Isolation of the Buchnera aphidicola flagellum basal body complexes from the Buchnera membrane.

Buchnera aphidicola is an intracellular bacterial symbiont of aphids and maintains a small genome of only 600 kbps. Buchnera is thought to maintain only genes relevant to the symbiosis with its aphid host. Curiously, the Buchnera genome contains gene clusters coding for flagellum basal body structural proteins and for flagellum type III export machinery. These structures have been shown to be highly expressed and present in large numbers on Buchnera cells. No recognizable pathogenicity factors or secreted proteins have been identified in the Buchnera genome, and the relevance of this protein complex to the symbiosis is unknown. Here, we show isolation of Buchnera flagellum basal body proteins from the cellular membrane of Buchnera, confirming the enrichment of flagellum basal body proteins relative to other proteins in the Buchnera proteome. This will facilitate studies of the structure and function of the Buchnera flagellum structure, and its role in this model symbiosis.

Introduction

Buchnera aphidicola is an obligate endosymbiont of aphid species worldwide [1] and is a model for bacterial genome reduction, maintaining one of the smallest genomes yet discovered, only 600 kbps [2, 3]. Though Buchnera has lost genes not essential for its symbiotic lifestyle [2, 4, 5] it retains genes associated with amino acid biosynthesis, reflecting its participation in a nutritional symbiosis [2, 6, 7]. Though the exchange of amino acids and vitamins between the aphid host and Buchnera has been well-documented [6, 8, 9], the molecular mechanism for how these metabolites cross Buchnera membranes is unknown: Buchnera maintains a small number of genes coding for membrane transport proteins, most of which are located at the inner membrane (MdlAB, PitA, YggB, ZnuABC) [2, 10]. The permeability of the Buchnera outer membrane remains a mystery, considering the paucity of annotated transporter genes in sequenced Buchnera genomes. Genes coding for proteins localizing to the outer membrane of Buchnera include small β-barrel aquaporins (OmpA, OmpF), which allow passive diffusion of small molecules, and flagellum basal body components (FlgBC/FGH/K) [2, 9, 10]. Investigation into protein expression by these symbiotic partners has shown that flagellum basal body components are highly expressed by Buchnera [11]. Indeed, transmission electron microscopy images of Buchnera reveal flagellum basal bodies studded all over the bacterial outer membrane [12]. Despite its abundance on the Buchnera cell surface, the role of this protein complex for maintaining the aphid-Buchnera symbiosis is unknown [13].

Buchnera of the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum) maintains 26 genes coding for flagellum-related proteins (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Cartoon diagram of the bacterial flagellum.

Colors indicate which proteins are lost from Buchnera aphidicola of pea aphids and also the enrichment status of each retained protein at the final step of the procedure (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Barplot showing enrichment of flagellum-related proteins before (Lysate) and after (Final) the isolation procedure. Results from the protein enrichment procedure are compared to proteomic datasets generated with whole aphids and dissected bacteriocytes. Blue indicates “core” proteins required for secretion activity and red indicates accessory proteins maintained by Buchnera aphidicola in pea aphids.

These 26 genes, located on the chromosome in three discrete clusters, code for the structural proteins required for formation of a flagellum basal body (fliE, fliF, flgB, flgC, flgF, flgG, and flgH), a partial flagellar hook (flgD, flgE, flgK), as well as the Type III cytoplasmic export proteins (flhA, flhB, fliP, fliQ, and fliR). Buchnera lineages vary in the set of flagellum genes retained (S1 Table), but all have lost genes encoding the flagellin and motor proteins (fliC, motA, motB) [14], indicating a functional shift away from cell motility. The bacterial flagellum structure is an evolutionary homologue to the injectisome (Type III secretion system, or T3SS), a macromolecular protein complex used to deliver secrete effector proteins, often to a eukaryotic host [15-17]. Flagellum assembly occurs in a stepwise, sequential manner beginning from the bacterial cytoplasm, identical to the T3SS [18-20]. Buchnera maintains genes coding for the proteins required for a functional T3SS [2, 12], as shown in studies of Yersinia [21], and Salmonella [22, 23]. Gram-negative bacteria have also been shown to export proteins through a flagellum basal body [21, 24, 25]. The bacterial flagellum could be repurposed to serve a novel function for the aphid-Buchnera symbiosis. The basal body could serve as a type III protein exporter to secrete proteins to signal to the aphid host or as a surface signal molecule for host recognition during infection of new aphid embryos. Here, we present a procedure for isolation of flagellum basal body complexes adapted for an endosymbiont [26], allowing for removal of these structures directly from Buchnera and enrichment of flagellum basal body complexes after isolation. This procedure will enable further characterization of the basal bodies and their modifications for a role in symbiosis.

Results

Isolation of hook basal body complexes from Buchnera

Purification of the complex was initially assessed at multiple timepoints along the procedure. Samples were taken of initial Buchnera cell lysate, lysate after raising the pH to 10, protein suspension after the first 5000g spin, the third 5000g spin, and finally after the 30,000g spin and overnight incubation in TET buffer. SDS-PAGE showed sixteen bands were present after the staining procedure and their sizes corresponded to those of constituent proteins of the Buchnera flagellum basal body (S1 Fig). Protein samples were extracted from the gel and subjected to mass spectrometry analysis.

Mass spectrometry analysis of isolated basal body complexes

Protein ID LC-MS/MS spectral counts were provided by the University of Texas at Austin Proteomics Core Facility. We compared our samples to proteomic datasets from homogenized whole aphids, and from bacteriocytes purified from pea aphids [11]. Buchnera flagellum-related proteins were highly enriched by our isolation procedure, especially FliF, FlgI, FlgE, FlhA, and FlgF (Fig 2).

These results indicate that all but two flagellum proteins from Buchnera cells present in the mass spectrometry samples were enriched during the isolation procedure: structural proteins FilE, FliF, FlgI, FlgE, FlgF, and FlgH were enriched threefold or more from the start to the finish of the procedure. FlgB, FlgC, FlgG, FliG, FliH, and FliI were enriched, though not to the extent of the other structural proteins. Type III secretion proteins FlhA and FliP were shown to be enriched by this procedure (Fig 1, S2 Fig). GroL and Tuf, the two most abundant proteins expressed by Buchnera [11], were both depleted at the end of the procedure. The widespread enrichment of Buchnera flagellum-related proteins indicate that our adapted procedure for isolating macromolecular protein complexes from the membranes of endosymbiotic bacteria was successful. Only two flagellum-related proteins, FlgK and FliN, were reduced by the isolation procedure, perhaps because of their localization to the periphery of the flagellum basal body complex.

Basal bodies remain partially intact when observed under electron microscopy

We analyzed the isolated basal bodies by negative stain electron microscopy. While raw micrographs showed heterogenous particles, likely due to disassembly of the complex, detergent micelles, and contaminating proteins, there were several particles that appeared regularly. These single particles resembled characterized flagellum basal body structure, with both rod and ring-shaped features (Fig 3), similar in size and shape to TEM images of basal body complexes on membranes of whole Buchnera cells from Maezawa et al [12], indicating success in isolating intact, or mostly intact, basal body complexes. Of 204 micrographs, 24 contained at least one easily discernible, partially intact basal body complex.

Fig 3

Single particles of Buchnera flagellum complexes after the isolation procedure.

Scale bars represent 50nm.

Discussion

Here, we demonstrate a procedure for isolating macromolecular protein complexes from Buchnera aphidicola, an obligate endosymbiotic bacterium that cannot be cultured or genetically manipulated. Identifying the protein losses in these complexes compared to free-living, motile Enterobacteria could elucidate how Buchnera’s proteome has been affected by adaptation over millions of years to a mutualistic lifestyle.

As Buchnera is not motile and is confined to host-derived “symbiosomal” vesicles inside bacteriocytes [27, 28], the retention and expression of these partial flagellar structures indicates that they have become repurposed. These complexes have previously been hypothesized to be acting as type III secretion systems for provisioning peptides or signal factors to the aphid host [13]. Indeed, the proteins retained in the Buchnera flagellum-related structure constitute the structural proteins and machinery required for a functional type III secretion system [21]. Transcriptome analyses of pea aphid lines with different Buchnera titers reveal differences in expression of flagellar genes [29]. In aphid lines that harbor low titer populations of Buchnera, the endosymbionts have elevated relative expression of mRNA associated with flagellar secretion genes (fliP, fliQ,and fliR), while Buchnera in aphid lines with high Buchnera titers had elevated expression of genes for flagellum structural proteins [29].

Though heavily expressed in Buchnera of pea aphids, components of the flagellum basal body are not maintained equally among lineages of Buchnera of different aphid species based on available genomic sequences [14] (S1 Table). Genes coding for proteins associated with type III secretion activity (flhA, flhB, fliP, fliQ, and fliR) and basal body structural proteins (fliE, fliF, flgB, flgC, flgF, flgG, and flgH) are well maintained across Buchnera lineages, but genes coding for hook proteins (flgD, flgE, and flgK) and the flagellum-specific ATPase (fliI) are frequently shed. In all but the most extreme examples, the Buchnera flagellum-related genes are retained and intact, pointing to a continuing role for this complex for this ancient symbiosis. However, the Buchnera strain harbored by aphids of genus Stegophylla, which has the smallest sequenced Buchnera genome discovered thus far (412 kbps), has completely lost genes associated with the flagellum structure and Type III secretion activity.

Beyond Buchnera, retention of the flagellar apparatus varies among obligate endosymbionts. Considering other symbionts in the Gammaproteobacteria, the complex is sometimes completely intact, as in the tsetse fly symbiont Wigglesworthia glossinidius, which expresses this system and is motile only when infecting progeny within the mother’s body [30]. The symbiont of armored snails resembles Buchnera of pea aphid in retaining intact genes for the basal body complex while lacking intact fliC, encoding flagellin [31]. But all flagellum-related genes are lost from genomes of some insect symbionts, including the genera Baumannia and Blochmannia, symbiotic in cicadas and carpenter ants respectively.

Buchnera’s tiny genome contains no known pathogenicity proteins or proteins previously associated with type III export [2, 32]. Potentially, Buchnera flagellum basal bodies may instead serve as surface signals for recognition by the host. Vertical transfer of Buchnera from mother to daughter aphids shows naked Buchnera cells being exocytosed from maternal bacteriocytes and passing through aphid haemolymph to infect a nearby specialized syncytial cell of stage 7 embryos [33]. The purpose of the flagellum basal body complex in the context of Buchnera’s symbiotic lifestyle remains unknown. Further inquiry into this protein complex could reveal the repurposing of a motility organelle for driving this ancient and obligate symbiosis.

Methods

A step-by-step protocol is provided as S1 Protocol. This protocol is also available at dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bs5wng7e.

Buchnera extraction from aphids

Pea aphids (Acrythosiphon pisum strain LSR1) were grown as an all-female clone on Fava bean (Vicia faba) seedlings on 16h/8h light/dark cycles at 20°C. Once reaching adulthood, apterous adults were raised on Fava bean plants on 16h/8h light cycles and allowed to reproduce overnight. After seven days, all aphids, in the 4th larval instar and typically amounting to 5g, were removed from the Fava bean plants. Aphids were weighed and surface-sterilized in 0.5% NaClO solution, then rinsed twice in Ultrapure water (MilliporeSigma), each 30 s. Aphids were gently ground in a mortar and pestle in 40mL sterile Buffer A (25mM KCl (Sigma-Aldrich), 35mM Tris base (Sigma-Aldrich), 10mM MgCl2 (Sigma-Aldrich), 250mM anhydrous EDTA (Sigma-Aldrich), and 500mM Sucrose (Sigma-Aldrich) at pH 7.5). Aphid homogenate was vacuum filtered to 100μm, then centrifuged at 1500g for 10 min at 4°C. Supernatant was discarded, and the resulting pellet was resuspended in 20mL Buffer A and vacuum-filtered three times from 20μm, to 10μm, and finally to 5μm. The resulting filtrate was spun at 1500g for 30 min at 4°C and supernatant discarded. The resulting pellet was resuspended in 10mL Sucrose solution (300mM sucrose (Sigma-Aldrich) and 100mM Tris base (Sigma-Aldrich)) then checked on a brightfield microscope for intact Buchnera cells. Buchnera cells remain intact while at 4°C for a maximum of 24h.

Isolation of flagellum basal bodies from Buchnera cells

Buchnera was incubated with gentle spinning on ice with egg white lysozyme (0.1mg/mL, Sigma-Aldrich) for 30m. 100mM Anhydrous EDTA solution, pH 7.5 (Sigma-Aldrich) was added to final concentration 10mM. The pellet was taken off ice, and gradually raised to room temperature with gentle spinning for 30 min. Triton X-100 (Acros Organics) was added to 1% w/v, along with 1mg/mL RNase-free DNase I (Bovine Pancreas, Sigma-Alrich) and allowed to stir for 30 min. After incubation, cell lysate was kept at 4°C or on ice until use. The lysate was raised to pH 10 using 1N NaOH (Macron Fine Chemicals) to attempt to denature host and bacterial cytoplasmic proteins. The solution was spun at 5000g for 10 min at 4°C three times, each time decanting the supernatant to a new tube. After three spins, the supernatant was transferred to a Nalgene Oak Ridge polyallomer centrifuge tube (Thermo-Fisher) and spun at 30,000g for 1 h at 4°C. Supernatant was gently decanted and pellet covered with TET buffer (10mM Tris-HCl, 5mM EDTA, 0.1% X-100, pH 8.0) and left overnight at 4°C to soften and dissolve.

Submission of protein for mass spectrometry

Solubilized protein concentration was determined using an Eppendorf Biophotometer. 1.5mg protein was run on premade 4–12% Tris-Glycine SDS-PAGE gels (Thermo-Fisher) at 120V for 10m. Gels were stained in Coomassie Brilliant Blue (Bio-Rad) for 30 min, then destained in 20% acetic acid (Thermo-Fisher) for 30m. Gel bands corresponding to the step in the procedure sampled (“Lysate,” “pH 10,” “Spin 1,” “Spin 3,” “Final”) were cut out and submitted to the University of Texas at Austin CBRS Biological Mass Spectrometry Facility for LC-MS/MS using a Dionex Ultimate 3000 RSLCnano LC coupled to a Thermo Orbitrap Fusion (Thermo-Fisher). Samples were submitted in 50mL destain with Buchnera aphidicola str. APS (ASM960v1) provided as the reference organism. Prior to HPLC separation, peptides were desalted using Millipore U-C18 ZipTip Pipette Tips (Millipore-Sigma). A 2cm long x 75μm ID C18 trap column was followed by a 25cm long x 75μm analytical columns packed with C18 3μm material (Thermo Acclaim PepMap 100, Thermo-Fisher) running a gradient from 5–35%. The FT-MS resolution was set to 120,000, with an MS/MS cycle time of 3 s and acquisition in HCD ion trap mode. Raw data were processed using SEQUEST HT embedded in Proteome Discoverer (Thermo-Fisher). Scaffold 4 (Proteome software) was used for validation of peptide and protein IDs. The mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE [34] partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD024664 and 10.6019/PXD024664.

EM and data collection

Protein from the final step of this procedure was stained using 3% Uranyl Acetate on a 400-mech continuous carbon grid. Images were acquired using an FEI Talos transmission electron microscope operating at 200 kV, with 1.25 s exposures, a dose rate of 19 e- Å-2, and a nominal magnification of x57000.

Whole aphid proteomic samples

For controls, proteomes were profiled for whole aphids, including both Buchnera and aphid cells. Aphids were mixed-aged populations grown at 20°C in 30 cup cages and pooled into three replicate samples. Aphids were washed and homogenized in buffer as described above. The homogenate was centrifuged at 4000g for 15min at 4°C, Supernatant was removed, and pellet was suspended with 2% SDS, 0.1M Tris-HCl, 0.1M DTT at 100°C for 10 min, then centrifuged at 14,000g for 20min at 4°C to remove non-soluble material after adding same volume of 8M Urea. Protein concentration was determined on an Eppendorf BioPhotometer. 5mg total protein was run on a Bis-Tris gel for less than 1 cm, and the band was excised and sent to the UT Proteomics Core for LC-MS/MS protein ID. Protein ID methods were identical as detailed above.

Silver stained SDS gel created after the enrichment procedure was performed.

The first lane is taken directly from the enrichment preparation after overnight incubation with TET buffer. The second lane is after concentrating the enriched proteins to 1 mg/mL. The third lane is concentrated protein diluted to 0.5 mg/mL. Ladder values represent molecular weight in kDa. Symbols correspond to flagellar protein molecular weight: * corresponds to FlhA (78 kDa). † corresponds to FliF (63 kDa) and FlgK (63 kDa). ° corresponds to FlgE (45 kDa), FliP (43kDa), and FlgI (41 kDa). ‡ corresponds to FliG (38kDa) and FliM (37 kDa). Δ corresponds to FlgG (28 kDa), FlgF (28 kDa), FlgH (26 kDa), and FliH (26kDa). Ø corresponds to FlgB (16 kDa), FliN (15 kDa), FlgC (15 kDa), and FliE (11 kDa).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Dotplot of Buchnera aphidicola flagellum proteins found after LC/MS-MS analysis.

The enrichment score for each protein is indicated on the x axis. Enrichment scores are calculated by dividing unique spectral counts for each protein in the final step by each protein present in the cell lysate. Core flagellum proteins (defined by proteins required for type III secretion activity and flagellum structure) are filled in green, accessory proteins are filled in white.

(TIFF)

Click here for additional data file.

Flagella genes retained across Buchnera, sorted by host aphid species and tribe.

If genes are retained, the gene length in nucleotides is noted.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Step-by-step procedure for isolation flagellum basal bodies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

11 Feb 2021

PONE-D-21-00952

Isolation of the Buchnera aphidicola flagellum basal body from the Buchnera membrane

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Taylor,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 25 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chih-Horng Kuo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper presents a procedure for isolating proteins for the flagellum basal body of Buchnera, which would facilitate further characterization of this enigmatic protein complex. I believe the paper is important and should be published after some minor edits.

My suggestions are as follows.

Title: Probably "basal body" should be replaced with "basal body proteins" or "basal body complexes". The original wording suggests that basal bodies can be isolated intact, which is not certain at this stage.

p8, l9: "flagella" should be "flagellum basal body proteins". As the authors also describe, Buchnera lacks flagellin, meaning that it lacks flagella.

p8, l10-11: "flagellum proteins" and "flagellum structure" should also be corrected accordingly.

Introduction: In this section, I would like to see protein names and a corresponding figure similar to the current Figure 2.

p9, l19-20: Probably "flagellum proteins" should be "flagellum-related proteins".

p10, l14: Probably "basal bodies" should be replaced with "basal body proteins" or "basal body complexes".

p10, l22: Same as above.

p11, l3: Probably better to add "from Buchnera cells", which would clarify the meaning of "the start" in the following sentence. (Otherwise, it could be misunderstood as whole aphid homogenate.)

p11, l12: The fact that "basal bodies resemble top hats" is not a novel finding. I believe that the authors would like to say instead that they succeeded in obtaining apparently intact (?) basal bodies using the present procedure.

p11, l21: What "changes"?

p13, l9, "bleach solution": Better to show the compound name.

p13, l18: One more parenthesis is required after "Aldrich".

p13, l19, "remain alive": Better to show some evidence or references.

p17: A brief explanation about Tuf and GroL is required.

p18: I believe this kind of figure should be shown in the introduction section.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, Schepers and co-authors report a protocol for isolating flagellar bodies from the membrane of Buchnera endosymbionts of aphids. Flagellar genes have been previously shown to be highly expressed in Buchnera and the flagellar basal bodies imaged on the surface of its cells, but the function of these structures for the aphid-Buchnera symbiosis remains unclear. Since the bacterial flagellum is homologous to the T3SS, these structures are often hypothesized to be involved in protein exchange between Buchnera cells and the host-derived (symbiosomal) membrane surrounding Buchnera’s double membrane. The manuscript only reports a protocol for isolating the flagellar basal bodies, so it is short and straightforward. My comments are relatively minor.

(1) Since the manuscript reports a new protocol, I would appreciate if the authors could upload a step-by-step protocol with as many details as possible to a server such as protocols.io (or to FigShare or as a supplementary file).

(2) If possible, please upload the raw mass spec data to a database or share them in any other way. I understand that sharing such data as supplementary material is not very common, but in this case I feel that having the data available would be beneficial to anyone trying to reproduce the protocol, e.g. to properly validate their results.

(3) Figure 1. Were any aphid-derived or non-flagellar Buchnera proteins enriched after the isolation procedure?

(4) Figure 3. Please provide more details about how many grids were visualized and how many top hat-like particles of flagellar complexes were approximately detected by TEM. Were any other macromolecular protein complexes enriched in the sample?

(5) Are there any other endosymbionts described with an incomplete flagellum (or T3SS) similar to the one known from Buchnera?

Please correct 4C to 4ºC throughout the MS.

**********

6. 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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment 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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

17 Mar 2021

Response is attached.

Submitted filename: Schepers_response_final.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Apr 2021

Isolation of the Buchnera aphidicola flagellum basal body complexes from the Buchnera membrane

PONE-D-21-00952R1

Dear Dr. Taylor,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Chih-Horng Kuo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations on the nice work! Best, CH

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all my comments. I have no further questions or comments. Congratulations.

**********

7. 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

19 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-00952R1

Isolation of the Buchnera aphidicola flagellum basal body complexes from the Buchnera membrane

Dear Dr. Taylor:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Chih-Horng Kuo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE