What, in plant terms, is a cynipid gall?

Cynipid galls include multiple, organized tissue types, and can be considered novel plant organs [59,60]. We tested two existing and mutually compatible hypotheses based on previous work (see Discussion): ‘galls as ectopic food storage organs’, and ‘galls as modified somatic embryos’ (Fig 2A) [59,60]. The first hypothesis stems from the observation that cynipid gall nutritive tissues express biotin carboxylase carrier protein (BCCP) [59,69], a component of the triacylglycerol lipid synthesis pathway associated with lipid food storage in seeds and tubers [59,60,70]. Cynipids could manipulate lipid metabolism to enhance the development of tissues on which the larvae feed, and galls could thus be modelled as ectopic plant food storage organs. The second hypothesis stems from the observation that Early stage cynipid galls display cellular dedifferentiation and rapid cell proliferation [45,59,60], phenomena observed during normal somatic embryogenesis [71]. Cynipid galls may thus also be modelled as developing from ectopic somatic embryos (Fig 2A). We explored the nature of plant-derived gall tissue by transcriptomic analysis, in particular seeking to identify genes and systems typical of storage organs and somatic embryos that were highly (or only) expressed in Early versus later gall tissues, and genes whose trajectory of expression through gall development contrasted with patterns observed in normally developing oak buds.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Patterns of oak, gall wasp and symbiont gene expression expected under alternative hypotheses for cynipid gall development.

A. Oak gene expression patterns predicted under the ectopic food storage organ and somatic embryo hypotheses. B. Alternative hypotheses for the origin(s) and delivery of gall development effectors. C. Alternative possible effectors. In each of A-C, boxed texts summarise expectations for patterns in transcriptome data if the hypotheses are supported (see main text Introduction and Discussion for explanation). The circled ‘S’ within the gall wasp larva represents a possible internal symbiont, such as a virus or bacterium.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008398.g002

What organism induces the B. pallida oak gall?

The observation that cynipid gall development requires a living larva [43,56] could indicate endogenous gall wasp production of effectors required for gall development. However, the same observation could indicate a key role for one or more endosymbionts (viruses, bacteria or other microorganisms [72]) in effector production and/or delivery (Fig 2B). Host plant manipulation by a Wolbachia symbiont has been shown for a leaf mining moth [73], and bacterial symbionts are required for successful gall development in several non-cynipid systems [74–76]. Symbionts can fulfil other crucial roles in gall tissues—for example, the larvae of ambrosia gall midges (Diptera; Cecidomyiidae) feed on fungal symbionts whose spores are inoculated into host plant tissues by the ovipositing female [77,78]. Microbial symbionts could thus be involved in cynipid gall induction, development or physiology. We hypothesised that involvement of coinfecting and gall wasp-transmitted symbionts should be associated with repeatable detection of (i) symbiont genomes in assemblies generated for female gall wasps, and (ii) symbiont transcripts in transcriptomes for relevant gall developmental stages.

We also assessed the potential for gall wasps to use genes derived from viral symbionts to deliver endogenous or symbiont effectors (Fig 2B). Parasitoid wasps export DNA or proteins that suppress insect host immune responses [79,80] by packaging them within virus-like-particles (VLPs) [79,81], the components of which are coded for by viral genes that have been incorporated into the parasitoid genome [80,81]. Leptopilina species in the Figitidae sister group of cynipids use VLPs to deliver host immune-suppressing factors [82], and gall wasps could in principle use a similar delivery system. Involvement of VLPs in signal delivery should be associated with detection of virally-derived genes in the gall wasp genome (as indicated by flanking of putative VLP sequences by unambiguously insect genes and/or presence of introns) and detection of VLP transcripts during gall development.

What processes are involved in gall wasp manipulation of plant development?

Gall wasp larvae remain very small during much of gall growth, and the assumption for over a century [83] has been that they excrete effectors into the liquid medium that surrounds them early in gall development (Fig 1A). Gall wasp larvae have a sealed anus and enlarged salivary glands, making salivary (and potentially also Malpighian tubule) secretions plausible candidates for the source of induction effectors [83,84]. Gall development could be induced through gall wasp (or associated symbiont) manipulation of plant hormone cascades (by secretion of hormone homologues or analogues, or enzymes that modulate host small molecule metabolism), secretion of direct protein regulators of plant developmental processes, and/or secretion of enzymes that change the physiology of plant cells (Fig 2C, and see Discussion). We used gall wasp genomic and larval transcriptome data to identify gall wasp genes with potential to interact directly with plant metabolism, and that were differentially expressed between Early and later gall stages. We also sought to identify parallel expression patterns in oak genes involved in hormone transport, receptors and target systems, and to identify gall-specific processes by comparison of expression trajectories in gall and normal (non-galled) oak tissues.

Which gall wasp genes involved in gall development are novel compared to non-galling sister groups?

We hypothesise that, since diverging from a parasitoid common ancestor shared with their Figitidae sister group approximately 80 million years ago [55], gall wasps will have evolved shared novel traits associated with herbivory and host plant manipulation. We therefore looked for homologues of Biorhiza pallida genes that were highly expressed during gall development in the genomes of exemplar species in six additional gall-inducing cynipid tribes and two species of non-galling parasitoid Figitidae. Our rationale is that genes that are highly expressed during gall development and shared by gall wasps but absent from their parasitoid sister groups represent candidates for evolutionary innovations associated with a gall-inducing lifestyle.

We show that while gall tissues of the sexual generation of Biorhiza pallida share some similarities with normally developing buds, patterns of oak gene expression show consistent differences between these two structures. We find no evidence for involvement of known symbionts in cynipid gall induction, or for export of gall wasp gene products in virus-like particles. We find the Biorhiza pallida genome to encode a suite a plant cell wall degrading enzymes, including cellulases, that are expressed at various points through gall development. These genes are shared with a phylogenetically diverse panel of gall wasps but are absent from non-galling sister groups, suggesting that they are shared evolutionary novelties associated with a gall inducing life history. Finally, we develop a hypothesis for chitinase-mediated gall wasp modification of plant arabinogalactan molecules during gall development.

Generation of RNA-seq datasets for B. pallida galls and ungalled oak buds

We performed dual-RNA-seq [85] on four biologically independent replicates for each of Early, Growth and Mature stage galls (Fig 1; S1 Fig) and also for each of five of the six developmental stages of normally-developing ungalled pedunculate oak (Q. robur) buds from dormant buds (S0) through bud expansion (S1, S3, S4) to fully-opened leaves (S5) [47,67] (Fig 1G). Raw Illumina Hi-Seq data have been deposited in ENA under BioProjects PRJEB13357, PRJEB13424, and PRJEB32849. Detailed descriptions of sequence data processing are provided in Materials and Methods.

We generated a co-assembly of all the gall and non-gall RNA-seq data and then separated and filtered genes (component groups in TRINITY terminology) by taxonomic origin to identify transcripts deriving from oak, gall wasp, parasitoid, viral and fungal origins. We used a genomic approach to seek potential bacterial symbionts as the poly-A selection protocol we used is unlikely to detect bacterial transcripts (see below). The combined assembly spanned 592 megabases (Mb) in 773,991 transcripts with an N50 of 1,145 bases. Further filtering to remove ribosomal RNA sequences and retain only transcripts encoding an open reading frame resulted in a much reduced dataset, comprising 50,708 gall wasp transcripts corresponding to 24,916 genes and 178,522 oak transcripts corresponding to 53,529 genes (Table 1). Removing low-expression genes in DESeq2 (see Methods) retained 19,720 gall wasp genes and 42,926 oak genes in gall tissues, and 48,756 oak genes for normally developing oak bud tissues considered by each analysis. As we would expect given the increasing size of the gall wasp larvae, the proportion of gall wasp-derived reads in the entire gall transcriptome (the 'cecidome' [86]) rose from 2.3–4.0% in Early stage galls to 2.9–6.8% and 18–42% in Growth and Mature stages, respectively (Table 2). Oak and gall wasp transcripts comprised 78.6–99.6% of the total across the 12 gall replicates (Table 2). All galls yielded parasitoid-associated transcripts, with the lowest load in Early stage galls (Table 2, S2 Table). Viral and fungal sequences (considered further below) made up 0.1–8.2% and 0–5.3% of transcripts, respectively (Table 2).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Assembly metrics for the separated gall wasp (Biorhiza pallida) and oak bud plus gall tissue (Quercus robur) transcriptomes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008398.t001

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Taxonomic assignments of gall dual-RNA-Seq reads, by stage and replicate (1–12), expressed as a % of the total mapped read set.

Full read counts and additional taxonomic sub-categorisations are provided in S1 and S2 Tables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008398.t002

Gall wasp and oak genes show consistent patterns of stage-specific expression in Biorhiza pallida galls

Both gall wasp genes (Fig 3A) and oak genes (Fig 3B) in gall tissues showed largely consistent expression patterns across replicates within a given gall developmental stage. Gall stage accounted for 82% of variance in gall wasp gene expression and 50% of variance in oak gene expression. All gall wasp and oak genes showing differential expression between gall developmental stages at a log₂-fold change of plus or minus one are listed in S8 and S9 Files, respectively. The numbers of gall wasp genes differentially expressed at more than our ±1-fold log₂ difference threshold between Early and later stages increased during gall development, from 79 between Early and Growth stages to 371 between Early and Mature stages and 249 between Growth and Mature stages (Table 3). Differentially expressed gall wasp genes showed a strong bias towards higher expression in the younger gall stage in all between-stage comparisons (Table 3).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Overall similarity in patterns of gene expression within and among developmental stages of B. pallida galls and normally developing oak buds.

Principle component analysis in DESeq2 of (A) gall wasp genes in gall tissues, (B) oak genes in gall tissues, and (C) oak genes in normal (ungalled) bud tissues. X-axes correspond to principle component one and y-axes to principle component two, and axis labels give the percentage of variance these axes explain in each analysis. The colour legend for each stage is given in the bottom-right quadrant. For both gall wasp and oak genes in gall samples, biologically independent replicates for the same developmental stage cluster together. Growth and Mature stage tissues are more similar for host oak tissues than they are for larval gall wasp expression. Stages S0-S4 of normally developing buds show incomplete differentiation by stage, while mature leaf tissues (S5) are clearly distinct from all earlier stages. Lack of clear separation between stages S0-S4 is maintained if S5 replicates are removed from the analysis (S2 Fig).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008398.g003

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Counts of gall wasp and oak genes differentially expressed (DE) in gall tissues.

Host oak tissues are further summarised into the numbers of genes DE between gall stages that were not differentially expressed between any stages in normal bud development.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008398.t003

Numbers of oak genes differentially expressed between gall stages showed a somewhat contrasting pattern to gall wasp genes, with high numbers differentially expressed between Early stage galls and each of Growth (1,293) and Mature (1,890) stages, but only 98 between Growth and Mature stages (Table 3). Also in contrast to gall wasp genes, differentially expressed oak genes in gall tissues showed no consistent bias towards higher expression in younger gall tissues (Table 3).

Oak gene expression in normally developing tissues shows partial differentiation between bud stages and strong differentiation between buds and leaves

Developmental stage explained 32% of the variance in oak gene expression in normally developing buds. In comparison to gall tissues, much lower relative numbers of transcripts from normal bud samples were identified as viral or fungal in origin (S3 Table). All oak genes showing differential expression between stages in normal bud development at a log₂-fold change of plus or minus one are listed in S10 File. Only small numbers were differentially expressed between bud stages S0, S1, S3 and S4 (1–31 genes, depending on the stages compared; Table 4), and gene expression patterns of these stages were incompletely separated (Fig 3C). In contrast, many genes (4,418) were differentially expressed between normal bud stage S4 and open leaves stage S5 (Table 4), and leaf tissues were clearly distinct from all earlier bud stages (Fig 3C). Lack of clear separation between bud stages S0-S4 was maintained if S5 replicates were removed from the analysis (S2 Fig). When data for bud stages S0-S4 were combined into a single bud developmental category (supported by lack of differential expression and overlapping PCA results, Fig 3C) the number of genes differentially expressed between bud stages S0-S4 and open leaves stage S5 rose to 4,981 (Table 4). In conclusion, identification of oak genes showing similar (or contrasting) trajectories of differential expression in gall and normal bud tissues thus primarily involves identifying those showing similar directions of differential expression between Early versus Growth or Mature gall stages, and between S4 buds and S5 leaves.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Counts of gall wasp and oak genes differentially expressed (DE) in normally developing bud developmental stages.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008398.t004

Functional annotation of gall wasp and oak genes expressed during gall and normal bud development

Functional annotation of the gall wasp larval transcriptome was significantly poorer than for oak genes expressed in gall tissues, at 44% genes annotated versus 66% respectively. The subset of B. pallida genes differentially expressed between gall stages was more poorly annotated than the gall wasp transcriptome as a whole: functional annotations were identified for only 29% (22/75) of gall wasp genes more highly expressed in Early galls versus Growth and Mature stages, and none of the top five most highly expressed of these genes were annotated. Functional interpretation of changing gall wasp gene expression thus includes only a small proportion of the differentially expressed genes. In contrast, 89% (8225/9229) of differentially expressed oak genes for all contrasts in gall tissues and in normal buds were functionally annotated, allowing better-informed comparison of expression patterns in these two structures.

Galled and ungalled buds show diverging patterns of oak gene expression during development

To compare galled and normal oak bud tissues, we identified oak genes and GO terms in gall and normal bud tissues showing similar or contrasting trajectories of expression during development of their respective tissues. A striking feature of our results is that most of the genes differentially expressed during gall development were not differentially expressed in normally developing bud tissues, and vice versa. The extent of overlap in differentially expressed oak genes declined during development of gall and normal bud development, compatible with increasing divergence between galler-induced and normal developmental trajectories.

Few genes were differentially expressed between normal bud stages S0–S4 (Table 3) and only five were differentially expressed in both gall and normal bud tissues (S4 Table). Four showed parallel expression trajectories of increasing expression through development of which two are unannotated (TRINITY_DN48733_c0_g1 and TRINITY_DN82248_c2_g1); one is a glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (TRINITY_DN55651_c1_g1) and one a cytochrome P450 (TRINITY_DN80279_c2_g1). Only one gene, a galacturonosyltransferase-like 10 (TRINITY_DN65887_c0_g1), showed increasing expression during gall development but decreasing expression during development of normal buds. Of the >4400 oak genes differentially expressed between normal bud stage S4 and fully opened leaves S5 (Table 4), 8.9–23.3% showed similar patterns of increasing or decreasing differential expression in gall tissues, depending on the direction of change and gall stages compared (Fig 4, S4 Table). Broadly similar numbers of shared differentially expressed genes were identified when expression in normal buds was compared with expression in either Early versus Growth or Early versus Mature stage galls (Fig 4). Much smaller numbers of oak genes (0.5–3.6% of those differentially expressed between S4 and S5 during normal bud development) showed contrasting trajectories of differential expression in normal bud and gall tissues. For example, only 10 of the 2108 genes (0.5%) that showed a significant increase in expression between normal bud stage S4 and fully open leaves S5 also showed a significant decrease in expression between Early and Mature stage galls. Shared differentially expressed genes comprised a higher percentage of all genes differentially expressed in gall tissues than normal oak buds (S4 Table).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 4. Venn diagrams of numbers of oak genes that were differentially expressed in each, and both, of gall and normal bud tissues.

Venn diagrams are shown for genes that are up- or down-regulated in the earlier stage of each comparison as for Tables 3 and 4. Red numbers are the number of genes unique to that contrast, relative to ungalled buds for gall tissues, and relative to gall tissues for ungalled buds. Purple numbers show genes that are differentially expressed in the same direction in both galled and ungalled buds. For example, there are 311 genes that are upregulated in Early versus Growth stage galls and also in ungalled buds between S4 buds versus S5 leaves. Blue and green numbers are for genes with contrasting expression trajectories in gall tissues versus ungalled buds: blue numbers count genes that are upregulated in Early versus later stage galls but downregulated in S4 buds versus S5 leaves, while and green numbers count genes that are downregulated in Early stage galls but upregulated in ungalled S4 buds. These data are also given in S4 Table.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008398.g004

To compare metabolism and development of gall and normal oak tissues, we identified oak GO terms with similar and contrasting trajectories of differential expression between gall developmental stages and between S4 bud and S5 leaf stages in normal bud development (Figs 4 and 5). Biological process (BP) and molecular function (MF) GO terms that were differentially expressed only during gall development are listed in S7 and S8 Tables, while those that showed similar patterns of differentially expression in both tissues (i.e. increasing in both or decreasing in both) are listed in S9 and S10 Tables. Biological process (BP) and molecular function (MF) GO terms that were differentially expressed during normal bud development are listed in S11 and S12 Tables.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 5. REVIGO scatter plots of enriched biological process GO terms for oak genes expressed during development of galled and normal oak bud tissues.

A: GO terms that were upregulated only in Early versus Growth stage gall tissues, and not in comparisons between any normal (ungalled) bud stages. B: GO terms that were upregulated both in Early versus Growth stage gall tissues and in normal buds (S4) versus open leaves (S5). C: GO terms that were downregulated only in Early versus Growth stage gall tissues, and not in comparisons between any normal (ungalled) bud stages. D: GO terms that were downregulated both in Early versus Growth stage gall tissues and in normal buds (S4) versus open leaves (S5). Circle size is scaled by–log₁₀ of the enrichment p-value with scales inset next to each plot. Groups of GO terms are coloured by cluster as classified by REVIGO treemaps (S3 Fig). There are fewer GO terms than for the equivalent TopGO comparisons as REVIGO reduced the redundancy in enriched GO terms. Numbers in the figures refer to the following GO terms and reference numbers: 1 = response to brassinosteroid (GO:0009741), 2 = cutin biosynthetic process (GO:0010143), 3 = thymidine metabolic process (GO:0046104), 4 = leaf vascular tissue pattern formation (GO:0010305), 5 = cellulose catabolic process (GO:0030245), 6 = asymmetric cell division (GO:0008356), 7 = wax biosynthetic process (GO:0010025), 8 = lignan biosynthetic process (GO:0009807), 9 = regulation of organ growth (GO:0046620), 10 = guard cell differentiation (GO:0010052), 11 = fatty acid metabolic process (GO:0006631), 12 = auxin-activated signalling pathway (GO:0009734), 13 = regulation of seed germination (GO:0010029), 14 = cytokinin-activated signalling pathway (GO:0009736), 15 = lipid catabolic process (GO:0016042), 16 = plant-type secondary cell wall biogenesis (GO:0009834), 17 = response to zinc ion (GO:0010043), 18 = gibberellic acid homeostasis (GO:0010336), 19 = chorismate biosynthetic process (GO:0009423), 20 = L-glutamate import across plasma membrane (GO:0098712), 21 = fruit ripening (GO:0009835), 22 = carbohydrate metabolic process (GO:0005975), 23 = proteolysis (GO:0006508), 24 = response to osmotic stress (GO:0006970), 25 = wound healing (GO:0042060), 26 = oxidation-reduction process (GO:0055114), 27 = response to herbicide (GO:0009635), 28 = regeneration (GO:0031099), 29 = response to biotic stimulus (GO:0009607), 30 = lignin biosynthetic process (GO:0009809), 31 = one-carbon metabolic process (GO:0006730), 32 = S-adenosylhomocysteine catabolic process (GO:0019510), 33 = shikimate metabolic process (GO:0019632), 34 = UDP-N-acetylglucosamine biosynthetic process (GO:0006048), 35 = ether metabolic process (GO:0018904), 36 = nitrate assimilation (GO:0042128), 37 = S-adenosylmethionine biosynthetic process (GO:0006556), 38 = sodium ion homeostasis (GO:0055078), 39 = mucilage biosynthetic process involved in seed coat development (GO:0048354), 40 = aromatic amino acid family biosynthetic process (GO:0009073), 41 = gluconeogenesis (GO:0006094), 42 = ureide catabolic process (GO:0010136), 43 = uracil catabolic process (GO:0006212), 44 = oxidative phosphorylation (GO:0006119), 45 = response to water deprivation (GO:0009414), 46 = beta-alanine biosynthetic process (GO:0019483), 47 = glucuronoxylan biosynthetic process (GO:0010417), 48 = cell wall organization (GO:0071555), 49 = developmental process (GO:0032502), 50 = cell division (GO:0051301), 51 = positive regulation of mitotic recombination (GO:0045951), 52 = cellular response to gamma radiation (GO:0071480), 53 = cortical cytoskeleton organization (GO:0030865), 54 = cell proliferation (GO:0008283), 55 = guard mother cell differentiation (GO:0010444), 56 = cytokinesis by cell plate formation (GO:0000911), 57 = microtubule-based movement (GO:0007018), 58 = microtubule-based process (GO:0007017), 59 = thigmotropism (GO:0009652), 60 = stomatal complex patterning (GO:0010375), 61 = cell cycle (GO:0007049), 62 = regulation of transcription, DNA-templated (GO:0006355), 63 = cotyledon development (GO:0048825), 64 = positive regulation of ubiquitin protein ligase activity (GO:1904668), 65 = positive regulation of anthocyanin metabolic process (GO:0031539), 66 = maintenance of floral organ identity (GO:0048497), 67 = positive regulation of cell proliferation (GO:0008284), 68 = epidermal cell fate specification (GO:0009957), 69 = endosperm development (GO:0009960), 70 = anastral spindle assembly involved in male meiosis (GO:0009971), 71 = DNA endoreduplication (GO:0042023), 72 = trichome branching (GO:0010091), 73 = mitotic spindle assembly checkpoint (GO:0007094), 74 = meiotic cell cycle (GO:0051321), 75 = phragmoplast microtubule organization (GO:0080175), 76 = polarity specification of adaxial/abaxial axis (GO:0009944), 77 = plant-type secondary cell wall biogenesis (GO:0009834), 78 = response to nitrate (GO:0010167), 79 = plasmodesmata-mediated intercellular transport (GO:0010497), 80 = lignin biosynthetic process (GO:0009809), 81 = catabolic process (GO:0009056), 82 = fruit dehiscence (GO:0010047), 83 = aging (GO:0007568), 84 = cellular response to salt stress (GO:0071472), 85 = S-adenosylmethionine biosynthetic process (GO:0006556), 86 = ethylene biosynthetic process (GO:0009693), 87 = regulation of salicylic acid metabolic process (GO:0010337), 88 = 3'-UTR-mediated mRNA destabilization (GO:0061158), 89 = nitrate transport (GO:0015706), 90 = oxidation-reduction process (GO:0055114), 91 = fruit ripening (GO:0009835), 92 = glycine catabolic process (GO:0006546), 93 = nitrate assimilation (GO:0042128), 94 = oligopeptide transport (GO:0006857), 95 = glucuronoxylan biosynthetic process (GO:0010417), 96 = cell wall organization (GO:0071555).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008398.g005

Biological process GO terms showing similar expression trajectories in gall tissues and normal buds. Forty-seven biological process GO terms showed significantly higher expression in Early versus Growth stage galls and in normally developing S4 buds versus S5 leaves (S9 Table). These were grouped into 5 metabolic clusters by REVIGO treemap analysis (Fig 5B). As we might expect given rapid growth of both structures, GO terms elevated early in development of both galls and normal buds included many terms for cell division, cell cycle and proliferation (Fig 5B. 19/47 GO terms identified by orange circles) including DNA replication and endoreduplication/ regulation of DNA replication. Twenty-three biological GO term processes showed significantly higher expression in Growth versus Early stage galls and in normally developing S5 leaves versus S4 buds (S9 Table). These were grouped into seven metabolic clusters by REVIGO treemap analysis (Fig 5D), comprising processes associated with aging, catabolism, fruit dehiscence, lignin biosynthesis, secondary plant cell wall biogenesis, intercellular transport and response to nitrate. Fifteen of the same GO terms were shared with the 26 upregulated in Mature versus Early stage galls (S9 Table).

Biological process GO terms showing contrasting expression trajectories in gall tissues and normal buds. Fifteen biological process GO terms were upregulated in Early versus Growth stage galls, but not differentially expressed between any stages in normal bud development (S7 Table). These were grouped by REVIGO treemap analysis into 5 clusters of linked metabolic processes: response to brassinosteroid, leaf vascular tissue pattern formation, thymidine metabolism, cellulose catabolism and cutin biosynthesis (Fig 5A). Forty-five GO term processes were upregulated in Growth versus Early stage galls, but not differentially expressed between any stages in normal bud development (S7 Table). These were grouped into seven metabolic clusters by REVIGO treemap analysis (Fig 5C), comprising processes associated with carbohydrate metabolism, chorismate biosynthesis, fruit ripening, gibberellic acid homeostasis, L-glutamate transport, secondary plant cell wall biogenesis and response to Zinc ions. Fourteen of the same GO terms were shared with the 30 upregulated in Mature versus Early stage galls (S7 Table).

Our data thus suggest that galls of Biorhiza pallida share many metabolic and developmental characteristics with normally developing buds, but also that some genes show contrasting trajectories of differential expression between these tissues. Most genes that are differentially expressed between stages in gall development are also constitutively highly expressed in buds throughout development (S22 Table, mean expression of genes that are DE in galls but not buds for both experiments). In Early galls versus Growth this includes an endogenous endoglucanase and polygalacturonase (TRINITY_DN75537_c1_g1 and TRINITY_DN75938_c0_g1).

Further, many genes that are differentially expressed through gall development are not differentially expressed between any stages in normal leaf bud development. Similarity in oak gene expression patterns between gall tissues and normal buds declined as these tissues develop.

Patterns in the expression of oak genes associated with alternative hypotheses for gall development

We compared expression patterns in galled and normally developing buds for specific candidate oak genes (S6 Table) relevant to alternative hypotheses of gall development.

1. BCCP. The 'galls as ectopic food storage organs' hypothesis predicts high expression of the acetyl CoA component BCCP during development of nutritive tissues in Early and Growth stage galls relative to Mature stage galls (in which nutritive tissues have been entirely consumed). In contrast to this prediction, we found no differential expression of BCCP across developmental stages of either gall tissues or normally developing buds, and two of five expressed copies were expressed highly in all gall and normal bud stages sampled (S6 Table).
2. ENOD genes. The ‘galls as modified somatic embryos’ hypothesis predicts high expression of ENOD genes early in gall development. We found three genes coding for ENOD proteins containing phytocyanin domains to be significantly overexpressed in Early versus Growth stage galls. Of these, two were highly expressed in absolute terms (S6 Table), and were also expressed in normal bud tissues. One showed increasing expression during development of both gall tissues and normal buds (S4 to S5), while the second was not differentially expressed between any normal bud stages. These two proteins are present in eleven GO term gene groups that are enriched in Early versus later stage galls, including terms for cytokinesis, histone phosphorylation, anaphase, cell division and cell cycle. These data are compatible with a potential role for ENOD genes early in gall development.
3. Oak chitinases. Chitinases can protect plant tissues against fungal attack, and are also involved in release of arabinogalactan signalling molecules from the phytocyanin-containing ENOD proteins considered above. The latter mechanism could be involved in gall development through action of one or both of gall wasp or oak chitinases. Numerous oak chitinases were expressed throughout development of galled and normally developing buds. The two most highly expressed chitinases were concordantly differentially and more highly expressed in mature galls (Mature > Growth and Early stages) and in older normal bud tissues (S5 > S4). Similar late stage host-plant chitinase expression was also observed in chestnut gall tissues attacked by another cynipid, Dryocosmus kuriphilus [87].
4. Plant hormone-associated genes. Many auxin-related genes were expressed in B. pallida galls (n = 115) and in normally developing buds (118), and most (110) were expressed in both tissue types (S2–S4 Files and S8–S10 Files for annotations and significant genes respectively). Some genes expressed in galls and normal buds, including Auxin responsive factor 5 and Auxin responsive factor 9, showed similar differential and higher expression in Early versus Growth galls, and in normal buds (S0-4) versus leaves S5. Oak calreticulins [88] were highly expressed in all stages of gall and normal bud tissues without differential overexpression. There was also no differential expression through development in gall or normal bud tissues of the jasmonic acid-amido synthetase (JAR1) gene, which is required by the jasmonic acid mediated signalling pathway, although the gene is expressed in all stages of bud and gall development. We detected no expression in gall or normal bud tissues of homologues of the key cytokinin transporter purine permease PUP14 [89]. Ungalled Leaves (S5) and Growth stage galls both showed higher expression of the same aldehyde oxidase gene [90] than buds (S4) and Early stage galls, respectively.

However, several genes relevant to plant hormone signalling showed differential expression through development of galls but not normal buds. Early stage galls showed elevated expression of an auxin-related gene, auxin-responsive protein IAA13 (a transcription factor involved in regulation of gene responses to auxin [91]), and a cytokinin-related gene, histidine kinase cytokinin receptor (histidine kinase 5). Histidine kinase 5 fulfils a range of roles in Arabidopsis, including regulation of growth via the ethylene pathway [92], stomatal opening, and defence against pathogens [93]. Two flavin-dependent monooxygenase (FMO) [94] genes that were distinct from those differentially expressed during normal bud development were more highly expressed in Growth stage galls than in either Early or Mature stages. FMOs are involved in a range of processes in plant metabolism including synthesis of auxin (IAA), processing of glucosinolates, and defence against pathogens [95].

No demonstrated role for Symbionts and virus-like-particles in cynipid gall development

If symbiotic micro-organisms, viruses and/or virus-like particles (VLPs) play a fundamental role in cynipid gall induction, we expect to detect symbiont genomes and/or VLP coding sequence in assemblies generated from gall wasp genomic DNA libraries, and (with the exception of prokaryotes given our sequencing methodology) associated gall wasp larval gene expression.

We identified a supergroup A and B Wolbachia endosymbiont respectively in the de novo genome assemblies for B. pallida and the rose gall wasp D. spinosa (S13 Table). However, we found no bacterial or fungal symbiont genomes in any other gall inducing cynipids (or outgroup species; Table 5). These results, together with the patchy distribution of Wolbachia within and among gall wasp species [96,97], do not support a fundamental role for Wolbachia, other bacterial or fungal symbionts in cynipid gall induction. We also found no evidence for insertion of viral coat protein genes in the genomes of B. pallida, other gall wasps, or outgroup species, arguing against involvement of VLPs with recognisable homology to known viruses in transducing cynipid gall-inducing signals.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Assembly metrics for gall inducing cynipid and parasitoid figitid wasp genomes.

Cynipidae and Figitidae are sister groups within the Cynipoidea that are estimated to have diverged 80 million years ago [55].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008398.t005

We sought transcripts that could derive from co-bionts in the dual RNA-seq data, noting that our RNA-seq methodology was not designed to detect expression of bacterial genes. Fungal gene expression was detected in all Growth and Mature stage galls of B. pallida, but was not detected in three of four Early stage gall replicates (Table 2), arguing against a role for fungal gene expression early in gall development. A small number of viral transcripts (782) were expressed at low levels in Early and Growth gall stages, and comprised a variable proportion of Mature gall transcripts reaching 8% in one sample (sample 12, Table 2). Viral sequences were identified as deriving principally from plant single stranded RNA viruses and derive from at least five different orders of viruses, with 'unidentified' the most prevalent grouping at the order level (S1 Table). However, no recognisably viral transcripts were expressed across all replicates of any gall developmental stage, providing no evidence as yet for viral symbionts in cynipid gall induction. The possibility of roles for currently unrecognised viral transcripts in cynipid gall induction cannot be excluded (see Discussion).

Patterns of gall wasp gene expression during gall development

As noted above, functional annotation of the gall wasp transcriptome was relatively poor and functional interpretation of changing gall wasp gene expression through gall development is based on incomplete information. Notably however, gene products with predicted secretory peptide motifs and no transmembrane domain (44%) were abundant among differentially expressed genes including those otherwise un-annotated, a pattern that is compatible with their export from the gall wasp larva and roles in external manipulation and exploitation of the plant host. However, no overrepresented motifs other than transmembrane or signal peptide domains were found in Early genes versus the rest of the gall wasp gene set by MEME analysis [98], although we would not detect a motif through inter-stage comparisons if gall wasp virulence genes are necessarily constitutively expressed throughout gall-development.

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the low percentage of transcripts annotated, and the similar developmental state of the gall wasp larvae, Early versus Growth stage B. pallida transcripts were enriched for only two biological process and four molecular function GO terms (S14–S15 Tables). The four molecular function processes include pectin lyase (see below) and carbonate dehydrase activity. This increased to 38 biological process and 15 molecular function GO terms for Early versus Mature stage gall comparisons, including five chitin-associated terms for biological processes and chitinase and chitin-binding activity and pectin lyase activity for molecular functions (S14–S15 Tables). Few GO terms were enriched for genes more highly expressed in Mature versus earlier gall tissues stages (two and one biological process GO term and three and one molecular function GO term for Mature versus Early and Mature versus Growth stage comparisons, respectively); these included terms for digestion and nutrient reservoir activity, but there were no overrepresented motifs by MEME analysis [72].

As recorded in other herbivorous insects [99–102], we hypothesised that the genome of Biorhiza pallida would encode enzymes associated with metabolic breakdown of plant structural materials. In addition to roles in gall wasp nutrition, degradation products of cell wall components can act as plant signalling molecules [103,104] and so potentially play a part in gall development. We found fourteen plant cell wall degrading enzyme (PCWDE) loci coded within the gall wasp genome to be expressed through gall development, comprising six pectin/pectate lyases, four cellulases and four rhamnogalacturonan lyases (Table 6; S16 Table). Larvae from Early stage galls showed differentially greater expression of a pectin/pectate lyase versus both Growth and Mature stages, and three further pectin/pectate lyase genes were more highly expressed in Early versus Mature stages. None of the four gall wasp cellulases were differentially expressed across gall stages; two were highly expressed throughout larval development, while one (orthologous to other arthropod cellulases by blast annotation) was expressed only at low levels. The four rhamnogalacturonan lyase genes were also not differentially expressed across gall stages.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 6. Plant cell wall degrading enzyme (PCWDE) genes in the nuclear genomes of cynipid gall wasps, their Figitidae sister group, and Nasonia vitripennis (Chalcidoidea).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008398.t006

Early galls had elevated expression of seven gall wasp chitinases; two were highly expressed in absolute terms (S6 Table) and were differentially expressed in both Early versus Mature and Growth versus Mature comparisons. Of these seven, five contained a signal peptide and only one encoded a signal peptide and transmembrane domain. All seven were also annotated with the GO term GO:0005576 for extracellular region. Taken together these are compatible with cellular export of these chitinases. Other gall wasp genes showing significantly elevated expression in Early stage galls (S6 Table) included a tyrosine-protein phosphatase, eleven carbonic anhydrases (involved in maintenance of pH balance and transport of carbon dioxide by hydration to bicarbonate [105]), venom acid phosphatase, and a glycine N-acyltransferase-like protein. We found no evidence for gall wasp production of plant hormone homologues in the differentially expressed genes, and neither did we detect expression of BmIAO1 (or any close homologue), a gene involved in endogenous insect production of auxin [106]. We found no differential expression of putative xanthine dehydrogenase/aldehyde oxidase homologues for BmIAO1 and only one expressed at low-level in this experiment (S6 Table). The Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor, expresses genes that manipulate host plant hormones [107], but we found no homologues for these in the gene set for B. pallida. More generally, none of the B. pallida genes differentially expressed in Early galls were homologues of loci expressed by Hessian fly larvae during gall induction in wheat.

Which gall wasp genes involved in gall development are novel compared to non-galling sister groups?

We searched the genomes of other gall-inducing and parasitoid cynipoids for orthologues of B. pallida genes identified as differentially expressed during gall development. Of the 75 protein-coding genes differentially expressed more highly in Early than Growth B. pallida galls (Table 3), 27 had orthologues in at least one other sampled cynipoid species (S17 Table). Of these 27, 14 (52%) had orthologues both in other gall-inducing cynipids and at least one parasitoid Figitid non-galling outgroup (Alloxysta arcuata and Parnips nigripes). One group incorporates all B. pallida Early stage differentially expressed carbonic anhydrase genes, and another incorporated venom acid phosphatases. These genes are not unique to gall-inducers as each orthrogroup included orthologs from both galling cynipid and non-galling figitid genomes. Five orthologue groups were restricted to the cynipid gall-inducers: one encodes pectate lyase PCWDEs, one a MBF2 transcription activator, and the remaining three are unannotated.

All three classes of plant cell wall degrading enzyme (PCWDE) found in B. pallida were also found in the nuclear genomes of other gall wasps, including an inquiline species (Synergus japonicus; Table 6; S16 Table) that induces its own nutritive tissues inside galls initiated by gall-inducing Cynipinae [54,108]. All of the PCWDE genes identified in B. pallida and other cynipoids show significant sequence similarity to PCWDE from plant pathogenic bacteria (S18 Table). However, three lines of evidence support the conclusion that these genes are within the insect genomes: (i) detection of transcripts in poly(A)-selected RNA-seq data is consistent with derivation from eukaryotic (rather than prokaryotic) transcripts; (ii) predicted PCWDE genes in gall wasp genomes include eukaryotic introns; and (iii) predicted PCWDE genes are flanked by one or more genes of unambiguously arthropod origin on the same contig (S19 Table). Orthologs to gall wasp PCWDE genes were not identified in nuclear genomes for the figitid parasitoids P. nigripes and A. arcuata, or the distantly related chalcid parasitoid Nasonia vitripennis (Table 6). However, for P. nigripes a BLAST search identified potential homologous sequence to B. pallida pectin lyase and cellulase. These are likely pseudogenes or fragments of a functional domain as, in contrast to all cynipid PCWDEs, the three putative loci identified all contain internal stop codons and were not predicted by AUGUSTUS [109] (Table 6). The PCWDE loci initially identified in Biorhiza pallida are thus almost or entirely restricted to the genomes of gall-inducing cynipids.

What, in plant terms, is a cynipid gall?

Different galling organisms induce galls on different plant tissues, including meristematic tissues and developing organs of both aerial and root systems. These different targets, and the different galls induced, may result from both shared and taxon-specific manipulation of core plant processes. Cynipid galls have morphologies that are specific to the inducing wasp species and generation, and thus represent a specific response of the host to the particular infection experienced. Biorhiza pallida sexual generation galls are derived from oak bud meristematic tissues which, in normal development, would generate leaves or flower parts, but (in contrast to some other insect-induced galls [25]) the galls do not obviously resemble these plant organs. Two related hypotheses for the oak organ similarities of cynipid galls have been proposed previously from anatomical and developmental studies [1,59,60]: ‘galls as ectopic food storage organs’ and ‘galls as modified somatic embryos’. We used dual RNA-seq expression data to identify genetic systems expressed in the oak tissues, and compared these to known plant organ systems to assess expression phenotype resemblances. Overall, we found gene expression and inferred developmental process in galled and ungalled buds to diverge substantially through development, and more support for ‘galls as modified somatic embryos’ than ‘galls as ectopic storage organs’.

Developing buds and Early stage gall oak tissues share many processes of cell division, cell cycle, and chromosomal organisation (Fig 5) that are fundamental to organogenesis in plants. As galled and ungalled tissues develop, their trajectories of differential oak gene expression diverge, to the point that genes differentially expressed in Mature galls relative to earlier stages show little or no overlap to genes differentially expressed in leaves relative to earlier stages in normal bud development. While the sexual generation gall of Biorhiza pallida is clearly very different from the leaf into which the host bud would otherwise develop, more in depth analysis of gene expression is required to query whether cynipid gall development involves pathways involved in normal plant organogenesis, such as the flower development pathways recently demonstrated in phylloxera galls [25].

Some differential oak gene expression between gall developmental stages can be related directly to observed developmental or homeostatic processes in the galls. For example, differentially high expression of genes involved in cell wall growth and vascularization, such as Auxin responsive factor 5 in Early stage galls, and of other genes later in gall development, matches observed development of outer gall tissues and of vascular bundles supplying the larval chambers. Given that cynipid galls expand rapidly during the Growth stage, the absence of elevated expression of cell division-associated genes in Growth versus Early stage galls is perhaps surprising. However, anatomical studies show that much of the growth of oak cynipid galls is accomplished by increase in cell volume (hypertrophy) rather than by cell division [37,46]. This parallels the similar transition from cell division to cell expansion observed as normally developing buds flush to fully developed leaves [110–112].

Both developing galls and ungalled buds expressed oak gene systems associated with cell division and nuclear endoreduplication. In terms of oak cynipid gall development these findings are consistent with previous in situ hybridization analysis of gall development in B. pallida, which suggested that endoreduplication and somatic embryogenesis are primarily associated with nutritive tissues immediately surrounding the larva, while high rates of cell division are associated with rapid expansion of the outer parenchyma [59]. That these patterns may be common in cynipids is suggested by transcriptomic evidence from galls induced in chestnut by another gall wasp, Dryocosmus kuriphilus [113]. Transcriptomic sampling of oak genes in specific gall tissue compartments, rather than the entire gall, is required to test these ideas.

The ‘galls as ectopic food storage organs’ hypothesis was based on detection in earlier metabolomic studies of BCCP expression by gall tissues, associated with seed development in Arabidopsis and food storage organ development in other plants [59,60,70]. We found BCCP expression throughout bud development into mature leaves, and across all three stages of gall development, confirming previous work [59,60]. While our data do not rule out a role for BCCP expression in nutrient processing in cynipid galls as originally hypothesised, they confirm a more general role for products of these genes during both gall and normal bud and leaf development.

Plant somatic embryogenesis is characterized by expression of phytocyanin domain-containing arabinogalactan proteins (AGPs), proteoglycans that carry sets of arabinosyl and galactosyl residues. AGPs are naturally cleaved by action of plant chitinase enzymes and then act as signal molecules [114–118]. These signalling-associated AGPs are present in a range of plant tissues, including seeds [119,120] and we found them to be highly expressed in all normally developing bud stages (S0-S4) except leaves (S5). Signalling AGPs are encoded by a subset of the ENOD genes [121,122] involved in legume root nodule development [123,124]). We observed upregulation of ENOD AGPs in Early stage galls, and suggest that the somatic embryogenesis-like state observed in young cynipid galls may be specifically induced by signals derived from oak AGPs by action of gall wasp chitinases (see below).

Proteomic work on leaf galls induced by other oak cynipids (Cynips and Neuroterus species) identified overproduction of the enzyme S-adenosyl methionine (SAM) synthase in gall tissues [105]. We found four genes encoding the same enzyme to be differentially over-expressed in Growth stage relative to Early stage galls, two of which are only differentially expressed in gall tissues (TRINITY_DN55180_c4_g1 and TRINITY_DN69171_c2_g1). SAM synthase catalyses the production of SAM from methionine, and the SAM in turn is a substrate for the synthesis of a range of important plant metabolites, including ethylene and polyamines. Possible roles for these metabolites discussed in [105] include a range of processes relevant to gall induction that includes meristem development [125], regulation of Rhizobium-induced root nodulation in legumes [126], organogenesis and fruit maturation [127]. Further work is required to understand the role(s) of these genes in gall tissues.

What organism induces the B. pallida oak gall?

We found no support for symbiont involvement in B. pallida gall development. Although gall development is known to require a living gall wasp larva, it has remained possible that the inducing organism is not the wasp but rather a symbiont. Symbiotic bacteria such as Wolbachia are present in many galling insects, and have been shown to influence the development of plants attacked by leaf miners [73]. Bacterial endosymbionts are abundant in the guts of both larval and adult Hessian flies, though their role in the Hessian fly-wheat interaction is unknown [74]. While our poly(A)-selected transcriptomic analysis was not intended to quantify bacterial gene expression, our analyses of adult gall wasp holobiont genomic data found no consistent association between gall wasps and specific bacterial endosymbionts. We identified Wolbachia in genome sequence data from B. pallida (a supergroup A strain) and the rose gall wasp Diplolepis spinosa (a supergroup B strain), but not in the other gall wasp or Figitidae sister group genomes analysed. Wolbachia prevalence and incidence vary substantially within and among gall wasp species, suggesting multiple gains and losses of infection [96,97] and arguing against a fundamental role for Wolbachia in cynipid gall development. We detected transcripts from plant viruses and plant-associated fungi in gall tissues, but neither comprised taxa that were consistently detected in cynipid genomic libraries, nor showed expression patterns across gall stages consistent with a causal role in gall development. However, new viral taxa continue to be discovered [128,129] and it remains possible that unrecognised viral symbionts contribute to the large numbers of differentially expressed but unannotated genes attributed to the gall wasp in our experiment. A role for viruses (or any other currently unrecognisable symbiont) in gall induction thus cannot be wholly excluded. However, our data are consistent with phylogenetic patterns in gall traits that support a major role of gall wasp nuclear genes in gall development.

What processes are involved in gall wasp manipulation of plant development?

Our data are compatible with secretion of effectors from the gallwasp into surrounding host plant tissues, we hypothesise from the enlarged larval salivary glands. We find no evidence for effector delivery via virus-like particles (VLPs).

(i) How does the gall wasp larva export stimuli to the plant? In other plant pathogenic animals, including nematodes, gall-inducing fig wasps and Hessian flies, highly expressed novel proteins with secretory signal peptides have been proposed to represent putative effectors [21,46,130]. Most Early stage gall wasp transcripts had no informative functional annotation, but many highly-expressed loci encoded proteins with secretory signal peptides. Of the 75 genes more highly expressed in Early stage gall wasp larvae, 44% (33) had signal peptides and no transmembrane helix, compatible with secretion of these proteins into surrounding host tissues. These are obvious candidates for further study. Whether these proteins are secreted or excreted by the wasp is unknown, but they could include novel effectors. Their general lack of informative annotation, and the absence of any conserved motifs among them, will make analysis challenging. A striking feature of the unannotated but highly expressed genes of Early stage gall wasp larvae is their lack of homology with similarly unannotated protein coding genes expressed during gall induction and development by Hessian flies or any known genes (via comparison to the non-redundant protein database). This lack of homology suggests that even if these gall inducers are targeting similar developmental pathways in their plant hosts, they are doing so in taxon-specific way. This lack of homology is also concordant with the lineage-specificity of genes involved in plant manipulation by the aphid Myzus persicae relative to other arthropods [131].

Parasitoid wasps deliver DNA and protein to their hosts through virus-like particles, produced from viral genes incorporated into the wasp nuclear genome [79,81]. It is possible that a similar system could be used to deliver gall inducing stimuli in cynipid galls. However, we found no evidence of Early gall expression of gall wasp homologues of genes coding for viral coat proteins, arguing against export of gall inducing stimuli in virus-like particles with homology to any documented virus [128]. Cambier et al [49] also found no evidence for VLPs in the ovaries and venom gland transcriptomes of B. pallida and a rose gall wasp, D. rosae. The possibility that gallwasps use VLPs derived from currently unrecognised viral taxa cannot, however, be excluded.

(ii) What signals might be involved? Plant development is regulated by networks of peptide and other hormones, cell interactions and cell-autonomous processes. Gall wasps could drive gall development by intervening at key steps in normal plant developmental processes, initiating pathways that then autonomously generate structures that support gall wasp development. In a psyllid leaf gall system, the host gall response included transcriptional upregulation of several loci annotated as involved in responses to auxin, but the biological annotation of the insect genes was not reported [132]. Auxin (indoleacetic acid, IAA) and cytokinins have been extracted from the bodies of a range of insect gall inducers including aphids, sawflies, gall-midges and cynipids [36,94,132–138], and while the source (insect, symbiont, host plant) of these effectors has in some cases yet to be determined beyond doubt, ability to synthesise IAA may be widespread in insects [106]. It has been proposed that gall inducing insects acquired the necessary plant synthetic enzymes through microbial symbiosis or lateral gene transfer [139,140]. Indeed, it has been proposed that plants themselves acquired IAA synthesis from bacteria [141]. We found no evidence for Early gall stage upregulation of gall wasp transcripts with recognisable homology to plant genes involved in auxin- or cytokinin-related processes, including the recently discovered BmIAO1 gene [106]. We also found no sequences with recognisable affinity to cytokinin-related plant genes in cynipid genomes. We found no evidence for consistent gall wasp association with a bacterial or fungal endosymbiont that could produce plant hormone homologues or analogues. There is thus currently no evidence to support the hypothesis of horizontal transfer of genes regulating plant hormonal systems into the gall wasp genome.

This does not mean that auxins and other phytohormones are not involved in cynipid gall development, rather their involvement is likely to be downstream of the key gall inductive and maintenance signals. The oak Auxin responsive factor 5-like gene, highly expressed in Early stage galls, is typically associated with auxin-induced roles in axis formation and/or the development of gall xylem and phloem tissues [142,143]. It is also possible that gall wasps interfere with, or produce, phytohormones using enzymes that have no informative sequence similarity to the plant genes that normally regulate and produce these messengers. Direct assays of phytohormones or their precursors in the bodies of gall inducers, and evidence of endogenous production rather than concentration of plant or symbiont products [94,106,134,138,144], are more powerful tools in assessing the roles and sources of auxins, cytokinins and other plant hormones.

Which gall wasp genes involved in gall development are novel compared to non-galling sister groups?

(i) Gall wasps produce their own plant cell wall degrading enzymes (PCWDEs). To exploit gall tissues, the developing wasp larvae must access and digest plant tissues. Digestion of the complex plant cell wall is accomplished by gut microbiota in most insect herbivores, but a growing number of studies have detected endogenous PCWDE genes in insects [145–148]. These genes are derived from a combination of horizontal gene transfer events from bacteria (HGT) [149,150] and expansion of PCWDE gene families within insect genomes. Three classes of gall wasp-encoded PCWDEs were expressed during cynipid gall development: pectin lyases, rhamnogalacturonan lyases and cellulases. Gall wasp pectin lyase activity (GO:0047490) was differentially overexpressed in Early relative to later stage galls, and two distinct gall wasp cellulase genes were highly expressed throughout gall development. PCWDE genes are also expressed in the venom glands of B. pallida [49], as is a venom acid phosphatase.

Though the genomic origin of venom gland-expressed genes was not demonstrated, two were hypothesized to have been incorporated in the gall wasp genome following horizontal gene transfer from a bacterial origin [49]. Our genomic analyses confirm that the cellulases expressed in adult and larval gall wasps are encoded by gall wasp genes, through detection of (a) spliceosomal introns indicative of eukaryotic genome architecture, (b) sequence contiguous with the cellulases that contains genes of obvious insect origin in multiple gall wasp species, and (c) polyadenylated (i.e. non-bacterial) cellulase mRNAs in the B. pallida transcriptome. As hypothesised for the B. pallida venom gland cellulases, larvally-expressed cellulases are most similar to either bacterial sequences or to genes in distantly related insect herbivores for which bacterial origins have been proposed [100]. Interestingly, BLAST comparison shows that different and divergent cellulase genes are expressed in adult B. pallida venom glands and in larvae, aligning to different contigs in the B. pallida genome (S21 Table). This could reflect adaptation to differing roles and/or host plant targets, such as adaptation of specific gene copies for high and tissue-specific expression via a secretory organ-specific promoter. This is hypothesised to originate from the venom gland in the adult female [49] and is hypothesised to be the salivary glands in the larva [43,56]. It may also be attributable in part to differing methodologies of transcriptome sequencing and assembly between this study and [49].

Gall wasp PCWDEs could be involved in larval hatching and maternal venom gland PCWDEs could contribute to formation of the initial chamber adjacent to the egg into which the hatching larva moves [40]. Larval PCWDEs probably function to break down the walls of nutritive cells in the larval chamber [2,151,152], and could also facilitate passage of gall induction effector proteins or maintenance factors (potentially including cell wall breakdown products themselves) into host plant tissues by making cell walls permeable to the passage of signal macromolecules. Intracellularly-acting effectors have been identified in other galling insects including aphids and hessian flies [23,153–155]. Both have mouthparts capable of penetrating plant cells to aid effector delivery, and this process could be assisted enzymatically in gall wasps. Bacterial expression assays of gall wasp PCWDEs are required to determine their substrate relationships and identify their roles in vivo.

(ii) A PCWDE repertoire may be a synapomorphy of gall-inducing and inquiline cynipids. Orthologous genes encoding all three classes of B. pallida PCWDEs were found in the genomes of other cynipid wasps, including the inquiline S. japonicus and the gall-inducing species A. hypecoi and E. acaciae (Table 6), representing members of three deeply diverging tribal lineages within the Cynipidae [54]. The same genes were absent from (or detected only as pseudogenes in) the genomes of non-galling Figitid wasps, the sister group of gall wasps whose parasitoid life history is thought to represent that ancestral state from which cynipid gall induction is derived [39]. This suggests that a multilocus repertoire of PCWDEs is a derived trait that evolved in the shared common ancestor of gall inducing and inquiline cynipids, i.e., a synapomorphy. Gall wasps evolved from a parasitoid of insect hosts concealed within plant tissues [55], and shifted to phytophagy either prior to or concomitantly with the evolution of gall induction [54,55]. Acquisition of PCWDEs by the common ancestor of gall wasps may have helped larvae migrate through plant tissues in search of insect hosts (as a parasitoid), feeding sites (as a herbivore) or assisted in penetration of plant tissues by the adult female ovipositor prior to the evolution of gall-induction. Wider sampling of cynipids and their relatives in the Cynipoidea is required to reconstruct the origin(s) and diversification of the cynipid PCWDE repertoire.

Chitinases, arabino-galactan glycoproteins and a model for cynipid gall induction

Gall wasp chitinases are a notable exception to the general paucity of functional annotation of cynipid genes differentially overexpressed in Early and Growth stage galls. Homologues of these chitinases were present in other gall wasps and our sampled outgroups. We hypothesise that Early stage over-expression of gall wasp chitinases may play a role in gall formation through interaction with oak ENOD gene products.

Two oak ENOD (early nodulin) arabinogalactan protein (AGP) transcripts were upregulated in Early stage galls. ENOD genes were initially identified for their roles in Rhizobium nodule development in legumes [156], but are widely present in vascular plants [157,158]. Legume ENOD genes are specifically induced by nod factors during the earliest stage of Rhizobium nodule development, and have been co-opted for nutritive benefit by reniform nematode pathogens of soybeans [159]. ENOD genes could potentially offer a toolkit for host manipulation by parasites more widely through their key roles in plant developmental pathways [159]. The upregulated oak ENOD AGPs in B. pallida galls belong to a group containing a phytocyanin-like domain that have been implicated in somatic embryogenesis in plants [116]. AGPs carry glycan side chains containing glucosamine and N-acetyl-D-glucosaminyl residues, which can be cleaved from the molecule by chitinases [114,115]. Action of plant chitinases on AGPs promotes somatic embryogenesis, implying that the released glycan moieties may have a role in signalling [114,160]. We hypothesise that the wasp chitinases highly expressed in Early stage galls could manipulate oak developmental pathways by similarly cleaving ENOD AGP proteins, thus inducing somatic embryogenesis.

All of the cynipid genomes we examined contained at least one chitinase gene. These chitinases were most similar to the GH18 family of insect chitinases, exemplified by the N. vitripennis chitotriosidase-1-like protein. GH18 chitinases function in turnover of extracellular chitin-containing matrices, such as the insect cuticle [161] during larval and pupal moulting [162]. However, we suggest that chitinase expression in larval B. pallida is probably not associated with moulting because larvae grow very slowly in Early stage galls (when chitinase expression is high) and then grow rapidly and moult in Growth and Mature galls (when expression of the same chitinases is low in our data).

Additional possible roles for insect chitinases are breakdown of chitin in the eggshell, protection against attack by fungi, and suppression of plant defence responses to large chitin molecules [163–166]. Most insect egg shells do not contain chitin [167,168], though where chitin is present newly-hatched larvae do show chitinase activity [169]. However, young larval B. pallida gall wasps are separated from their eggshells by their own movement into plant tissues, and by the development of plant gall tissues around them [1]. A role in eggshell degradation for early chitinase expression is thus undemonstrated. Gall wasp chitinases could potentially play a role in protection of the gall wasp and gall tissues from fungal attack, given that fungal transcripts were detected in gall samples. However, chitinase expression in Early stage galls was not correlated with fungal infection of galls across replicates (S2 Table), and we thus consider it unlikely that the observed chitinase production was part of an induced anti-fungal defence. It is also interesting that larval chitinases are distinct from the chitinase expressed in the adult female venom gland (S21 Table), which is probably injected along with the egg during oviposition and for which an anti-fungal role has been suggested [49]. If our hypothesis is correct, we expect chitinases that interact with the host to be exported from the gall wasp larva. In Hessian flies, chitinases are expressed by the salivary glands, making them potential effectors in that system [21].

We speculate that secreted gall wasp chitinases act in Early stage galls to mimic endogenous plant chitinases. By cleaving glucosamine and N-acetyl-D-glucosaminyl residues from oak AGPs in the extracellular matrix they could drive induction of somatic embryogenesis-like dedifferentiation and cell division in host tissues. To test this model, future work could identify the larval tissue of origin of the chitinases, localise the gall wasp chitinases in the developing gall, define their enzymatic activity on oak glycoproteins in vitro, and explore expression patterns of orthologues in other galling species.

Conclusions

We have identified candidate genes associated with gall development in both the gall inducer and the host plant in the B. pallida-oak system. Functional inference from oak gene expression, most of which was annotated, correlates with observed development of gall phenotypes. In contrast, most gall wasp genes differentially expressed at the key early post-initiation stage had no informative functional annotation. However, the fact that many are predicted to be secreted suggests that they could include novel parasitic effectors of plant development. We hypothesise that high expression of host arabinogalactan proteins and of gall wasp chitinases in Early stage galls interacts to generate a somatic embryogenesis-like process in nutritive tissues surrounding the gall wasp larvae. This mechanistic framework provides testable hypotheses for future functional dissection of cynipid gall development.

Sample collection, RNA extraction and sequencing

We sampled sexual generation galls of Biorhiza pallida near Blandford Forum, Dorset in 2011 and sampled normally developing buds at Dalkeith Country Park in 2018, Midlothian, United Kingdom. All tissues were sampled from oaks morphologically identifiable as Quercus robur. Four biological replicates, each from a separate tree, were collected for each of the following three gall developmental stages, giving 12 samples in total. (i) Early stage galls (Fig 1A and 1B. Gall diameter <5mm, often fully or partly concealed within bud scales; for illustration of all 4 biological replicates, see S1 Fig). (ii) Growth stage galls (Fig 1A, 1D and 1E. Gall diameter 20-30mm, advanced larval chamber and nutritive tissue development, larval length <1mm). (iii) Mature galls (Fig 1A, 1F and 1G; epidermis brown, with a papery texture, internal tissues lignified, larvae active and ≥3mm long). Four biological replicates, again each from a separate tree, were collected for each of bud tissue developmental stages S0-S5 (Fig 1A). All galls were rapidly sliced into 1mm thick sections, bud tissues diced into small pieces, and a cross section of leaf tissue from the centre of the leaf perpendicular to the petiole of approximately 2 cm width was sliced and immediately immersed in RNAlater (Ambion) in the field. RNA extractions were made for each replicate using the RNEasy plant mini kit extraction protocol (Qiagen) and stored at -80°C until sequencing.

Presence of gall wasp mRNA in extractions was confirmed using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) amplification of a pair of exon-primed intron-crossing (EPIC) gall wasp loci, Receptor for Activated C Kinase 1 (RACK1) and Ribosomal Protein L37 Rpl37 ([170], further refined for cynipids by James Nicholls (personal communication). A B. pallida genomic DNA positive control was used to indicate cDNA amplification over genomic DNA carry-over.

Sample quality was assessed for RNA purity by 260/280 and 260/230 ratios measured on a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific), followed by RNA integrity analysis by Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies) total RNA nano trace. No samples showed visible degradation on Bioanalyzer traces. Gall and ungalled bud/leaf samples were prepared as 100 and 150 base pair paired-end TruSeq libraries respectively by the NERC Edinburgh Genomics facility. Gall and ungalled bud libraries were multiplexed and sequenced separately on one lane of an Illumina Hi-Seq sequencer. The eight Early and Growth stage gall libraries were sequenced on an additional lane to increase numbers of gall wasp reads sequenced, since in these stages gall wasp RNA comprises only a small fraction of whole gall RNA.

Transcriptome assembly, quantification and taxonomic assignment

Reads (ENA PRJEB13357; S20 Table) were quality and adapter trimmed with default parameters in FASTP version 0.19.3 [171] and results checked in FASTQC version 0.11.7 [172]. All reads were then assembled in TRINITY version 2.6.6 [173]. Transcripts were quantified in SALMON [174] with “—seqBias”, “—gcBias”, and “—rangeFactorizationBins 4” options and converted to gene-level counts using the Bioconductor package TXIMPORT [175] (Rscript: S1 File). Transcripts were annotated in the TRINOTATE pipeline [176] (S2–S4 Files). To assign taxonomic origins a TRINITY SuperTranscript [177] was created from each group of associated transcripts representing a gene and compared against a combined reference using MINIMAP2 in ‘splice’ mode [178]. This reference consisted of the B. pallida genome sequence [50], the Q. robur haploid genome sequence (PM1N) [179] and four chalcid parasitoid genomes [51]. The four chalcid parasitoids are common gall inhabitants and were used to remove parasitoid hymenopteran sequences that were not gall wasp-derived. They were Cecidostiba fungosa (Pteromalidae), Megastigmus dorsalis (Megastigmidae), Ormyrus pomaceus (Ormyridae) and Torymus auratus (Torymidae), and details of their assembly can be found in [51]. Supertranscripts were assigned by top score to a taxon of origin, ambiguous sequences were assigned by inspection. We also independently assigned a taxonomic origin to each transcript by aligning to proteins of the ‘nr’ database (downloaded August 15^th 2018) with DIAMOND [180] and TAXONOMIZR (https://github.com/sherrillmix/taxonomizr). The transcriptome was then further filtered to remove fungal contaminant sequences identified as the top-scoring alignment per gene by DIAMOND. Ribosomal RNAs were removed after identification by RNAMMER and BLAST alignment to SILVA large subunit and small subunit rRNA databases [181]. Finally, only transcripts that encode an open reading frame as predicted by TRANSDECODER were retained for further analysis. The SALMON count matrix was filtered according to the above and split into Q. robur gall tissue and normal bud and B. pallida specific matrices for differential expression analyses (S5–S7 Files). BUSCO (v. 3.0.2) scores were computed for the species-specific transcriptomes against the Eukaryota database (Downloaded July 2017) [182].

Statistical analysis of stage specific variation in gene expression

Differential expression analysis was performed using DESeq2 (version 1.6.2) [183] for three separate analyses: gall wasps, oak gall tissues, and normal oak bud and leaf tissues on genes with a greater than 10 combined count across replicates. Count tables and DESeq2 R scripts used are provided in S1 File. For gall tissues and gall wasp contrasts a blocking factor for fungi was included where the fungi-derived reads accounted for greater than 1% of the dataset to control for the effect of fungal infection on gall wasp and oak expression (N = 4 samples; S2 Table). A further blocking factor, ‘parasitoid load’ was fitted for gall wasp transcript analyses, as parasitoid read-depth was greater than 10% of the gall wasp read-depth for nine samples. No blocking factors were fitted for normal bud and leaf comparisons as no fungal or other infection was detected. Samples were inspected for stage-specific clustering by principal components analysis (PCA) after variance-stabilising transformation (VST) of the data in DESeq2. Tests were performed sequentially with each stage contrasted with the next developmental stage for galls and normal buds. We specified the ‘apeglm’ method for effect size shrinkage [184], and imposed a log-fold change requirement of one; meaning that to qualify as differentially expressed, a gene must be expressed significantly greater than log-fold change plus or minus one. This method results in s-values which are analogous to q-values [185], and a cut-off of α < = 0.005 was applied as recommended by the ‘apeglm’ package authors (significant genes: S8–S10 Files). Significant genes were retained for GO term enrichment analysis using the “weight01” algorithm in TopGO [186] (Rscript: S1 File) and GO terms annotated by Trinotate. Genes of interest were compared against all genes expressed in the analysis, which corresponded to all genes passing initial expression filtering in DESeq2. Enriched GO terms were considered significant at a cut-off of α < = 0.01. To more easily interpret the results we clustered the resulting GO term lists to reduce redundancy and visualised them in two-dimensional semantic space using REVIGO [187]. We performed this for genes that were differentially expressed only in gall tissue contrasts and for genes that were shared and expressed in the same direction between buds (S4 only) and leaves (S5). S9 and S10 Tables for shared genes with concordant expression which corresponds to GO terms enriched for genes corresponding to cells H4:H7 in S4 Table, and for gall tissue-specific genes and GO terms detailed in S5 Table. The Arabidopsis thaliana GO term database was used as a reference, ‘SimRel’ as a similarity measure, the enrichment p-values, and ‘medium’ similarity. The B. pallida Early stage gall-upregulated gene set was compared to all other B. pallida genes to identify potential protein motifs associated with induction using MEME [98].

Orthologue identification of candidate genes

Additional gall wasp genomes were generated for six additional cynipids in six additional tribes within Cynipidae chosen to maximise cynipid diversity analysed according to the phylogeny of Ronquist et al. [54]: Aylax hypecoi (tribe Aylacini), Diastrophus kincaidii (tribe Diastrophini), Diplolepis spinosa (tribe Diplolepidini), Eschatocerus acaciae (tribe Eschatocerini), Pediaspis aceris (Tribe Pediaspidini) and Synergus japonicus (tribe Synergini), and also for two parasitoids in the Figitidae sister group of Cynipidae, Alloxysta arcuata and Parnips nigripes. Figitidae and Cynipidae are thought to have diverged around 80 million years ago [55], and within the Cynipidae the lineage which diversified into Diplolepis and Pediaspis split basally from the lineage that includes Biorhiza and other oak cynipids [54]. The cynipid and figitid genomes were sampled from entire single individuals and extracted using the DNeasy kit (Qiagen), and Nextera genomic libraries (Illumina) were created using standard protocols. Libraries were sequenced on the Illumina Hi-Seq platform by Edinburgh Genomics. Raw data were quality controlled with FastQC, quality and adapter trimmed using CUTADAPT and subsequently assembled with SPAdes [188] (version 3.5) or MaSuRCA [189] assemblers. Assembly quality was assessed by CEGMA score. Assemblies were then masked for repeats by a combination of REPEATMODELER (v1.0.11) and REPEATMASKER (v4.0.6) [190]. Assemblies were checked for contaminant sequences and endosymbionts using a blob-plotting approach [191] (https://github.com/DRL/blobtools-light). To create blob-plots each contig of the genome was annotated using the DIAMOND aligner in nucleotide versus protein search mode with an e-value cut-off of 1e-5, and retaining the five best matches per contig. Coding sequences were then predicted using AUGUSTUS (v3.3) with Nasonia vitripennis as the reference species [109]. PCWDE enzyme encoding genes were inspected for introns and genes of unambiguously hymenopteran origin in synteny on the same sequence. This would confirm their incorporation into the cynipoid (eukaryotic) genome, rather than being expressed by a previously undetected symbiont. Protein predictions were used as input for ORTHOFINDER with default parameters (v2.3.1) to identify orthologue groups [192].