human disease [46]. Antibody responses to Bartonella have been reported from infected cats [7], mice [8,9] and humans [1014], and we have recently shown that the clearance of Bartonella bacteremia in mice is accompanied by a neutralizing antibody response preventing bacterial attachment to red blood cells [9]. In contrast, antibody measurements in Bartonella-infected wild-captured rodents detected only low or undetectable genogroup-specific responses [1517], whereas the prevalence of active Bartonella infection in wild-caught rodents can reach 65% [18]. These and related findings [15] led to the hypothesis that infected animals in the wild differ from experimentally infected animals with respect to their Bartonella-specific immune responsiveness. Systems serology studies in Bartonella-infected cats demonstrated, however, that only about 7% of the bacterial proteome is targeted by the host antibody response [19], revealing important limitations of earlier immunoreactivity studies utilizing whole bacterial lysates as antigenic assay substrate [1517]. These few antigenic targets in natural infection were disproportionately localized in the bacterial membrane, which is important in light of recent discoveries on the hypervariability of a key antibody target domain in a Bartonella outer membrane protein [9]. In conjunction with frequent gene transfers by the gene transfer agent (GTA) [20,21] as a source of genetic variability of Bartonella in the wild, these new insights question the utility of genogroup-specific whole bacterial cell lysates for an assessment of Bartonella seroprevalence [15,16].

Specific immunological tolerance in the offspring owing to vertical transmission was proposed as a mechanism of supposedly life-long persistent Bartonella infection [15]. Observations made in the 1930s on immunological tolerance to a virus transmitted in utero [22] have contributed to the formulation of the clonal selection theory, and the experimental validation of the concept by in utero administered allografts culminated in the 1960 Nobel Prize to Burnet and Medawar for the concept of immunological tolerance [23,24]. In light of this it was intriguing that Bartonella spp. could be isolated from embryos and neonates born to captured rodents that carried the bacteria but lacked specific antibodies [15]. Transplacental transmission itself was experimentally validated in a murine model of Bartonella infection, yet was observed to cause fetal loss and resorption, supposedly as a result of the maternal immune response [25]. Analogously to mice, vertical transmission of Bartonella has been reported in a human patient [26] but has not been observed in infected cats [27] or cattle [28].

Here we report that upon vertical transmission only immunocompromised offspring developed persistent bacteremia whereas immunocompetent offspring clear the infection and develop protective immune memory. These data argue against neonatal immunological tolerance as a main mechanism of Bartonella persistence and widespread infection in the wild.

Results

Efficient transplacental B. taylorii transmission in B cell-deficient but not wildtype mice

To investigate transplacental transmission of Bartonella and its outcome in the offspring, we exploited the B. taylorii infection model of C57BL/6 mice. It offers the advantage that further to quantification of bacteremia in blood a bacterial neutralization assay has been developed allowing for the quantification of protective antibodies in the sera of infected mice [9]. To address the possibility that maternal immune defense interfered with bacterial transmission we compared WT mice with gene knock-out mouse strains defective in B cells (μMT) or lacking both T and B cells (Rag1-/-) (Fig 1A). We infected dams with 107 cfu i.d. and mated them ten days later with uninfected males, an experimental setup that has previously been used to study vertical transmission in a murine model of Bartonella infection [25]. This timing of infection relative to mating warranted that the entire gestation occurred in the bacteremic period of WT animals (Fig 1A and 1B). As expected, WT but not B cell deficient dams mounted antibacterially protective erythrocyte adhesion inhibiting (EAI) antibodies [9] in the course of their pregnancy (S1A and S1B Fig). When analyzing embryos on day 18 of gestation (day 28 of the experiment), we failed to detect Bartonellae in any one of the 48 embryos extracted from a total of 7 WT litters, indicating vertical transmission of B. taylorii was highly inefficient in WT animals in this setting and did not lead to a productive transmission of bacteria (Fig 1C and Table 1). In contrast, Bartonella infection was detected in at least one embryo from 6 out of 6 Rag1-/- litters analyzed, with a total of 22 out of 42 embryos culture-positive (Table 1). Similarly, 5 out of 5 μMT litters analyzed by embryo extraction contained at least one infected embryo, with positivity rates within litters ranging from 33.3–71.4%. These differences in vertical transmission rates between WT and immunocompromised mothers suggested that the maternal and/or fetal immune systems can interfere with Bartonella transmission.

Fig 1. Efficient transplacental B. taylorii transmission in B cell-deficient but not wildtype mice.

Fig 1

(A) Schematic overview of the experimental setup for the analysis of extracted embryos (top) and living offspring (bottom). Female WT, Rag1-/- and μMT mice were infected with 107 cfu of B. taylorii i.d. and were mated 10 days later. Embryos were extracted on day 18 of gestation and offspring were evaluated at 5 weeks of age. (B) Bacteremia of WT, Rag1-/- and μMT mice after inoculation with 107 cfu B. taylorii i.d.. Symbols represent the mean ± SD of three mice per group. One representative of three experiments is shown. The time window for pregnancy of WT mice (upon mating on day 10 post infection) is indicated in grey. (C) The percentage of WT, Rag1-/- and μMT offspring harbouring B. taylorii was determined at embryonic day 18 (“extracted embryos”) and at four to five weeks after birth (“4–5 weeks of age”). Numbers above symbols in (C) indicate the percentage of litters containing at least one infected embryo or litter mate, respectively/number of litters assessed. Each symbol represents one litter, horizontal lines indicate the mean. Unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-tests were performed for statistical analysis. Related data are reported in S1 Fig.

Table 1. Transplacental transmission of B. taylorii in B cell-deficient, but not wildtype mice.

Genotype of the mother1 Embryo extraction2
# of analyzed litters % of culture-positive offspring per litter; mean ± SD (range) # of analyzed embryos # of culture-positive embryos # of culture-positive placentae
WT 7 0 ± 0 (0–0) 48 0 18
μMT 5 50.0 ± 15.2 (33.3–71.4) 31 17 25
Rag1-/- 6 59.8 ± 15.3 (25.0–62.5) 42 22 41
Offspring 4–5 weeks of age3
# of analyzed litters % of bacteremic offspring per litter; mean ± SD (range) # of analyzed pups # of bacteremic pups % bacteremic pups
WT 9 0 ± 0 (0–0) 47 0 0
μMT 17 33.3 ± 28.6 (0–100) 54 15 27.8
Rag1-/- 12 34.3 ± 24.7 (0–66.7) 68 12 17.6

1 Dams were infected with 107 cfu B. taylorii i.d. and were mated 10 days later with uninfected males. For the analysis of 4-5-week-old Rag1-/- and μMT offspring, persistently infected Rag1-/- and μMT dams were also mated continuously.

2 Total numbers for extracted embryos and placentae were determined on day 18 of gestation.

3 Living offspring were analyzed at 4-5 weeks of age.

Next we analyzed the living offspring at 4–5 weeks of age (Fig 1C). The percentage of bacteremic μMT offspring per litter was significantly lower than determined for extracted embryos, and an analogous statistical trend was noted for Rag1-/- offspring (Fig 1C). While an average of 50.0% μMT embryos and 59.8% Rag1-/- embryos were culture-positive, only 33.3% of μMT pups and 34.3% of Rag1-/- pups were infected at 4–5 weeks of age, albeit with considerable variation between litters (Fig 1C and Table 1). We noted that litters of infected Rag1-/- dams were significantly larger at the time point of embryo extraction than observed on the day after birth and a similar trend, although not statistically significant (p = 0.1068), was noted for litters of μMT mothers but not for WT controls (S1C and S1D and S1E Fig), which correlated with bacterial transmission in Rag1-/- and μMT, but not WT mice.

Lack of correlation between bacterial burden in maternal blood and embryos

Next we aimed to determine if the bacterial burden in maternal blood and/or the placenta was decisive for vertical Bartonella transmission. In keeping with the kinetics of bacteremia in WT, μMT and Rag1-/- mice (Fig 1B) [8,9], bacterial loads in the blood of μMT females at the time point of mating were similar to WT mice, whereas bacteremia in Rag1-/- females was higher than in the other two groups (Fig 2A). An assessment of bacterial burden in the placenta on day 18 of gestation followed an analogous pattern (Fig 2B and Table 1): 18 out of 48 WT placentae (36.7%) contained detectable bacteria at levels that were in the range of those 25 out of 31 μMT placentae (80.6%) that harbored Bartonella. Bacteria were also detected in all but one Rag1-/- placenta analyzed (41/42, 97.7%), with on average higher bacterial loads than in the placentae of WT and μMT dams (Fig 2B). It seems possible if not likely, however, that this placental bacterial load consisted at least partially in residual maternal blood. While WT embryos remained culture-negative, the bacterial burden of infected Rag1-/- and μMT embryos was in similar ranges despite somewhat differential levels of maternal bacteremia and placental bacterial loads (Fig 2C, compare Fig 2A and 2B). Accordingly, a comparison of maternal bacteremia with placental and embryonic bacterial burden at the level of individual dams and embryos did not evidence a clear quantitative correlation of these three parameters (Fig 2D and 2E), except that all infected embryos had an infected placenta, too. Taken together, these data suggested that maternal bacteremia determined the average bacterial burden in the placenta, whereas maternal antibody responses prevented Bartonella infection of the embryo irrespective of the bacterial load observed in the placenta.

Fig 2. Lack of correlation between bacterial burden in maternal blood, placentae and embryos.

Fig 2

Female WT mice were infected with 107 cfu B. taylorii i.d. and mated with WT partners on day 10 as reported in Fig 1 (the same animals as in Fig 1C are shown). Embryos and placentae were extracted on day 18 of gestation. Female μMT and Rag1-/- mice were infected with B. taylorii 107 cfu i.d. and mated continuously from day 10 onwards with partners of the same genotype. (A) Bacteremia of the mothers at the time point of mating (WT mice) or first mating (μMT and Rag1-/- mice) was determined. (B-C) The amount of cultivatable bacteria from placentae (B) and embryos (C) was also measured. Numbers above symbols in (A-C) indicate the number of bacteria-containing specimes/number of specimens tested. (D-F) The relationship between maternal bacterial blood titer, the bacterial burden in placentae and embryos is depicted for WT (D), μMT (E) and Rag1-/- (F) mothers. All symbols and lines represent individual mice, placentae and embryos, horizontal lines in (A-C) show the mean. Between-group differences were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. Resulting P-values are indicated. Related data are reported in S1 Fig.

Immunocompetent offspring clear vertically transmitted Bartonella infection and develop protective immunity

Next, we aimed to study the immunological outcome in congenitally infected offspring. We mated persistently infected Rag1-/- and μMT females with partners that were either WT or of the respective same genotype. The resulting offspring born to these dams were, therefore, either immunocompetent Rag1+/- and μMT+/- mice or immunocompromised Rag1-/- and μMT-/- animals, respectively (Fig 3A). Analogously to the adult infection of Rag1-/- and μMT-/- mice, vertical transmission to animals of the same genotype resulted in life-long bacteremia (Fig 3B and 3C; compare Fig 1B) [8,9]. Intriguingly, however, immunocompetent heterozygous Rag1+/- and μMT+/- offspring cleared Bartonella infection within 5 to 11 weeks after birth (Fig 3B and 3C). This observation suggested that the offspring’s adaptive immune defense prevented the life-long persistence of vertically transmitted B. taylorii infection in a B cell-dependent manner. With the aim of identifying immunological correlates of anti-Bartonella immunity in vertically transmitted infection we evaluated antibacterial antibody responses of immunocompetent μMT+/- offspring that had been born to bacteremic μMT mothers. We hypothesized that bacteremic offspring mounted protective anti-bacterial B cell responses to control Bartonella infection. To test this, we employed our recently described erythrocyte adhesion inhibition (EAI) assay, which can be used to quantitatively assess protective Bartonella-specific antibody responses in the serum of mice [9]. Low-level serum EAI titers were detected in four out of 21 abacteremic μMT+/- offspring and in none of the 14 littermates exhibiting detectable bacteremia at 4–5 weeks of age (Fig 3D). These findings raised the possibility that vertically transmitted bacteria triggered an antibacterial B cell response that was either weak or not well-maintained, or that our assay system was insufficiently sensitive to consistently detect these responses. Hence, we tested whether congenitally infected offspring, after clearance of B. taylorii, were immune to re-challenge with the pathogen (Fig 3E). Mice that had cleared vertically transmitted infection remained sterile upon challenge whereas all littermates with undetectable bacterial loads after birth developed bacteremia (Fig 3F). One and two weeks post challenge we collected serum to determine EAI titers. At one week after challenge six out of 15 μMT+/- mice with congenital infection and three out of 11 littermates without congenital infection mounted detectable EAI responses. Within two weeks after Bartonella challenge, functional anti-Bartonella antibody responses were detectable in almost all μMT+/- animals, irrespective of postnatal bacteremia (11/11 congenitally infected, 14/15 litter mates; Fig 3G). Taken together these results showed that mice with vertically transmitted B. taylorii infection cleared the bacteria. Moreover, they formed protective immunological memory, which prevented Bartonella bacteremia upon re-challenge. Unimpaired anti-Bartonella antibody responses to bacterial re-exposure indicated further, that animals with congenitally acquired Bartonella infection had not developed durable immunological tolerance to the pathogen.

Fig 3. Immunocompetent offspring clear vertically transmitted Bartonella infection and develop protective immunity to re-infection.

Fig 3

(A) Schematic overview of homozygous (immunocompromized) and heterozygous (immunocompetent) crosses between infected Rag1-/- or μMT dams and uninfected males of the indicated genotypes. Female mice were infected i.d. with 107 cfu of B. taylorii and were mated continuously with either WT, Rag1-/- or μMT-/- males. (B-C) Bacteremia of immunocompetent (μMT+/-, Rag1+/-) and immunocompromised (μMT-/-, Rag1-/-) pups born to Rag1-/- (B) and μMT (C) mothers. (D) The antibody response of immunocompetent μMT +/- offspring at 6 weeks of age was determined by means of an erythrocyte adhesion inhibition (EAI) assay [9], comparing animals with vertically transmitted B. taylorii infection and uninfected litter mates. (E) Schematic overview for the challenge experiment presented in (F-G): Offspring infected with B. taylorii by vertical transmission were re-challenged with with 107 cfu of the same bacterial strain after they had cleared the congenital infection. Litter mates without detectable vertical B. taylorii infection served as controls. Bacteremia (F) and EAI antibody titers (G) were determined at the indicated time points. The data represents pooled results from: (B) 10 animals (4 Rag1-/- and 6 Rag+/-), (C) 13 animals (4 μMT -/- and 9 μMT +/-), (F-G) 26 animals (11 with congenital infection, 15 without congenital infection). Numbers above symbols in (D, G) indicate the number of animals with EAI antibody titers above technical cut-off/number of animals tested. Symbols in (B, C, D, G) show individual mice, data points in (F) represent the mean ± SD of 14 and 8 animals, respectively.

Discussion

This study deciphers the role of the adaptive immune defence in curtailing vertical B. taylorii transmission and bacterial persistence in the infected offspring. Not only does the maternal B cell response restrict transmission but the immunocompetent offspring’s immune defence also clears the infection, protects against reinfection and mounts a functional antibody response upon bacterial re-challenge. It appears, therefore, that counter to earlier assumptions there is no discernible humoral immune tolerance to Bartonella upon in utero transmission.

The concept that antigen exposure in utero or perinatally results in immunological tolerance [23,24] is substantially influenced by early observations from mice congenitally infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) [22] and later has found validation in perinatal hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection of humans [29]. Here we report that immunocompetent mice clear vertically acquired Bartonella infection in a B cell-dependent manner and develop protective immunity against bacterial re-challenge. Acquired immunological tolerance is best validated for the clonal elimination of CD8 T cell precursors in the thymus as elegantly demonstrated in LCMV carrier mice [30], whereas central CD4 T cell tolerance to the same virus seems incomplete [31,32]. Accordingly, neither murine carriers of LCMV nor persistently HBV-infected humans exhibit solid humoral immune tolerance to the viruses they carry, and antiviral antibody formation is commonly observed [3339]. From a purely immunological standpoint the lack of humoral immune tolerance to congenital Bartonella infection may, therefore, largely resemble the situation in congenital LCMV and HBV infections. The main difference may rather consist in the predominantly humoral immune-mediated control of Bartonella infection [8,9], whereas LCMV and HBV can only be eliminated when a potent effector CD8+ T cell response is mounted [40,41]. Perinatally acquired CD8 T cell tolerance may thus result in LCMV and HBV persistence whereas Bartonella is effectively eliminated by the incompletely tolerized humoral arm of the immune system.

The failure to detect antibody responses in wild-captured Bartonella-infected rodents [15,16] and the presence of Bartonella in their embryos and neonates [15] have led to speculations that these bacteria exploit transplacental transmission to cause life-long tolerant infection. As discussed above, our data argue against neonatal tolerance as a mechanism that substantially contributes to the high prevalence of Bartonellosis in wild-ranging rodents. Instead, our earlier reports have documented that Bartonella modulates the host’s innate immune response to its benefit [42] and that antigenic variation of key antibody targets is presumed to facilitate repeated infections of the same rodent host by closely related bacterial strains [9], altogether warranting the evolutionary success of these bacteria in the wild.

Congenital Bartonella infection has been observed in embryos and neonatal mice born to naturally infected, wild-captured white-footed mice and cotton rats [15]. In contrast, an earlier report on a murine model of transplacental Bartonella birtlesii transmission in experimentally infected BALB/c mice described fetal resorptions and a reduced body weight of viable fetuses, which was supposedly due to Bartonella-induced placental vasculitis and resulting placental insufficiency [25]. Unlike for wild-captured white-footed mice [15], however, vertical B. birtlesii transmission in experimentally infected BALB/c mice was limited to fetal resorptions, without any evidence for bacterial transmission to living offspring. In keeping with the latter findings, our study on Bartonella taylorii infection in C57BL/6 mice suggests vertical transmission is restricted to B cell-deficient dams. In contrast to the B. birtlesii infection model in BALB/c mice, however, we did not find any embryos undergoing resorption when dissecting the uteri for extraction of embryos and placentae. While differences in the occurrence and possibly the timing of prenatal lethality may be due to a differential inflammatory response profile of the inbred mouse strains tested [43], we propose that maternal antibodies could interfere with bacteria crossing the placental barrier, similar to the prevention of red blood cell adhesion [9]. Hence, the kinetics of the antibacterial antibody response may contribute to the probability of vertical transmission and its outcome.

We observed that Rag1-/- litters on the day after birth were smaller than at the time point of embryo extraction (E18), and a similar trend, although not statistically significant, was noted for μMT-/- litters but not for WT litters. This finding may indicate that congenital Bartonella infection may negatively impact the offspring’s perinatal fitness. The reduced prevalence of Bartonella bacteremia in 4-5-week-old μMT mice as compared to extracted μMT embryos and an analogous trend in Rag1-/- mice provide independent support for this hypothesis.

Limitations of our study consist in the largely undefined role of maternal and fetal T cells in vertical Bartonella transmission. Higher bacterial loads in Rag1-/- as compared to μMT-/- mothers likely explain a trend towards higher transmission rates in the former and suggest the role of T cells in Bartonella control extends beyond the mere help to B cells. The contribution of individual immunoglobulin isotypes to the prevention of vertical transmission and to the control of bacteremia in the offspring, respectively, have not been addressed by our study either. While the IgM response of activation-induced deaminase- (AID-) deficient mice has been shown to effectively control B. taylorii in adult mice without a need for isotype class switch [9], the ability of IgG to cross the placenta may improve its antibacterial efficacy at the maternal-fetal interface. Last but not least the lack of transplacental Bartonella transmission by WT mothers in our model precluded us from analyzing a potential role of breast milk antibodies in preventing bacteremia in the offspring.

Taken together the present findings demonstrate that B cells represent a dual layer of immune protection against vertical transmission of B. taylorii, and possibly of other Bartonella species, in mice. Maternal B cell responses generally prevent infection of the offspring in utero and, if accidentally overrun, the B cell system of the newborn represents a fail-safe mechanism for the prevention of bacterial persistence during an otherwise immunologically vulnerable period of life.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Animal handling was performed in accordance with the Swiss Animal Protection law and under the auspice of the institutional animal welfare officers. All animal experiments were performed at the University of Basel, with permission by the Veterinary Office of the Canton Basel-Stadt (license 1741_29584).

Cultivation of bacteria

Bartonella taylorii IBS 296 SmR WT (LSB001) [44] and GFP+ (LSB115) [9] were grown at 35°C, 5% CO2 on Columbia blood agar (CBA; Oxoid Cat#CM0331) containing 5% defibrinated sheep blood (Oxoid, Cat#SR0051), 100 μg/ml streptomycin (AppliChem, Cat#A2951) and 10 μg/ml gentamycin (AppliChem, Cat#A11492) if required. Bacteria were streaked as thumbnails for three days followed by a subsequent expansion on a fresh plate for 2 days prior to usage. The B. taylorii IBS 296 strain was used for this study since it readily establishes robust bacteremia in mice and its immunobiology in mice has been thoroughly characterized [9,45]. Moreover, a GFP-expressing variant is available, thereby enabling the functional EIA antibody readout reported in Figs 3G and S1A and S1B. Streptomycin resistance (SmR) encoded by a mutation in rpsL facilitates targeted genetic manipulation [46], but is not expected to impact the bacterium’s behavior or immunobiology in mice, neither does this strain feature any other genetic alterations that are known or expected to bias the results reported in this study.

Animal experimentation

5 week old WT C57Bl/6JRj and Balb/cJRj mice were obtained from Janvier labs, France. Rag1-/- [47] were bred at the Laboratory Animal Science Center (LASC, University of Zurich, Switzerland). μMT mice [48] were obtained from Jackson Laboratories, USA, and a colony was maintained locally at the University of Basel, Switzerland.

Mice were anesthetized with isoflurane to administer 107 cfu B. taylorii i.d. into the ear. At each time point, for which bacteremia is reported in the figures, 50 μl of blood was collected from the tail vein in a sterile manner into 3.8% Na-citrate (Merck, Cat#71497). An interval of at least one week was respected between blood draws, except for the first two weeks after adult infection (reported in Figs 1B and S1A and S1B), during which two weekly blood samples were collected. Blood was frozen at -80°C. After thawing serial dilutions were plated of CBA blood plates containing streptomycin and incubated at 35°C 5% CO2 for 5–7 days.

For embryo extraction, females were mated on day 10 post infection and were monitored daily for plug formation. Embryos and placentae were extracted in a sterile manner on day 18 of gestation. After a collagenase digest (30min at 37°C in 3 mg/ml Collagenase IV (Gibco, Cat#17104019), 2% FCS (Amimed, Cat#2-01F30I) in DMEM (Gibco, Cat#61965), the digested embryos and placentae were pushed through a cell strainer into DMEM containing 10% FCS. Samples were frozen at -80°C for erythrocyte lysis and bacterial release, and after thawing were plated in dilution series on CBA blood plates containing streptomycin and incubated at 35°C, 5% CO2 for 5–7 days.

For the analysis of living offspring, Rag1-/- and μMT females were mated continuously (from day 10 post infection onwards) with either WT, Rag1-/- or μMT males respectively. The offspring were weaned at 3 weeks of age and blood was collected starting at 4–5 weeks of age.

Erythrocyte adhesion inhibition (EAI) assay

The EAI assay was performed as described in detail elsewhere [9]. In brief, erythrocytes obtained from Balb/cJRj mice were purified using a Ficoll gradient (Ficoll-Paque, VWR, Cat#17-1440-02) and were stored for up to 2 weeks in DMEM (Gibco, Cat#61965) containing 10% FCS FCS (Amimed, Cat#2-01F30I) at 4°C prior to use.

Serial dilutions of sera were performed in 96-well U-bottom plates (Greiner, Cat#650161) in DMEM containing 10% FCS. 5x105 cfu B. taylorii expressing GFP were added per well and the plates were incubated at 35°C, 5% CO2 for 1h prior to the addition of 106 red blood cells (multiplicity of infection, MOI = 0.5) in 100 μl DMEM containing 10% FCS. The next day, the supernatant was removed, the red blood cells were fixed using 1% PFA (EMS, Cat#EMS-15710) and 0.2% gluturaldehyde (EMS, Cat#16020) in PBS (BioConcept, Cat#3-05F29-I) for 10 min at 4°C in the dark. After quenching with 2% FCS in PBS, the cells were analysed for GFP signal by Flow Cytometry (BD Canto II using HTS autosampler).

Data analysis

Statistical analysis of the obtained data was performed using GraphPad Prism Software. Student’s t test was used for pair-wise comparisons, one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post-test was performed for the comparison of more than two groups. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, P < 0.01 as highly significant, P ≤ 0.1 was interpreted as a statistical trend.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The antibody response against B. taylorii in adult animals and the size of litters in utero and born to infected dams.

(A-B) We infected female WT (A) and μMT (B) mice and determined bacteremia and erythrocyte adhesion inhibiting (EAI) antibody titers at the indicated time points. The mice and bacteremia curves are the same ones as displayed in Fig 1B. Symbols represent the mean ± SEM of three mice per group. One representative of three experiments is shown. (C-E) We infected WT (C), μMT (D) and Rag1-/- (E) dams with 107 cfu of B. taylorii i.d. and mated them with partners of the same genotype 10 days later (analogously to the experiment in Fig 1). The size of litters was recorded at the time point of embryo extraction on embryonic day 18 (“extracted”) or within 24 h after birth (“after birth”). Symbols in (A-B) show mean ± SD of combined data from two independent experiments with at least three mice per group. (C-E) Each symbol represents an individual litter, horizontal lines and error bars depict the mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed by unpaired Student’s t-test, with P-values indicated in the figure.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Raw data table.

Excel spreadsheet containing, in separate sheets, the underlying numerical data and statistical analysis for Fig panels 1B, 1C, 2B-F, 3B-D, 3F and 4G and S1A-E.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

C.D. was funded by grant 310030B_201273 by the Swiss National Science Foundation; https://www.snf.ch/en. D.D.P was funded by Hans Buss Stiftung, Basel-Stadt, Switzerland. https://www.fundraiso.ch/en/sponsor/hans-buss-stiftung. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Harms A, Dehio C. Intruders below the Radar: Molecular Pathogenesis of Bartonella spp. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25: 42–78. doi: 10.1128/CMR.05009-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chomel BB, Boulouis H-J, Breitschwerdt EB, Kasten RW, Vayssier-Taussat M, Birtles RJ, et al. Ecological fitness and strategies of adaptation of Bartonella species to their hosts and vectors. Vet Res. 2009;40: 29. doi: 10.1051/vetres/2009011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wagner A, Dehio C. Role of distinct type-IV-secretion systems and secreted effector sets in host adaptation by pathogenic Bartonella species. Cell Microbiol. 2019;21: e13004. doi: 10.1111/cmi.13004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Maguiña C, Gotuzzo E. Bartonellosis. New and old. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2000;14: 1–22, vii. doi: 10.1016/s0891-5520(05)70215-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Maguiña C, Guerra H, Ventosilla P. Bartonellosis. Clin Dermatol. 2009;27: 271–280. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2008.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mada PK, Zulfiqar H, Joel Chandranesan AS. Bartonellosis. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430874/ [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kabeya H, Umehara T, Okanishi H, Tasaki I, Kamiya M, Misawa A, et al. Experimental infection of cats with Bartonella henselae resulted in rapid clearance associated with T helper 1 immune responses. Microbes Infect. 2009;11: 716–720. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2009.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Koesling J, Aebischer T, Falch C, Schülein R, Dehio C. Cutting edge: antibody-mediated cessation of hemotropic infection by the intraerythrocytic mouse pathogen Bartonella grahamii. J Immunol. 2001;167: 11–14. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.167.1.11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Siewert LK, Korotaev A, Sedzicki J, Fromm K, Pinschewer DD, Dehio C. The Bartonella autotransporter CFA is a protective antigen and hypervariable target of neutralizing antibodies blocking erythrocyte infection. 2021. Sep p. 2021.09.29.462357. doi: 10.1101/2021.09.29.462357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cáceres-Ríos H, Rodríguez-Tafur J, Bravo-Puccio F, Maguiña-Vargas C, Díaz CS, Ramos DC, et al. Verruga peruana: an infectious endemic angiomatosis. Crit Rev Oncog. 1995;6: 47–56. doi: 10.1615/critrevoncog.v6.i1.40 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Karem KL. Immune aspects of Bartonella. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2000;26: 133–145. doi: 10.1080/10408410008984173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Raoult D, Fournier PE, Drancourt M, Marrie TJ, Etienne J, Cosserat J, et al. Diagnosis of 22 new cases of Bartonella endocarditis. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125: 646–652. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-125-8-199610150-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Spach DH, Koehler JE. Bartonella-associated infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1998;12: 137–155. doi: 10.1016/s0891-5520(05)70414-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Regnery RL, Olson JG, Perkins BA, Bibb W. Serological response to “Rochalimaea henselae” antigen in suspected cat-scratch disease. Lancet. 1992;339: 1443–1445. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92032-b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kosoy MY, Regnery RL, Kosaya OI, Jones DC, Marston EL, Childs JE. Isolation of Bartonella spp. from embryos and neonates of naturally infected rodents. J Wildl Dis. 1998;34: 305–309. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-34.2.305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kosoy M, Mandel E, Green D, Marston E, Jones D, Childs J. Prospective studies of Bartonella of rodents. Part II. Diverse infections in a single rodent community. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2004;4: 296–305. doi: 10.1089/vbz.2004.4.296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kosoy MY, Regnery RL, Tzianabos T, Marston EL, Jones DC, Green D, et al. Distribution, diversity, and host specificity of Bartonella in rodents from the Southeastern United States. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1997;57: 578–588. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1997.57.578 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Špitalská E, Minichová L, Kocianová E, Škultéty Ľ, Mahríková L, Hamšíková Z, et al. Diversity and prevalence of Bartonella species in small mammals from Slovakia, Central Europe. Parasitol Res. 2017;116: 3087–3095. doi: 10.1007/s00436-017-5620-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vigil A, Ortega R, Jain A, Nakajima-Sasaki R, Tan X, Chomel BB, et al. Identification of the feline humoral immune response to Bartonella henselae infection by protein microarray. PLoS One. 2010;5: e11447. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011447 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Québatte M, Dehio C. Bartonella gene transfer agent: Evolution, function, and proposed role in host adaptation. Cell Microbiol. 2019;21: e13068. doi: 10.1111/cmi.13068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Québatte M, Christen M, Harms A, Körner J, Christen B, Dehio C. Gene Transfer Agent Promotes Evolvability within the Fittest Subpopulation of a Bacterial Pathogen. Cell Syst. 2017;4: 611–621.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2017.05.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Traub E. EPIDEMIOLOGY OF LYMPHOCYTIC CHORIOMENINGITIS IN A MOUSE STOCK OBSERVED FOR FOUR YEARS. J Exp Med. 1939;69: 801–817. doi: 10.1084/jem.69.6.801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Billingham RE, Brent L, Medawar PB. Actively acquired tolerance of foreign cells. Nature. 1953;172: 603–606. doi: 10.1038/172603a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Burnet FM, Fenner, Frank. The production of antibodies. Melbourne: Macmillan; 1949. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Boulouis HJ, Barrat F, Bermond D, Bernex F, Thibault D, Heller R, et al. Kinetics of Bartonella birtlesii infection in experimentally infected mice and pathogenic effect on reproductive functions. Infect Immun. 2001;69: 5313–5317. doi: 10.1128/IAI.69.9.5313-5317.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Breitschwerdt EB, Maggi RG, Farmer P, Mascarelli PE. Molecular evidence of perinatal transmission of Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii and Bartonella henselae to a child. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48: 2289–2293. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00326-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Abbott RC, Chomel BB, Kasten RW, Floyd-Hawkins KA, Kikuchi Y, Koehler JE, et al. Experimental and natural infection with Bartonella henselae in domestic cats. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 1997;20: 41–51. doi: 10.1016/s0147-9571(96)00025-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chastant-Maillard S, Boulouis H-J, Reynaud K, Thoumire S, Gandoin C, Bouillin C, et al. Lack of transplacental transmission of Bartonella bovis. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;38: 41–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cimid.2014.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tsai K-N, Kuo C-F, Ou J-HJ. Mechanisms of Hepatitis B Virus Persistence. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26: 33–42. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2017.07.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pircher H, Bürki K, Lang R, Hengartner H, Zinkernagel RM. Tolerance induction in double specific T-cell receptor transgenic mice varies with antigen. Nature. 1989;342: 559–561. doi: 10.1038/342559a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Oxenius A, Bachmann MF, Zinkernagel RM, Hengartner H. Virus-specific MHC-class II-restricted TCR-transgenic mice: effects on humoral and cellular immune responses after viral infection. Eur J Immunol. 1998;28: 390–400. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Beyer M, Abdullah Z, Chemnitz JM, Maisel D, Sander J, Lehmann C, et al. Tumor-necrosis factor impairs CD4(+) T cell-mediated immunological control in chronic viral infection. Nat Immunol. 2016;17: 593–603. doi: 10.1038/ni.3399 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Baker FD, Hotchin J. Slow virus kidney disease of mice. Science. 1967;158: 502–504. doi: 10.1126/science.158.3800.502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hotchin J, Collins DN. GLOMERULONEPHRITIS AND LATE ONSET DISEASE OF MICE FOLLOWING NEONATAL VIRUS INFECTION. Nature. 1964;203: 1357–1359. doi: 10.1038/2031357a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Brown SE, Steward MW, Viola L, Howard CR, Murray-Lyon IM. Chronic liver disease: the detection and characterization of circulating immune complexes. Immunology. 1983;49: 673–683. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rath S, Devey ME. IgG subclass composition of antibodies to HBsAg in circulating immune complexes from patients with hepatitis B virus infections. Clin Exp Immunol. 1988;72: 164–167. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Oldstone MB, Dixon FJ. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis: production of antibody by “tolerant” infected mice. Science. 1967;158: 1193–1195. doi: 10.1126/science.158.3805.1193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Seiler P, Senn BM, Bründler MA, Zinkernagel RM, Hengartner H, Kalinke U. In vivo selection of neutralization-resistant virus variants but no evidence of B cell tolerance in lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus carrier mice expressing a transgenic virus-neutralizing antibody. J Immunol. 1999;162: 4536–4541. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Thomsen AR, Volkert M, Marker O. Different isotype profiles of virus-specific antibodies in acute and persistent lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus infection in mice. Immunology. 1985;55: 213–223. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fung-Leung WP, Schilham MW, Rahemtulla A, Kündig TM, Vollenweider M, Potter J, et al. CD8 is needed for development of cytotoxic T cells but not helper T cells. Cell. 1991;65: 443–449. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(91)90462-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Guidotti LG, Isogawa M, Chisari FV. Host-virus interactions in hepatitis B virus infection. Curr Opin Immunol. 2015;36: 61–66. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2015.06.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sorg I, Schmutz C, Lu Y-Y, Fromm K, Siewert LK, Bögli A, et al. A Bartonella Effector Acts as Signaling Hub for Intrinsic STAT3 Activation to Trigger Anti-inflammatory Responses. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;27: 476–485.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2020.01.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Locksley RM, Scott P. Helper T-cell subsets in mouse leishmaniasis: induction, expansion and effector function. Immunol Today. 1991;12: A58–61. doi: 10.1016/S0167-5699(05)80017-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Harms A, Segers FHID, Quebatte M, Mistl C, Manfredi P, Körner J, et al. Evolutionary Dynamics of Pathoadaptation Revealed by Three Independent Acquisitions of the VirB/D4 Type IV Secretion System in Bartonella. Genome Biol Evol. 2017;9: 761–776. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evx042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Fromm K, Boegli A, Ortelli M, Wagner A, Bohn E, Malmsheimer S, et al. Bartonella taylorii: A model organism for studying Bartonella infection in vitro and in vivo. bioRxiv; 2022. p. 2022.03.11.483615. doi: 10.1101/2022.03.11.483615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Schulein R, Dehio C. The VirB/VirD4 type IV secretion system of Bartonella is essential for establishing intraerythrocytic infection. Mol Microbiol. 2002;46: 1053–1067. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2002.03208.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mombaerts P, Iacomini J, Johnson RS, Herrup K, Tonegawa S, Papaioannou VE. RAG-1-deficient mice have no mature B and T lymphocytes. Cell. 1992;68: 869–877. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90030-g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kitamura D, Roes J, Kühn R, Rajewsky K. A B cell-deficient mouse by targeted disruption of the membrane exon of the immunoglobulin μ chain gene. Nature. 1991;350: 423–426. doi: 10.1038/350423a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nina R Salama, Congli Yuan

2 Mar 2022

Dear Prof. Pinschewer,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Adaptive immune defense prevents Bartonella persistence upon trans-placental transmission" for consideration at PLOS Pathogens. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

While two of the reviewers request only minor clarifications, reviewer 3 has requested further dissection of the immune cells/antibody types contributing to the phenotype. While the experiments in points 1, 2, and 4 would increase impact of the work, they could be addressed in the discussion as limitations of the current work. Point 3 regarding the role of milk IgA in elimination of blood infection in WT offspring, however, should be clarified and can be done with existing reagents.

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 to reviewers for further evaluation.

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

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

Sincerely,

Congli Yuan

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Nina Salama

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

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

Reviewer #1: This study explores the role of humoral immune tolerance versus anti-bacterial immunity in vertical/maternal transmission and persistence of Bartonella in mice. The findings of this study reveal a key role for humoral immune defense by the mother and offspring in preventing and eliminating vertical transmission of Bartonella taylorii in mice. These are interesting and novel contributions to the knowledge of the immune response to Bartonella infections.

The questions explored here are well studied and documented. They are of interest to the Bartonella and bacteriology research community, and within the scope of PLOS Pathogens.

Reviewer #2: State of the art story excluding vertical transmission of B. taylorii in mice.

Reviewer #3: In this work, Siewert et al have investigated the frequency of vertical transmission of Bartonella as a function of the ability to generate Bartonella-neutralizing antibodies of both mothers and their offspring. B-cells and antibodies are shown to be required to limit bacteremia and placental bacterial burden in the mothers on the one hand, and is additionally required to successfully fend off infection in the offspring. The data refute a previous model whereby persistent Bartonella infection was due to immune tolerance to the infection of the offspring. The data are strong and the experiments well controlled.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

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

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

Reviewer #1: None

Reviewer #2: - none -

Reviewer #3: While concise, the data as currently presented could be improved by the addition of a bit more detail on the following aspects:

1. What is the role of T-cells? The consistent difference in bacterial burden and transmission efficacy between Rag1-/- and uMT mice suggests that T-cells have a role as well. What is the phenotype of T-cell deficient mice in this system?

2. Which antibody class is most important in humoral defense? Please use ko's specifically lacking IgG or IgA to address this question.

3. How important are milk antibodies in preventing bacteremia in infected offspring? Swapping of litters from infected to naive dams, depriving the offspring of potentially protective IgA in milk, would address this question.

4. Finally, how effective are antibodies in WT offspring of heterozygous uMT parents at successfully fending off transmission?

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

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

Reviewer #1: L 120 – the word "mating" is more appropriate than "impregnation".

L 153 – "bacterial loads" should be used instead "bacterial titers".

L 246 – should be suggests.

L – 256 – I strongly suggest the authors to add the words "although not significant" after the phrase "and a similar trend". In addition, in line 258 the authors should change to "….and possibly also in µMT-/- mice but not in WT….", as P=0.7209 is not considered significant (although stated by the authors as a trend) – otherwise it might be considered as overestimation of the test results.

L 262-3 – Authors conclude :" Taken together the present findings demonstrate that B cells represent a dual layer of immune protection against vertical transmission of Bartonellae". Authors should be more accurate regarding their findings as their findings are restricted to B. taylorii in mice. I therefore strongly recommend changing the sentence to the following :" Taken together, the present findings demonstrate that B cells represent a dual layer of immune protection against vertical transmission of B. taylorii, and possibly of other Bartonella species, in mice".

L 286 – authors indicate that "blood was collected from the tail vein" – authors should include the time points, frequency of blood collection and how much blood was drawn from each mouse in each time-point. This information is important as it may affect the general health/stress condition of the mice.

L205-6 – the authors wrote :"Not only does the maternal B cell response restrict transmission." This is a fragment that cannot stand by its own. It should be merged with the next sentence in the paragraph.

L 290 – delete the word days.

L 401 – delete the word as.

Reviewer #2: 1. Introduction is too long - please shorten to ~ 66%.

2. line 268-274: please explain: why was a smR mutant used instead of wildtype bacteria? How was this mutant characterized? Are there any other mutations in this particular strain which might artifically influence the experiments?

3. bacterial load was identified by culture from -80°C frozen samples. Although I know that something like this has been published before, I am critical about this procedure. Did the authors compare these data to data obtaind from fresh samples which underwent direct cultivation?

4. Suppl, Fig. 1: Fig. A and B: please give group sizes. Please wrtite out "EAI" as this abbreviation is difficult to find in the text.

Reviewer #3: none

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here on PLOS Biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

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

Decision Letter 1

Nina R Salama, Congli Yuan

1 Apr 2022

Dear Prof. Pinschewer,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Adaptive immune defense prevents Bartonella persistence upon trans-placental transmission' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Congli Yuan

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Nina Salama

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Acceptance letter

Nina R Salama, Congli Yuan

19 Apr 2022

Dear Prof. Pinschewer,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Adaptive immune defense prevents Bartonella persistence upon trans-placental transmission," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

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

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Kasturi Haldar

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-158X

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The antibody response against B. taylorii in adult animals and the size of litters in utero and born to infected dams.

    (A-B) We infected female WT (A) and μMT (B) mice and determined bacteremia and erythrocyte adhesion inhibiting (EAI) antibody titers at the indicated time points. The mice and bacteremia curves are the same ones as displayed in Fig 1B. Symbols represent the mean ± SEM of three mice per group. One representative of three experiments is shown. (C-E) We infected WT (C), μMT (D) and Rag1-/- (E) dams with 107 cfu of B. taylorii i.d. and mated them with partners of the same genotype 10 days later (analogously to the experiment in Fig 1). The size of litters was recorded at the time point of embryo extraction on embryonic day 18 (“extracted”) or within 24 h after birth (“after birth”). Symbols in (A-B) show mean ± SD of combined data from two independent experiments with at least three mice per group. (C-E) Each symbol represents an individual litter, horizontal lines and error bars depict the mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed by unpaired Student’s t-test, with P-values indicated in the figure.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Raw data table.

    Excel spreadsheet containing, in separate sheets, the underlying numerical data and statistical analysis for Fig panels 1B, 1C, 2B-F, 3B-D, 3F and 4G and S1A-E.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Siewert_PLoS_Point-by-point_reply.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES