Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Apr 27;18(4):e0284991. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284991

Characterization of Monoamine Oxidase-A in tropical liver fluke, Fasciola gigantica

Mirza Ahmar Beg 1,*, Abdur Rehman 1, Lubna Rehman 1, Rizwan Ullah 1, Faiza Farhat 1, Sobia Wasim 1, S M A Abidi 1
Editor: Paulo Lee Ho2
PMCID: PMC10138849  PMID: 37104309

Abstract

Fasciola gigantica, responsible for the zoonotic disease fasciolosis, pose a great threat to the livestock and human health worldwide. The triclabendazole (TCBZ) has been used for decades as a broad spectrum anthelmintic to control this perilous disease but the emergence of resistance in flukes against TCBZ has prompted researchers across the world to explore for new drugs and antigenic targets. World Health Organization has strongly recommended the utilization of neurobiologically significant biomolecules as new drug/antigenic targets because of their significant role in the physiology of parasites. Monoamine Oxidase (MAO) is an important neurobiological enzyme which catabolizes aminergic neurotransmitters thus preventing prolonged excitation of neurons and in non-neuronal cells it prevents cellular toxicity due to accumulation of toxic monoamines. Owing to the important role of MAO in the survival and perpetuation of parasites, multipronged approaches were undertaken for the characterization of MAO-A in F. gigantica. The activity of MAO was found to be 1.5 times higher in the mitochondrial samples than the whole homogenate samples. The adult worms of the F. gigantica appeared to possess both the isoforms of MAO i.e., MAO-A and MAO-B. The zymographic studies revealed strong enzyme activity in its native state as assessed through prominent dark bands at 250KDa in the zymogram. The enzyme was also found to be highly immunogenic as revealed by high antibody titer at 1:6400 dilution. The immunogenicity of MAO-A enzyme was further established in the Western Blots in which a strong band of 50KDa was distinctly evident. Despite ubiquitous presence of MAO in F. gigantica some regions like tegumental surface and intestinal caecae displayed strong immunofluorescence as compared to other regions. The detection of MAO-A in the F. gigantica samples in Dot-Blot assay indicate a great potential of this molecule for the immunodiagnostics of fasciolosis, particularly in the field conditions. The enzyme activity was sensitive to the specific inhibitor clorgyline in a concentration dependant manner, particularly in the late incubation period. The zymographic results also exhibited similar trend. The strong intensity of spots in Dot-blots indicate high immunogenicity of the MAO protein. The intensity of bands/spots in the samples of worms treated with clorgyline also declined, clearly indicating that the tropical liver fluke possesses prominent MAO-A activity.

Introduction

Fasciolosis, caused by a digenetic trematode Fasciola gigantica, is a menacing disease which invokes huge monetary loss to agrarian based economies which is estimated to be more than 3 billion USD annually [1]. Besides fiscal losses it causes serious pathological conditions to their hosts and even fatality at high parasitic burden. Fasciola infection is highly prevalent in Indian subcontinent and across the world conspicuously in tropical and subtropical countries of Asia, Africa and Europe [2]. A prevalence of 31.14% in the North Indian region correlates with the reason behind high morbidity amongst the cattle in these areas [3, 4]. Though fasciolosis primarily affects cattle, its zoonotic potential cannot be neglected [5, 6]. From India alone there have been numerous reports of human Fasciola infection from different states such as Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam, Uttar Pradesh etc. [712]. Hence, there is a growing need to address the problems related to the Fasciola infection in livestock and other probable hosts including humans.

In the past few decades notable work has been done to identify antigens of various classes as vaccine candidates and efforts have been made to formulate drugs against these specific targets. However the overuse of most widely used drugs including Triclabendazole has compromised their efficacy [13] and eventually a growing drug resistance has been observed in these flukes [14, 15] which has prompted researchers across the globe to identify and utilize various antigens as immunogenic and vaccine targets such as cysteine proteases, antioxidant system, tegumental biomolecules, Fatty acid binding proteins [1622] etc. but neurobiological system remained neglected as antigenic targets. Owing to their significant roles in parasite biology neurobiological targets could be effectual candidates for vaccine development and drug designing as a number of neuropeptides and amine metabolizing enzymes are directly involved in motility, control and coordination of the worms [23]. The key problems like migration of worms, attachment to host and obtaining nutrition are highly reliant on the neuromuscular system. Therefore, it was suggested by World Health Organization that there is a dire need to study the antigenic targets for anthelmintic drugs associated with neurophysiological aspects [24].

Due to the important connecting position in evolutionary lineage in relation with central nervous system, flatworms particularly Fasciola hepatica were the first organisms to be studied about the mechanisms of serotonin in relation to the rhythmic movements, glucose uptake, glycogenolysis and lactate production of flukes, thus opening the new avenues related to neurobiology [2527]. Serotonin, one of the prime MAO substrates is of great significance in the helminths as the oral sucker is deeply enriched with serotonergic neurons which plays a pivotal role in the attachment of worms with the host [28, 29]. The migratory behavior of helminth is also highly dependent on the circadian levels of serotonin as shown in adult H. diminuta [30]. Researchers have also demonstrated about the significant role of serotonin in the mating behavior of Ascaris [31] which shows that MAO and its substrate plays a key role in host-parasite interface and perpetuation of life cycle of helminths.

Parasitic helminths can be broadly categorized into phylum Platyhelminthes which comprises of flatworms and phylum Nemathelminths, which primarily encompasses roundworms. Individuals of these phyla lacks a well-defined circulatory system, so it becomes a challenging task for them to maintain the bodily balance of peptide and aminergic neurotransmitters and hormones which are involved in the control and coordination of these parasites [23]. For this purpose, Monoamine Oxidase (MAO) plays a crucial role. In neurons it is gathered in large quantity at the inter-neuronal junctions acting as monoamines scavenger thus preventing prolonged excitation of neuronal cells. In non-neuronal cells, it prevents accumulation of monoamines which proves to be toxic for cell if their concentration grows past the threshold level. These monoamines are formed by side reaction of main synthetic pathway or exogenous amines derived from dietary sources [32].

Monoamine oxidase is a flavin containing enzyme found in the outer membrane of mitochondria. It belongs to oxidoreductase class of enzymes which causes oxidative deamination of dietary, monoaminergic neurotransmitters and hormones [33, 34]. On the basis of their substrate and inhibitor sensitivity, two different forms of MAO have been identified [35]. Evidence from immunological studies using monoclonal antibodies and inhibitor sensitivity supports the existence of two different forms of the enzyme and has permitted separation of MAO-A and MAO-B in organisms as advanced as humans [36] and as primitive as helminths [23]. While MAO-B is involved in general coordination of worms, MAO-A is primarily responsible for aggression and motility of the parasites thus making it an important molecule for drug target and vaccine development.

The abundance of MAO in the helminthic system could be attributed to the amine rich diet of helminths as obtained from their hosts which needs to be neutralized on a regular basis [37]. MAO also plays a cardinal role in the development of helminths as also seen in case of A. galli [38]. The levels of MAO and its associated substrate have been found to greatly affect important life functions such as growth promotion [39], reproduction and egg production [40]. Until now, MAO has been reported in parasitic helminths belonging to different classes, namely, Schistosoma mansoni [41], Hymenolepis diminuta [42], Ascaris lumbricoides [43] and some other helminth species [4449] but an in-depth study involving multifrontal approaches in a particular parasite is still a void which is needed to be filled.

Therefore, the present study is an attempt to characterize MAO-A in adult F. gigantica using multipronged approaches involving biochemical and immunological aspects. Further, effect of Clorgyline, a MAO-A inhibitor was studied on the F. gigantica worms under in vitro conditions in order to find relation between the motility of worms with that of MAO-A. Previously researchers have reported MAO in helminths but a multi-omics study involving holistic approach in a particular parasite was lacking.

Materials and methods

Parasite collection

Adult F. gigantica worms were procured from the infected liver of buffaloes collected from the local abattoirs of Aligarh region, India. Worms were rinsed in Hanks’ Balanced Salt solution (HBSS), pH 7.4, pre-maintained at 37°C to remove host contaminants. The worms were then rinsed with antibiotic & antimycotic solution to ward off bacterial and fungal contaminants. Parasites were again given a quick rinse with HBSS, damp dried on Whatman® filter paper, used either fresh or stored at -80°C in deep freezer (Haier) for further studies.

Identification of Fasciola gigantica using ITS2 sequences

DNA extraction

DNA of parasites was extracted by the QIAamp DNA Mini kit (QIAGEN GmbH, Hilden, Germany) as per the standard protocol as described by the manufacturer. A total of 0.1g of each parasite was taken for the extraction of DNA which yielded enough DNA for carrying out the PCR using the specific primers. The DNA concentration at 260 nm and purity at 260:280 nm was checked using Biophotometer (Eppendorf, USA).

Amplification of DNA using polymerase chain reaction

The PCR was performed in 25μl reaction mixture containing 1μl template DNA (500ng), 12.5μl of PCR master mix, 2.5μl forward and reverse primers (1μM) and 6.5μl nuclease free water to give a total volume of 25μl in PCR tubes. The primers were designed to target second internal transcribed spacer as per the specific primers as mentioned below:

  • Fasciola gigantica (forward primer): 5’-GTGCATTTTAGCAACTCGCA-3’

  • Fasciola gigantica (reverse primer): 5’-AAACGCCATAGATCTGGCAC-3’

PCR was performed on a gradient thermal cycler (BioRad) under the following thermal cycling conditions for DNA template of F. gigantica:

Initial denaturation at 95°C for 15 min; then 35 cycles of 95°C for 1min, 43.1°C for 1 min and 72°C for 1 min; 72°C for 10min.

The amplified PCR products were electrophoresed on a 1.5 per cent agarose gel prepared in Tris EDTA (TE) buffer containing ethidium bromide and visualized on a UV transilluminator (Genetix, India).

Homogenization of F. gigantica samples

A homogenate of 25% consistency (w/v) was prepared to obtain high yield of mitochondria. The freshly obtained adult flukes were carefully weighed and minced in 50mM Tris-HCl buffer containing 0.25M sucrose, 1.0mM ATP, 1.0mM EDTA, 1.0mM MgCl2, 100mM KCl and 0.5% bovine serum albumin (BSA) using the tissue homogenizer with glass-teflon probe fitted with a motor driven pestle. All the procedural activities were carried out at 4°C.

Mitochondrial isolation

Mitochondria were isolated by differential centrifugation method as described by Podesta et al. [50]. Primarily, the parasites were homogenized in phosphate buffer and centrifuged two times at 1000g for 15 minutes to remove cell debris. The supernatant was collected and centrifuged at 8000g for 30 minutes. Mitochondrial pellet thus obtained was resuspended in homogenization medium with Bovine Serum Albumin and centrifuged at 8000g for 30 minutes. The pellet was again resuspended in medium without BSA followed by centrifugation at 16000g for 30 minutes. Washing of pellet was done with tris-HCl, pH 7.4 by resuspending and centrifuging the pellet at 16000g for 30 minutes. The pellet obtained was stored at -80°C for further studies. All the steps of centrifugation were done at 4°C to keep the activity of enzyme intact.

Protein estimation

The protein content in the whole homogenate as well as mitochondrial fractions of the adult F. gigantica worms was estimated using the dye binding method as described by Spector [51] using BSA as standard.

Quantitation of MAO activity in F. gigantica

Activity of Monoamine Oxidase was quantified using the method described by Tabor et al. [52]. A final volume of 2 ml assay mixture consisted of 100mM phosphate buffer (pH 7.2), 5.0 mM tyramine hydrochloride, double distilled water and isolated mitochondrial pellet. Assay mixture was incubated at 37°C, after 30 minutes of incubation reaction was stopped by adding 1ml of 10% perchloric acid. The assay mixture was read at 250nm in spectrophotometer (Taurus Scientific). The control assay mixture was devoid of substrate. Specific enzyme activity was expressed as μmoles tyramine utilized/mg protein/30minutes at 37°C.

Quantification of MAO-A and MAO-B activity in F. gigantica

The activity of MAO-A and MAO-B, the two isoforms of MAO, was analyzed as described earlier following the method of Tabor et al. [52]. In this study, the mitochondrial isolates were separately treated with 60μM concentration each of Deprenyl and Clorgyline for 30 minutes at 37°C and the activity was measured using Benzylamine, the substrate catabolized by both the isoforms of MAO. The control was devoid of any substrate. Enzyme activity was expressed as μmoles benzylamine utilized/mg protein/30 minutes at 37°C.

Zymography

For the visual evidence of enzyme activity, zymography was done as described by Lee et al. [53] with slight modifications. The Homogenate of samples were first incubated in 0.5% Triton-X100 for 120 minutes at 4°C. A total of 10μg protein were loaded in each well with an equal volume of sample buffer without β-mercaptoethanol and were resolved in 8% polyacrylamide gel without SDS at a constant voltage of 90V for 90 minutes at 4°C. The gel was then incubated in a substrate prepared by dissolving Tyramine-HCl (20mg), Nitroblue tetrazolium (10mg), 0.1MTris-HCl (15ml) and distilled water (10ml) for 180 minutes in an incubator maintained at 37°C.

Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)

To determine the immunogenic potential of MAO, the ELISA was performed by the method of Voller et al. [54]. Round bottomed polystyrene microtiter plates were coated with 50μl homogenate (10μg/ml protein) of F. gigantica and buffalo liver except blank which was coated with 50μl PBS only. After that washing was done with Tris-buffered saline with Tween (TBST) 5 times for 5 minutes each. Blocking of unspecific sites was done with blocking buffer for 120 minutes. The anti-MAO-A primary antibody (Sigma Aldrich) was serially diluted with an initial dilution of 1:50 and allowed to react with antigens overnight at 4°C for proper adherence. Washing was done again with TBST 5 times for 5 minutes each to wash away any unbound primary antibody. Thereafter, alkaline phosphatase conjugated anti-rabbit IgG (secondary antibody) was added to each well in a dilution of 1:10000 for 120 minutes followed by washing with TBST. Substrate solution was prepared by dissolving pNPP and Tris-HCl tablets (SIGMAFAST) in distilled water. The reaction gave dull yellow color upon addition of substrate and the O.D was recorded on ELISA plate reader at 415 nm wavelength.

Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate-Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE)

The proteins were resolved in a 12% Polyacrylamide gel containing SDS following standard method of Laemmli [55]. To concise, 25mg protein was loaded in each well and electrophoresis was done at a constant voltage of 90V till the tracking dye has reached the bottom of gel. Thereafter the gel was stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue Dye CBBR-250 and imaging was done.

Western blotting

To determine the molecular weight of the immunogenic polypeptides, the western blotting was performed. First, the proteins were resolved on a 12% SDS-Polyacrylamide Gel and transferred to methanol activated PVDF membrane by the method of Towbin et al. [56] as described by Khan et al. [20]. Briefly, after the transblotting of protein to the PVDF membrane, the membrane was kept in blocking buffer for 120 minutes for blocking the unoccupied sites. Thereafter, the membrane was incubated overnight in rabbit anti-MAO-A antibody (primary antibody) at 4°C with a dilution of 1:1000 in blocking buffer. The membrane was then washed with TBST and incubated with alkaline phosphatase conjugated anti-rabbit secondary antibody for 120 minutes at room temperature with a dilution of 1:10000. The membrane was again thoroughly washed with TBST. Finally, membrane was incubated in substrate solution prepared by dissolving BCIP/NBT tablets (SIGMAFAST) in 20ml distilled water until the color developed. Termination of experiment was done by washing the membrane with distilled water multiple times. Images of air-dried membrane were captured and analyzed.

Immunohistochemistry

IHC was done according to the method as described by Khan et al. [20]. The worms were flat fixed in buffered formalin for 24 hours followed by dehydration in the ascending grades of ethanol. The worms were then cleared in xylene and finally kept in molten paraffin wax at 72 ± 1ºC for 12 hours in a water bath. The blocks of wax containing the worm in the middle were prepared and about 5μm thick sections of parasite were cut using rotary microtome (Yorco, India). The sections were deparaffinized in xylene and rehydrated in descending grades of ethanol. Antigen retrieval was done afterwards by boiling the sections in citrate buffer in a microwave for 15 minutes at full power. After that blocking of sections was done using the blocking buffer and then incubated overnight at 4°C in anti-MAO-A antibodies (1°Ab) used at a dilution of 1:1000 in the blocking buffer. Sections were then washed again with TBST 5 times and incubated in FITC conjugated anti-rabbit secondary antibody used at a dilution of 1:10000 for 120 minutes at room temperature. Imaging of sections was done on a Confocal microscope (Zeiss LSM-780) maintained at University Sophisticated Instrumentation Facility, Aligarh Muslim University, India.

Dot blot assay

This immunodiagnostic technique was performed following the method of Hawkes et al. [57]. A 10% Homogenate (w/v) was prepared using parasite samples from bovine, ovine and piscine origin: Fasciola gigantica, Gigantocotyl explanatum, Gastrothylax crumenifer, Paramphistomum epiclitum and Clinostomum complanatum respectively. The homogenates were incubated with 0.5% Triton-X100 for 2 hours at 4°C. A fixed quantity of homogenate (5μl) from each sample was put on preactivated PVDF membrane and left to dry. After that membrane was blocked using blocking buffer for 120 minutes followed by overnight incubation in rabbit anti-MAO-A antibody (1° Ab) with a dilution of 1:1000 at 4°C. After 12-hour incubation, primary antibody was discarded and membrane was washed 5 times with TBST for 5 minutes. Thereafter, membrane was treated with alkaline phosphatase conjugated IgG (secondary antibody) for 120 minutes at room temperature and again washed with TBST 5 times. Membrane was then incubated in substrate solution prepared by dissolving BCIP/NBT tablets (SIGMAFAST) in 20ml distilled water until the color developed and reaction was stopped by washing membrane with distilled water several times.

Treatment of parasites with inhibitor

A total of 5 worms were incubated in 25ml solution containing clorgyline,a specific inhibitor of MAO-A in three different concentrations of 30μM, 60μM and 90μM. Control group was devoid of any inhibitor. The worms were incubated for 7 hours in a CO2 incubator maintained at 37°C. All the treatments were given in triplicates.

Worm motility

After the incubation, the motility of the parasites was recorded as per the method of Stepek et al. [58] with an interval of 30 minutes with a scale of 0–7 where 0 denotes complete loss of motility; 1 signifies movement in worms only when prodded; 2 indicates worms active only at extreme ends of the body; 3 means overall sluggish movement of the entire body; 4 depicts active worms throughout and 5 shows highly motile worms. Above 5 marks extreme motility with intense wriggling movements. The MAO-A activity of clorgyline treated worms was assessed as described earlier according to the method of Tabor et al. [52]. To provide visual evidence of change in enzyme activity post treatment of worms with varying doses of clorgyline, zymography was performed according to the method of Lee et al. [53]. To check the alteration in the immunogenicity of clorgyline treated worms, Western Blotting and Dot-Blot assay was also performed according to the method of Towbin et al. [56] and Hawkes et al. [57] respectively, as described earlier.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was done using One way ANOVA where a minimum of three replicates were performed for each experiment. The results are showed as Mean ± SEM (p ≤ 0.05 considered as significant).

Results

The results of the present study are summarized in Figs 17 and Table 1.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Representative image (a) of amplified DNA obtained following PCR by using primers of F. gigantica ITS2 region (lane 1), non template control (lane 2) and DNA ladder of 1kb size (M). A distinctive band of amplicon could be observed in lane 1, suggesting the identification of sample as the tropical liver fluke (b).

Fig 7.

Fig 7

Representative image of the zymographic profile (a) of the mitochondrial MAO-A of F. gigantica on treatment with different concentrations of clorgyline (Lane 2: 30μM, Lane 3: 60μM and Lane 4: 90μM) and control without inhibitor (Lane 1). Dot blot assay of whole homogenate of F. gigantica samples treated with different concentrations of clorgyline (b) 1. Control 2. 30μM 3. 60μM 4. 90μM. All these results confirmed a concentration dependent decrease in the activity of MAO-A with an increase in the inhibitor dose from 30 to 90μM clorgyline.

Table 1. The specific enzyme activity and percent inhibition of mitochondrial MAO-A enzyme in F. gigantica worms following treatment with different doses of clorgyline.

Clorgyline (μM) Enzyme activity (μmol/min/mg protein) Percent inhibition of enzyme activity (%)
1. 0 (Control) 134.78 -
2. 30 130.67 3.04
3. 60 89.90 33.29*
4. 90 61.45 54.40**

(1.) Control devoid of inhibitor (2.) The adult F. gigantica worms treated with clorgyline at 30μM. (3.) 60μM (4.) 90μM concentrations. A minimum of 3 replicates were run and the data is expressed as a mean ± SEM.

* p < 0.05,

** p < 0.01 were considered statistically significant.

The model digenetic trematode parasite, F. gigantica, selected for the present study was correctly identified on the basis of both, morphological as well as molecular characters and the enzyme understudy was found to be highly enriched in the mitochondrial fraction obtained from the total homogenate of the adult worms. The parasite selected for the present investigations was the tropical liver fluke, Fasciola gigantica since a single specific amplicon band was obtained using F. gigantica specific primers following the PCR (Fig 1a).

Characterization of MAO in adult tropical liver fluke, Fasciola gigantica

The specific activity of MAO was determined using tyramine as the substrate and it was found to be about 1.5-fold higher in the mitochondrial fraction as compared to the activity in the whole homogenate of the adult worms (Fig 2a). The use of MAO-A and MAO-B specific inhibitors, Clorgyline and Deprenyl respectively, showed that there was a significant decrease in the overall mitochondrial MAO activity of F. gigantica as compared to the control, which further confirmed the existence of two isoforms of MAO in F. gigantica (Fig 2b). Further, zymographic analysis revealed the presence of a single distinct band of about 250KDa (Fig 3a and 3b). For the immunological characterization of MAO-A in F. gigantica worms a number of studies were performed. The indirect ELISA test performed using the mono specific anti-MAO-A polyclonal antibodies showed strong immunogenic nature of the MAO-A enzyme of the adult F. gigantica worms as evident from high antibody titer at 1:6400. The buffalo liver sample was used as a positive control which exhibited significantly higher values (Fig 4a) and the titer appeared to be much higher, almost at 1:12800.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

(a) The level of Monoamine Oxidase (MAO) activity of F. gigantica in the whole homogenate (1) and the mitochondrial isolate (2). Since MAOs are present on the outer mitochondrial membrane the enzyme activity was found to be significantly higher (about 1.5-fold increase) in the mitochondrial fraction as compared to the homogenate. The specific enzyme activity was expressed as μmoles Tyramine utilized/mg protein/30minutes at 37°C. (b) The specific enzyme activity of Monoamine Oxidase (MAO) in the mitochondrial isolate of F. gigantica. 1: F. gigantica control group devoid of any inhibitor. 2: F. gigantica mitochondrial isolate treated with clorgyline. 3: F. gigantica mitochondrial isolate treated with deprenyl. There was a significant decrease in enzyme activity as compared to control when selective inhibitors of MAO were used separately. A minimum of 3 replicates were run and the data is expressed as a mean ± SEM.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

A single band of about 250 kDa was obtained when the whole homogenate of F. gigantica (a) and mitochondrial fraction (b) were subjected to zymography using Tyramine-HCl and Nitroblue tetrazolium. M: standard molecular weight marker.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

MAO-A was found to be highly immunogenic as revealed by high antibody titre following indirect ELISA (a) using monospecific anti MAO-A polyclonal antibodies. A distinct 50 kDa polypeptide band was also detected in the western blots (b) performed using whole homogenate (lane 1). M: standard molecular weight marker.

A single polypeptide band obtained of about 50KDa obtained in the SDS polypeptide profile was also detected on the western blots using anti-MAO-A antibodies, thus confirming the presence of MAO-A in the parasite samples beside reflecting the immunogenic potential of the mitochondrial MAO-A of F. gigantica. A single band on the Western blots also reflects that the isoforms might be existing in the monomeric form (Fig 4b). However, further studies are required to ascertain the number and size of different isoforms through molecular characterization.

The immunolocalization of MAO-A in the tissue sections of adult F. gigantica worms using anti-MAO-A antibody. The confocal micrographs revealed ubiquitous localization of MAO-A in the musculature, tegument, hypodermis, intestinal caecae and vitellaria but the immunofluorescence was maximum around intestinal caecae, hypodermis and tegument, the regions through which the parasite obtains nutrition and areas of absorption as well as of high metabolic activity which may help the parasite to survive in their micro-habitat and also help in maintaining the host-parasite relationship (Fig 5a).

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Confocal micrographs of tissue sections of adult tropical liver fluke F. gigantica (a). MAO-A was predominetly localized in the intestinal caecae, tegument, musculature and hypodermis using anti MAO-A polyclonal antibodies (i), inset showing magnified image of intestinal caecae. A magnified micrograph showing immunolocalization in hypodermis region (ii). Scale~200μm. (T- tegument, Ic- Intestinal caecae, H- hypodermis, M- musculature). (b) Representative dot blot with most intensely colored dot appeared in case of buffalo liver (1) followed by F. gigantica (2) and P. epiclitum (3) while C. complanatum (7) showed very low signal as compared to liver. The negative control was devoid of any antigen (4). (c) Quantification of intensity of samples of Dot-blot assay.

The results of dot blot assay revealed that the samples of different parasites of bovine and ovine origin including F. gigantica were found positive for the presence of MAO-A which needs to be worked out in future for better understanding of role of MAO in relation with the habitats of different parasites. Most intensely colored dot appeared in case of positive control (buffalo liver) followed by F. gigantica and P. epiclitum while C. complanatum showed very low signal as compared to liver (Fig 5b and 5c). The negative control was devoid of any antigen (4) but conclusive statements cannot be made for the presence of MAO in C. complanatum unless verified through other biochemical studies because it is possible that the antibody used in the present study might not have cross-reacted with sample from fish parasite, also a reflection of the species-specific variation in enzyme molecules with respect to the cross-reactive epitopes.

Effect of clorgyline treatment on adult F. gigantica worms

The motility of parasites incubated in different concentrations of clorgyline followed a definite trend where the motility of worms first increased initially up to 3–4 hours in a dose dependant manner and then declined subsequently followed by complete immobility leading to paralysis of worms (Fig 6a). It was interesting to observe that contrary to the direct effect of clorgyline on the mitochondrial MAO-A of F. gigantica, the intact worms exhibited stimulatory response in motility proportional to the concentration of inhibitor during the early phase of incubation of worms which was followed by complete loss of motility in late incubation hours.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Motility of F. gigantica worms recorded at every 30 minutes over a period of 7 hours post incubation of parasites in different concentrations (30, 60 and 90μM) of clorgyline (a). Control was devoid of the specific inhibitor. In general, motility of worms upon administration of clorgyline first increased in a dose dependent manner and then decreased until complete immobility was evident. Grading system of motility was done by considering 1 as the least motile, 5 being highly motile and 7 being extremely motile. The specific enzyme activity of mitochondrial MAO-A in F. gigantica worms incubated in vitro with different doses of clorgyline (b). The adult F. gigantica worm treated with clorgyline at 30μM (2), 60μM (3) and 90μM (4) concentrations, while control (1) was devoid of any inhibitor. A minimum of 3 replicates were run and the data is expressed as a mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 were considered statistically significant.

The specific activity of the mitochondrial MAO after incubation of worms with clorgyline was inhibited in a dose dependant manner. As compared to control, the 60μM and 90μM doses of clorgyline significantly inhibited the MAO-A activity but changes were not significant at the 30μM dose (Fig 6b and Table 1). Moreover, zymographic analysis of the mitochondrial MAO-A revealed that the native protein was catalytically highly active as evident from a high intensity band in the control samples. However, the enzyme activity decreased significantly following treatment with the parasite samples with clorgyline in a concentration dependant manner from 30 to 90μM. The 30μM concentration could not bring notable changes in MAO-A activity as compared to the control group but the highest dose of 90μM significantly inhibited the MAO-A activity as evident from the low intensity band, indicating that the enzyme activity was not completely lost even at the highest concentration of the inhibitor used in the present study (Fig 7a).

The Dot-Blot assay was performed considering the fact that it might provide future avenues for field-based detection of infection due to the simplicity of the test. The results revealed that the intensity of spots varied with the concentration of clorgyline. Spots with least dose of clorgyline i.e., 30μM showed highly intense spots and with higher doses of clorgyline i.e., 60μM and 90μM the spots appeared to be fading, thus revealing the inhibitory nature of clorgyline, and the results appeared to be consistent with zymography and also showed significant reproducibility (Fig 7b).

Discussion

Helminthic infection in livestock is so detrimental that according to estimations by Spithill et al. [1] fasciolosis alone incurs economic losses of billions of USD annually. TCBZ is the most favored broad-spectrum drug used against helminthic infections for decades but the emergence of drug resistance has been observed which has prompted scientists across the world to find more alternatives of drugs as well as antigenic targets for their utilization in the development of successful vaccine. As non-conventional anthelmintics, our group has found varied efficacy in active components of natural products like curcumin and thymoquinone [18, 21], metalloenzyme inhibitors [59] and metal-based nanoparticles [60] in helminths of bovine origin. Though a plethora of work has been done in the direction of finding various antigenic targets, the exploration of neurobiological targets remained relatively untouched in helminths.

This is the first ever study on characterization of MAO using multipronged immunological approaches in F. gigantica thus filling the empty lacunae of understanding the relation between neurophysiology and its associated antigenic targets. Biogenic amines and their metabolizing enzymes have been reported in a number of parasitic helminths [49, 6165] however conclusive studies regarding the activity, localization, biophysical properties of the enzyme in helminths are still in dearth.

First of all, identification of collected parasites was done on the basis of molecular characterization of ITS2 gene. The successful amplification of ITS2 gene using F. gigantica ITS2 specific primers suggested that the parasite under consideration was F. gigantica and not any other species of Fasciola. The ITS2 gene was selected for the identification of parasites, as these are highly conserved sequences and are considered as good marker for the identification purposes. The F. hepatica is more leafy-like in appearance with broad shoulders and smaller profile while F. gigantica, as the name suggests, is a bigger cousin of former and has narrower shoulders and elongated body. Despite some morphological differences in F. gigantica and F. hepatica identification of parasite merely by visual means cannot be completely relied upon as there have been several reports of overlapping morphological characters in case of both the parasites and the existence of hybrid forms further complicate the proper selection of parasites for various studies. Therefore, to rule out the possibility of picking up a hybrid form from the field infection since previous reports have shown the occurrence of not only mixed infections of Fasciola species but also the occurrence of the hybrid forms, a thorough morphological identification was augmented by the molecular characterization of the tropical liver fluke species using F. gigantica specific ITS2 primers. The results revealed a successful amplification of the ITS2 gene using the end-point gradient-PCR method and the amplicons obtained thus further confirmed the identity of the specimens used in the biochemical and immunological studies.

Two types of MAO have been suggested in helminths where MAO-A is directly involved in the aggression and motility of the parasites and MAO-B is postulated to be responsible for general neuromuscular coordination [23]. So, to check the presence of two forms of enzyme in F. gigantica, specific enzyme activity was measured either alone or separately in the presence of Clorgyline and Deprenyl which are inhibitors of MAO-A and MAO-B respectively. A significant decline in the levels of enzyme activity when MAO-A and MAO-B inhibitors were used independently confirms the elementary presence of two isoforms of MAO in adult F. gigantica worms as also suggested in case of G. explanatum and G. crumenifer by Abidi and Nizami [23]. These results further support the previous studies on other digeneans such as S. mansoni, S. cervi, A. galli, H. diminuta, A. lumbricoides and N. braziliensis [38, 41, 42, 48, 66, 67] which showed the suppression of MAO activity by the action of varied number of inhibitors.

From this point our study was mainly focused on MAO-A of F. gigantica. as it is the more relevant isoform in relation to virulence and aggression of the parasite. Since MAOs are the enzymes located on the outer membrane of mitochondria, anticipation of increased enzyme activity in isolated mitochondrial samples found to be correct as the activity of enzyme was observed to be 1.5 times higher in the mitochondrial samples as compared to the whole homogenate of F. gigantica, as also described by Siddiqui and Podesta [68] and Schnaitman et al. [69] in H. diminuta and rat liver respectively. This signifies the high enrichment of mitochondria of F. gigantica worms with that of MAO-A enzyme.

A single prominent band of about 250KDa in the zymographic analysis indicates the large size of the enzyme in the native state whereas western blot analysis followed by the SDS-PAGE showed the single band size of about 50KDa which clearly signals towards the multimeric form of the enzyme of same sized monomers. These findings further strengthen the observations made by Dostert et al. [35]. When the zymography of whole homogenate was performed, a single band with low intensity was observed. The preliminary findings regarding the size of the enzyme in its active state and cleaved state could prove to be of immense value for further biochemical, pharmacological and in silico studies. The high enzyme activity as indicated by high intensity bands shows that the MAO-A is a major neurobiological enzyme which is required by the tissues in high amount for cellular housekeeping processes.

To determine the immunogenic potential of the enzyme, an immunodiagnostic approach was undertaken by means of Dot-Blot assay. The results of the Dot-blot assay using the whole homogenate of F. gigantica along with other trematodes revealed that the anti-MAO-A antibody used in the present study could detect the antigen with varied intensities of the dots in different species of the parasite. Amongst the bovine parasites, F. gigantica, G. explanatum and G. crumenifer and the ovine parasite, P. epiclitum were found positive but the C. complanatum, a parasite of piscine origin was found to be negative which suggests the presence of common and distinct epitopes of MAO-A enzyme. Such differences and similarities in the epitopes of MAO-A could be in response to occupying different micro-environments in diversified hosts. The Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) results further confirmed the strong antigenic nature of MAO-A in F. gigantica adult worms as evident from the high antibody titre at 1:6400 dilution. The minimum amount of the antigen which could be detected by the antibody used in the present study was found to be around 400ng, reflecting high level of sensitivity of detection process.

Since the MAOs are present in the outer membrane of mitochondria, immunolocalization studies revealed that MAO-A is located ubiquitously in the F. gigantica worms but its presence was more profound around the intestinal caecae, tegument and hypodermis. This is consistent with the previous studies in A. galli and S. cervi where MAO was found to be mainly concentrated in the CHM layer (cuticle, muscle, hypodermis) along with the intestine and gonads [38, 70]. Since the helminths mostly rely on parasitizing their host, their food also contains amines from the dietary sources of their host, the localization of MAO around the intestinal caecae seems to be justified as these MAOs nullifies the surplus biogenic amines which causes cellular toxicity [32]. The richness of tegument with MAO could be explained by the fact that a part of these parasitic worms comes from absorption of nutrients through body of host, so an outer barrier of checkpoint of the spurious monoamines is needed to avoid the toxicity.

A plethora of data is available regarding the effect of clorgyline, a MAO-A specific inhibitor on mammalian cells due to its effectiveness in the treatment of neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease as well as in the treatment of clinical depression. However, with the exception of some preliminary data almost nothing is known about the effect of clorgyline on MAO-A of F. gigantica adult worms, in particular and helminths in general. Therefore, in the present study an attempt has been made to see the effects of clorgyline, a commercially available MAO-A inhibitor, on the activity and levels of the mitochondrial MAO-A of adult F. gigantica worms through a multitude of biochemical and immunological approaches. Parasites upon inhibitor administration showed a concentration dependant increase in the amplitude of motility during initial 3–4 hours in a 7-hour incubation period followed by the complete paralysis of the worms and eventually death of the worms. The initial increase in the amplitude of the motility of worms found to be directly proportional to the amount of clorgyline concentration as worms incubated with lower doses of clorgyline showed lower spike in motility in the initial phase of incubation followed by a continuous decrease in activity and eventually death. The results are in consensus with the previous studies on neuromuscular coordinative role of MAO of parasites as described by Ercoli et al. [71] where the authors have shown that monoamine antagonist, methysergide, significantly affected the motility of S. mansoni worms in a dose dependant manner. In another study by Pax et al. [72] it was found that 5-HT, a prime MAO substrate, elevated the rhythmic contractibility in circular as well as longitudinal muscles. The incidental increase in motility of worms could be understood by the widely accepted nature of serotonin as a motility enhancer. As a result, when the level of MAO-A is suppressed by clorgyline, the possible upsurge of serotonin levels might have increased the motility of worms in the initial hours of incubation as also explained by Camicia et al. [73] who observed that citalopram, a serotonin transporter inhibitor, caused a significant inhibition in the motility of E. granulosus.

The activity of enzyme in clorgyline treated worms showed similar trend as that of the motility assay. The enzyme activity declined in a concentration dependant manner with an increase in inhibitor concentration. The significant inhibition of MAO-A in F.gigantica worms by such small doses of clorgyline (90μM) gives hopes in the development of drugs which can selectively target helminth associated MAO since the mammalian MAO is inhibited at much higher dose (10mg/kg body weight) as suggested by Green and Youdim [74]. This information could prove to be useful for the development of inhibitor-based drugs as lower doses of inhibitory drugs against parasitic MAO, as compared to its mammalian host, may dislodge the parasite from its host rendering the host unharmed.

An overlapping trend with the previous results was obtained in zymography of clorgyline treated worms where the intensity of MAO-A bands was found to be continuously decreasing with the increase in clorgyline concentration which further confirmed the strong inhibitory nature of clorgyline against the MAO-A of parasitic origin. The enzymatic bands of clorgyline treated worms were exactly at the same position as it was in control group devoid of any inhibitor which gives supplementary affirmation that clorgyline do not cleave the MAO-A instead it binds to a site of enzyme which makes it difficult for substrate to bind with it thus reducing the overall activity of the enzyme. Though further studies are required to strengthen this claim.

The Dot-blot assay for F. gigantica samples treated with different concentration of clorgyline using anti-MAO-A primary antibody revealed that the intensity of spots decreased in a similar manner as the band intensity in zymography. These findings are in agreement with earlier studies of Agarwal et al. [70] who observed that clorgyline caused significant inhibition of MAO levels in the neurotropic filarid, S. cervi. A marked decline in the immunogenic potential of MAO-A by clorgyline signalled towards a strong binding affinity of this inhibitor with the immunogenic epitopes of the enzyme. Also, the immunodetection of MAO-A by Dot-blot assay in the whole homogenate of F. gigantica samples makes it a good candidate for the development of a simple diagnostic tool to detect the field-based infection, of F. gigantica.

Conclusions

Considering the present results, it can be elucidated that MAO-A is an important neurophysiological enzyme having a high molecular mass of about 250KDa and is abundantly present in the mitochondria of tropical liver fluke, F. gigantica. The enzyme is ubiquitously present in the fluke but is highly concentrated around the intestinal caecae and tegument felicitating cytotoxicity prevention by surplus monoamines absorbed through these nutrient absorptive surfaces. Also, the enzyme MAO-A found to be highly immunogenic biomolecule. Owing to its importance in the survival and perpetuation of helminths, it could be a relevant target for future drug designing as well as in the development of vaccines. However, further studies are required to understand the mechanism and role of MAO-A in virulence as well as in the establishment of host-parasite relationship. Clorgyline caused a significant inhibition of MAO-A activity in adult F. gigantica, initially increasing the instantaneous motility of the worms, which ultimately led to the complete paralysis of worms as that might lead to the clearance of parasites from the body of the host. Therefore, further studies should be undertaken to explore the therapeutic effectiveness of clorgyline in order to develop an alternative drug formulations / flukicides in order to control the liver fluke infections.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Zymography of MAO-A in F. gigantica whole homogenate isolate (lane 1 and 2) showing MAO-A.

Note: Lane 1 is not the part of main figure and Marker in all zymography gels appeared to be very faint.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Zymography of MAO-A of F. gigantica on treatment with different concentrations of clorgyline (lane 3: 30μM, lane 4: 60μM and lane 5: 90μM) and control without inhibitor (lane 1 and lane 2).

Note: Marker in all zymography gels appeared to be very faint.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Western blot of MAO-A in F. gigantica adult worms (lane 1 and 2).

Note: Lane 2 is not the part of main figure.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Chairman, Department of Zoology. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh for providing necessary facilities and Coordinator, University Sophisticated Instrumentation Facility for confocal microscopy. We are extremely thankful to CSIR, UGC, DBT-BUILDER and BBSRC for instrumentation support. Technical assistance of Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad is also greatly acknowledged.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Spithill TW, Smooker PM, Copeman DB. Fasciola gigantica: epidemiology, control, immunology and molecular biology. In: Dalton J.P. (Ed.), 1999. Fasciolosis. CABI Publishing, Oxon, UK, (Chapter 15), pp 465–525. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mehlhorn H. Encyclopedia of Parasitology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. 2008. (3rd ed.) [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Garg R, Yadav CL, Kumar RR, Banerjee PS, Vatsya S, Godara R. The epidemiology of fasciolosis in ruminants in different geo-climatic regions of north India. Tropical animal health and production. 2009. Dec 1;41(8):1695. doi: 10.1007/s11250-009-9367-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Yadav CL, Garg R, Banerjee PS, Kumar RR, Kumar S. Epizootiology of Fasciola gigantica infection in cattle and buffaloes in Western Uttar Pradesh, India. J Vet Parasitol. 2009; 23: 135–8 [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mas-Coma M S, Esteban J G, Bargues MD. Epidemiology of human fascioliasis: a review and proposed new classification. World Health Organisation, 1999;77: 340–346 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mas-Coma S. Human fascioliasis. 2004; pp 305–322. In Cotruvo J A, Dufour A, Rees G, Bartram J, Carr R, Cliver DO, Craun G F, Fayer R., Gannon VPJ. (Eds.) Waterborne zoonoses: identification, causes and control. World Health Organization (WHO) London, IWA Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bhambal SS, Bhandari NR, Bajpai R. Liver-fluke infestation (Fasciola hepatica). Indian Pediatrics, 1980; 17, 469–471. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Narain K, Biswas D, Rajguru SK, Mahanta J. Human distomatosis due to Fasciola hepatica infection in Assam, India. The Journal of Communicable Diseases, 1997; 29: 161–165. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Elhence V, Mehta B, Gupta RK. Fascioliasis: A case from central Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Gastroenterol. 2001;20: 164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Das K, Sakuja P, Agarwal A, Puri A S, Tatke M. Non-resolving liver abscess with Echinococcus cross-reactivity in a non-endemic region. Indian J. Gastroenterol.2007; 26: 92–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gandhi V, Jain P, Rathod V, Nagral S. Endoscopic ultrasound in biliary fasciolosis. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2010; 29: 128. doi: 10.1007/s12664-010-0029-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ramachandran J, Ajjampur S, Chandramohan A, Varghese G M. Cases of human fascioliasis in India: Tip of the iceberg. J Postgrad Med. 2012; 58: 150–152. doi: 10.4103/0022-3859.97180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kelley JM, Elliott TP, Beddoe T, Anderson G, Skuce P, Spithill TW. Current Threat of Triclabendazole Resistance in Fasciola hepatica. Trends Parasitol 2016; 32: 458–469. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2016.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Brennan GP, Fairweather I, Trudgett A, Hoey E, McCoy, McConville M. et al. Understanding triclabendazole resistance. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 2007; 82: 104–109. doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2007.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Novobilský A, A Solis N, Skarin M, Höglund J. Assessment of flukicide efficacy against Fasciola hepatica in sheep in Sweden in the absence of a standardised test. Int. J. Parasitol. Drugs Drug Resist. 2016; 6: 141–147. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2016.06.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dalton JP, Neill SO, Stack C, Collins P, Walshe A, Sekiya M, et al. Fasciola hepatica cathepsin L-like proteases: Biology, function, and potential in the development of first generation liver fluke vaccines. Int. J. Parasitol. 2003; 33: 1173–1181. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7519(03)00171-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.McVeigh P, McCammick EM, McCusker P, Morphew RM, Mousley A, Abidi A. et al. RNAi Dynamics in Juvenile Fasciola spp. Liver Flukes Reveals the Persistence of Gene Silencing In Vitro. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2014; 8: 9 doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ullah R, Rehman A, Zafeer MF, Rehman L, Khan YA, Khan MH, et al. Anthelmintic potential of thymoquinone and curcumin on Fasciola gigantica. PloS one. 2017. Feb 2;12(2): e0171267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.LaCourse EJ, Perally S, Morphew RM, Moxon JV, Prescott M, Dowling DJ et al. The Sigma class glutathione transferase from the liver fluke Fasciola hepatica. PLoS neglected tropical diseases. 2012. May 29;6(5): e1666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Khan MH, Ullah R, Rehman A, Rehman L, Shareef A, Abidi SM. Immunolocalization and immunodetection of the excretory/secretory (ES) antigens of Fasciola gigantica. PloS one. 2017. Oct 3;12(10): e0185870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rehman A, Ullah R, Gupta D, Khan MH, Rehman L, Beg MA, et al. Generation of oxidative stress and induction of apoptotic like events in curcumin and thymoquinone treated adult Fasciola gigantica worms. Experimental parasitology. 2020. Feb 1;209:107810. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2019.107810 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kumar N, Anju V, Gaurav N, Chandra D, Samanta S, Gupta SC, et al. Vaccination of buffaloes with Fasciola gigantica recombinant glutathione S-transferase and fatty acid binding protein. Parasitology research. 2012. Jan 1;110(1): 419–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Abidi SM, Nizami WA. Monoamine oxidase in amphistomes and its role in worm motility. Journal of helminthology. 2000. Dec;74(4):283–8. doi: 10.1017/s0022149x0000041x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.World Health Organization. Lymphatic filariasis: fourth report of the WHO Expert Committee on Filariasis [meeting held in Geneva from 31 October to 8 November 1983].
  • 25.Mansour TE, Lago AD, Hawkins JL. Occurrence and possible role of serotonin in Fasciola hepatica. InFederation Proceedings 1957 Jan 1 (Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 319–319). 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Md 20814–3998: Federation Amer Soc Exp Biol.
  • 26.Mansour TE. The effect of serotonin and related compounds on the carbohydrate metabolism of the liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 1959. Jul 1;126(3):212–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mansour TE. Effect of serotonin on glycolysis in homogenates from the liver fluke Fasciola hepatica. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 1962. Jan 1;135(1):94–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Brownlee DJ, Fairweather I, Johnston CF, Rogan MT. Immunocytochemical localization of serotonin (5-HT) in the nervous system of the hydatid organism, Echinococcus granulosus (Cestoda, Cyclophyllidea). Parasitology. 1994. Aug;109(2):233–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mair GR, Maule AG, Day TA, Halton DW. A confocal microscopical study of the musculature of adult Schistosoma mansoni. Parasitology. 2000. Aug;121(2):163–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mansour TE. Serotonin receptors in parasitic worms. In Advances in parasitology 1985. Jan 1 (Vol. 23, pp. 1–36). Academic Press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Reinitz CA, Stretton AO. Behavioral and cellular effects of serotonin on locomotion and male mating posture in Ascaris suum (Nematoda). Journal of Comparative Physiology A. 1996. May 1;178(5):655–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sweetman AJ, Weetman DF. The oxidation of biologically important monoamines by monoamine oxidase. Experiments in Physiology and Biochemistry. 1972; 5:302–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tipton KF, Boyce S, O’Sullivan J, Davey GP, Healy J (2004). Monoamine oxidases: certainties and uncertainties. Current Medicinal Chemistry. 11 (15): 1965–82. doi: 10.2174/0929867043364810 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Edmondson DE, Mattevi A, Binda C, Li M, Hubálek F (2004). Structure and mechanism of monoamine oxidase. Current Medicinal Chemistry. 11 (15): 1983–93. doi: 10.2174/0929867043364784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dostert PL, S Benedetti M, Tipton KF. Interactions of monoamine oxidase with substrates and inhibitors. Medicinal research reviews. 1989. Jan;9(1):45–89. doi: 10.1002/med.2610090104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Denney RM, Fritz RR, Patel NT, Abell CW. Human liver MAO-A and MAO-B separated by immunoaffinity chromatography with MAO-B-specific monoclonal antibody. Science. 1982. Mar 12;215(4538):1400–3. doi: 10.1126/science.7063850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nag M, Chakravorty K, Nandi N. Monoamine oxidase & amine tetrazolium reductase in the guineapig small intestine. Indian journal of experimental biology. 1978. Feb;16(2):174–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mishra SK, Sen R, Ghatak S. Monoamine oxidase in adult Ascaridia galli. Journal of helminthology. 1983. Dec;57(4):313–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Smyth JD, Clegg JA. Egg-shell formation in trematodes and cestodes. Experimental Parasitology. 1959. Jun 1;8(3):286–323. doi: 10.1016/0014-4894(59)90027-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bennett JL, Gianutsos G. Disulfiram—a compound that selectively induces abnormal egg production and lowers norepinephrine levels in Schistosoma mansoni. Biochemical pharmacology. 1978. Mar 1;27(5):817–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nimmo-Smith RH, Raison CG. Monoamine oxidase activity of Schistosoma mansoni. Comparative biochemistry and physiology. 1968;24(2):403–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Moreno MS, Barrett J. Monoamine oxidase in adult Hymenolepis diminuta (Cestoda). Parasitology. 1979. Feb;78(1):1–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mishra SK, Sen R, Ghatak S. Monoamine oxidase and metabolites of biogenic amines in human Ascaris. Indian Journal of Parasitology. 1978; 2:153–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mansour TE, Mansour JM. Effects of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) and adenosine 3", 5"-phosphate on phosphofructokinase from the liver fluke Fasciola hepatica.~. biol. J. biol. Chem. 1962. Mar;237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bennett J, Bueding E. Localization of biogenic amines in Schistosoma mansoni. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 1971(4):859–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Chou TC, Bennett J, Bueding E. Occurrence and concentrations of biogenic amines in trematodes. The Journal of parasitology. 1972. Dec 1:1098–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hariri M. Occurrence and concentration of biogenic amines in Mesocestoides corti (Cestoda). The Journal of parasitology. 1974. Oct 1:737–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Agarwal A, Mishra A, Mishra SK, Ghatak S. Monoamine oxidase in Nippostrongylus brasiliensis. Indian Journal of Parasitology. 1985; 9:221–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Smart D. Catecholamine synthesis in Ascaridia galli (Nematoda). International journal for parasitology. 1988. Jun 1;18(4):485–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Podesta RB, Siddiqui AA, Ansell MT. Isolation of parasite surface membranes. 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Spector T. Refinement of the Coomassie Blue Method of Protein Quantitation. Anal Biochem. 1978; 86: 142–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Tabor CW, Tabor H, Rosenthal SM. Purification of amine oxidase from beef plasma. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1954. Jun 1;208(2):645–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lee MH, Chuang MT, Hou WC. Activity staining of plasma amine oxidase after polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and its application to natural inhibitor screening. Electrophoresis. 2002. Aug;23(15):2369–72. doi: 10.1002/1522-2683(200208)23:15&lt;2369::AID-ELPS2369&gt;3.0.CO;2-Z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Voller A, Bartlett A, Bidwell DE, Clark MF, Adams AN. The detection of viruses by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Journal of General Virology. 1976. Oct 1;33(1):165–7. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-33-1-165 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Laemmli UK. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature. 1970; 227: 680–5. doi: 10.1038/227680a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Towbin H, Staehelin T, Gordon J. Electrophoretic transfer of proteins from polyacrylamide gels to nitrocellulose sheets: Procedure and some applications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1979; 76: 4350–4354. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.9.4350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hawkes R, Niday E, Gordon J. A dot-immunobinding assay for monoclonal and other antibodies. Anal Biochem. 1982; 119: 142–7. doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(82)90677-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Stepek G, Buttle DJ, Duce IR, Lowe A, Behnke JM. Assessment of the anthelmintic effect of natural plant cysteine proteinases against the gastrointestinal nematode, Heligmosomoides polygyrus, in vitro. Parasitology. 2005. Feb;130(2):203–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Singh K, Rehman A, Ullah R, Rehman L, Wasim S, Farhat F, et al. The anthelmintic activity of 1, 10-phenanthroline, a metalloenzyme inhibitor. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2019. Nov 1;53(11):1518–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Khan YA, Singh BR, Ullah R, Shoeb M, Naqvi AH, Abidi SM. Anthelmintic effect of biocompatible zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs) on Gigantocotyle explanatum, a neglected parasite of Indian water buffalo. PloS one. 2015. Jul 15;10(7): e0133086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Frandsen JC, Bone LW. Biogenic amines and their metabolites in Trichostrongylus colubriformis, a nematode parasite of ruminants. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Comparative Pharmacology. 1987. Jan 1;87(1):75–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Rathaur S, Kaushal NA, Ghatak S. Biogenic amines and their metabolites in microfilariae and adults of Setaria cervi. Indian Journal of Parasitology. 1985; 9:203–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Saxena JK, Bose SK, Sen R, Chatterjee RK, Sen AB, Ghatak S. Litomosoides carinii: biogenic amines in microfilariae and adults. Experimental parasitology. 1977. Oct 1;43(1):239–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Agarwal A, Mishra SK, Rathaur S, Chatterjee RK, Katiyar JC, Ghatak S. Dopamine-β-hydroxylase in parasitic nematodes. Indian Journal of Parasitology. 1982; 6:223–225. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ribeiro P, Webb RA. The occurrence, synthesis and metabolism of 5-hydroxytryptamine and 5-hydroxytryptophan in the cestode Hymenolepis diminuta: a high performance liquid chromatographic study. Comparative biochemistry and physiology. C, Comparative pharmacology and toxicology. 1984;79(1):159–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Rathaur S. Study of the intermediary metabolism in microfilarial and adult stages of bovine filarial parasite, Setaria cervi. Ph.D Thesis, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India, 1980.
  • 67.Mishra SK, Sen R, Ghatak S. Ascaris lumbricoides and Ascaridia galli: biogenic amines in adults and developmental stages. Experimental parasitology. 1984. Feb 1;57(1):34–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Siddiqui AA, Podesta RB. Subcellular fractionation of Hymenolepis diminuta with special reference to the localization of marker enzymes. The Journal of parasitology. 1985. Aug 1:415–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Schnaitman C, Erwin VG, Greenawalt JW. The submitochondrial localization of monoamine oxidase: an enzymatic marker for the outer membrane of rat liver mitochondria. The Journal of cell biology. 1967. Mar 1;32(3):719–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Agarwal A, Shukla OP, Ghatak S, Tekwani BL. Biogenic amines, metabolites and monoamine oxidase in the filarial worm Setaria cervi. International journal for parasitology. 1990. Nov 1;20(7):873–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ercoli N, Payares G, Nunez D. Schistosoma mansoni: neurotransmitters and the mobility of cercariae and schistosomules. Experimental parasitology. 1985. Apr 1;59(2):204–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Pax RA, Siefker C, Bennett JL. Schistosoma mansoni: differences in acetylcholine, dopamine, and serotonin control of circular and longitudinal parasite muscles. Experimental parasitology. 1984. Dec 1;58(3):314–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Camicia F, Herz M, Prada LC, Kamenetzky L, Simonetta SH, Cucher MA, et al. The nervous and prenervous roles of serotonin in Echinococcus spp. International journal for parasitology. 2013. Jul 1;43(8):647–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Green AR, Youdim MB. Effects of monoamine oxidase inhibition by clorgyline, deprenil or tranylcypromine on 5-hydroxytryptamine concentrations in rat brain and hyperactivity following subsequent tryptophan administration. British Journal of Pharmacology. 1975. Nov;55(3):415–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1975.tb06946.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Paulo Lee Ho

8 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-30479Characterization of Monoamine Oxidase-A in tropical liver fluke, Fasciola giganticaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Beg,

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 Apr 22 2023 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paulo Lee Ho, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“No funding was available for this project”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4.  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.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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 manuscript is interesting, and important to the field since Fasciola sp infection is difficult to do a diagnosis because of the low presence of eggs of the parasite in feces and treatment is also problematic. So, it is important to discover new tools for diagnosis and treatment. Despite that, the manuscript has some problems that should be improved. The questions are:

Major:

1. In figure 1a, Where are the positive and negative controls of PCR? What is the size of the amplicon? Is it specific? Was it sequenced?

2. In figure 2b, did the researchers apply any statistical approach in this experiment?

3. In figures 3a and 3b how can I prove that is a mitochondrial protein extract? I suggest a control using an antibody against mitochondrial marker protein.

4. In this phrase "For the immunological characterization of MAO-A in F. gigantica worms a number of studies were performed". How many? Please specify, the number of studies made.

5. In figure 4b, where is lane 2?

6. The results which are shown in figure 7 sound interesting, but the authors should provide loading controls ( ponceau stained membrane and/or a mitochondrion antibody marker with present no alteration with inhibitor treatment. Without this, is not possible to do the affirmation made by the authors in the text.

7. It seems that the anti-MAO-A primary antibody was purchased from Sigma Aldrich. This antibody was raised in which organism? Fasciola? If not raised in Fasciola, what is the degree of identity of the epitope?

Minor:

1. In the phrase in the Introduction section: "Till now, MAO has been reported in parasitic helminths belonging to different classes, namely", please change "till" to "Until".

2. In Materials and methods in the PCR section: Please provide PCR reaction components concentrations

3. Please provide a link to the PCR amplification with other results.

Reviewer #2: PONE-D-22-30479

Title: “Characterization of Monoamine Oxidase-A in tropical liver fluke, Fasciola gigantica.”

Minor Revision

The publication does not overstate anything and addresses the titular claims well. It is a well referenced manuscript and authors have nicely mentioned drug resistance story and explained the present gaps in the characterization of MAO in helminths. Furthermore, characterization through multi-omics approach validates most of the findings. I believe molecular characterisation of parasite is a strong pivot of this manuscript because identification of field-procured parasite just on the basis of morphological identification could give false positive results. Although, I have no doubt on experimentation but the quality of manuscript can be improvised by small changes which I have enumerated below:

1. It is mentioned that MAO activity in mitochondria is significantly higher compared to whole homogenate but there is no significant asterisks on activity bars. Kindly put significant marks in Fig 2a.

2. Authors have forgotten to put lane 2 western blot in Fig 4b. Kindly fix that.

3. In Abstract, abbreviate the full form of ‘WHO’ as ‘World Health Organization’ because it is not a good idea to introduce abbreviated words in abstract because it is the first text the audience reads.

4. Almost at all the places spelling of ‘Dependent’ is wrong. Kindly replace “Dependent” with “Dependant”. For spellings, stay with either UK English or US English in a manuscript and not a mixture of both in a single publication.

5. Avoid using same adjective in a single sentence such as in this statement “The strong intensity of bands in western blots and the spots in Dot-blots indicate strong immunogenic nature of the MAO protein” strong is used two times as an adjective. Then again after two three lines “clearly indicating that the tropical liver fluke possesses strong MAO-A activity” the use of word “strong” comes into play. Kindly replace it with different synonyms.

6. The statement in 3rd paragraph of introduction “thus making MAO an indispensable biomolecule for developing the host-parasite interaction for the survival and perpetuation” does not make any sense or it is too complex. Kindly use simpler text for a better understanding for a wider range of audience.

7. Kindly rephrase the last paragraph statement in introduction “Previously researchers have reported and localized MAO in helminth parasites but data is still in dearth about the complete picture of this enzyme in a specific parasite”.

8. In the conclusive remarks “Considering the present results, it can be elucidated that MAO-A is an important neurophysiological enzyme having a high molecular mass and is abundantly present in the mitochondria of tropical liver fluke, F. gigantica” refrain from using unspecific words such as “high molecular mass” instead of that mention the size of band observed.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Shahanwaz Rehman

**********

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Minor Revision PONE-D-22-30479.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 27;18(4):e0284991. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284991.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Apr 2023

First and foremost, we sincerely thank the reviewers for putting up their valuable time in reviewing this manuscript. We thoroughly went through the comments made by reviewers and have corrected our manuscript as advised. The corrections and explanations behind those changes are enumerated as follows:

Reviewer#1

Query: Reviewer requested to include PCR reaction volume and concentrations in text.

Response: PCR reaction volume and concentrations of each of its ingredient are now provided in materials and methods section (Page 6 under heading “Amplification of DNA using Polymerase Chain Reaction”).

Query: Reviewer questioned about the statistical test done, if any, in figure 2b.

Response: The non-parametric t-test was performed for figure 2a and One-way ANOVA was performed for figure 2b. The level of significance along with their significance asterisk have now been included in the graphs as advised (Figure 2).

Query: Reviewer had advised to provide details about host of antibody and specificity of epitopes of antibody.

Response: It is not possible to raise antibody in Fasciola gigantica because it does not have well defined circulatory system. The antibody was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich which was raised in mouse with the epitopes of human MAO and cited reactivity with mouse samples. Since the MAO is highly conserved protein and with its reactivity with mouse we hypothesized it should react with Fasciola samples too. No antibody of MAO against any parasite was available in the market.

Query: Reviewer had requested to mention specificity of primers and size of amplicons obtained in ITS2 based molecular identification experiment. He had also advised to include positive and negative control in PCR.

Response: As suggested, we have included negative control of PCR in our results. Since the experiment was done for the first time it was not possible to have positive control. Regarding the size of amplicon, it is in consensus with previously reported Fasciola gigantica ITS2 amplicons (300-500 bp) which were used by other researchers for molecular characterization of F. gigantica in their area of study. The primers used were specific for Fasciola gigantica the details of which is included in materials and methods section (Page 6 under the heading Amplification of DNA using Polymerase Chain Reaction).

Query: Reviewer sought an explanation on successful extraction of mitochondria.

Response: Here, we were not proving that MAO-A is localized in mitochondria. It is already an established fact that MAO-A is present in mitochondria and the substrate we used in our study for detection was specific for MAO-A enzyme which clearly explains why we saw significantly higher signals in mitochondrial extracts compared to whole homogenate.

Significantly high activity of MAO-A in mitochondrial extract compared to whole homogenate samples in itself shows that there was successful extraction of mitochondria which we did following well-proven method of Podesta et al. [50].

Query: Reviewer had asked authors to include number of studies made in response to the statement “For the immunological characterization of MAO-A in F. gigantica worms a number of studies were performed”.

Response: By this statement "For the immunological characterization of MAO-A in F. gigantica worms a number of studies were performed" we were not referring to the number of replicates. Our intent was to say that we adopted multipronged and multi-omics approach for the characterization of MAO such as biochemical, immunological and pharmacological for a profound validation of results.

Query: Reviewer pointed out that there is no lane 2 in figure 4b.

Response: We realised that legend of figure 4b was wrongly written and the legend is now corrected as suggested (Page 14, caption of Fig 4).

Query: Reviewer had asked about loading control in clorgyline treated western blotting result.

Response: Reviewer has raised a valid point of loading control but since the authors involved in this study have mov¬¬ed out of that lab it is not possible to replicate this experiment. Therefore, we have removed the western blot of clorgyline treated samples (Figure 7).

Query: Reviewer requested to change “Till now” to “Until now”.

Response: In the phrase " Till now, MAO has been reported in parasitic helminths belonging to different classes, namely ", till is changed to until (Page 5, second-last paragraph).

Reviewer#2

Query: Reviewer had requested to put level of significance in Figure 2.

Response: Asterisks for level of significance following statistical tests has now been added to the graphs (Fig 2).

Query: Reviewer pointed out that legend and figure 3b is not in accordance with each other.

Response: The legend and figure are now corrected and lane2 is removed from legend (Fig 3).

Query: Reviewer had requested to write full form of WHO in abstract.

Response: WHO has now been abbreviated in full as World Health Organisation in Abstract (Page 1).

Query: Reviewer had asked to correct spelling of Dependant at all places in text.

Response: The spelling of Dependent has now been changed to Dependant at all places (Page 2, 4, 15, 16 and 21).

Query: Reviewer had pointed out some grammatical errors in Abstract and advised to correct it.

Response: The repetition of adjectives has been replaced as advised (Page 2, last para).

Query: Reviewer had requested to make changes to statement “thus making MAO an indispensable biomolecule for developing the host-parasite interaction for the survival and perpetuation”

Response: The text “thus making MAO an indispensable biomolecule for developing the host-parasite interaction for the survival and perpetuation” has been reframed to make more sense (Page 4, para 1).

Query: Reviewer had asked authors to correct the statement “Previously researchers have reported and localized MAO in helminth parasites but data is still in dearth about the complete picture of this enzyme in a specific parasite”.

Response: The sentence “Previously researchers have reported and localized MAO in helminth parasites but data is still in dearth about the complete picture of this enzyme in a specific parasite” has been reframed as suggested (page 5, last para).

Query: Reviewer had requested to include size of band in conclusion instead of high molecular mass.

Response: In conclusion section, we have mentioned size of band as requested (Page 23).

The authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable inputs in making

our manuscript better. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript could now be

accepted for publication in Plos One journal.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Paulo Lee Ho

13 Apr 2023

Characterization of Monoamine Oxidase-A in tropical liver fluke, Fasciola gigantica

PONE-D-22-30479R1

Dear Dr. Beg,

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,

Paulo Lee Ho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #2: The manuscript is very well written, depicting the complete story in a lucid manner. The queries and comments are very well answered and introduced in the revised manuscript.

Thank You

**********

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 #2: Yes: Dr. Shahnawaz Rehman

**********

Acceptance letter

Paulo Lee Ho

18 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-30479R1

Characterization of Monoamine Oxidase-A in tropical liver fluke, Fasciola gigantica

Dear Dr. Beg:

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. Paulo Lee Ho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Zymography of MAO-A in F. gigantica whole homogenate isolate (lane 1 and 2) showing MAO-A.

    Note: Lane 1 is not the part of main figure and Marker in all zymography gels appeared to be very faint.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Zymography of MAO-A of F. gigantica on treatment with different concentrations of clorgyline (lane 3: 30μM, lane 4: 60μM and lane 5: 90μM) and control without inhibitor (lane 1 and lane 2).

    Note: Marker in all zymography gels appeared to be very faint.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Western blot of MAO-A in F. gigantica adult worms (lane 1 and 2).

    Note: Lane 2 is not the part of main figure.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Minor Revision PONE-D-22-30479.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES