Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2024 Oct 25;18(10):e0012611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012611

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14A family proteins as novel anthelmintics against gastrointestinal nematode parasites

Duy Hoang 1,#, Kelly Flanagan 1,#, Qian Ding 1,, Nicholas R Cazeault 1,, Hanchen Li 1,, Stefani Díaz-Valerio 2, Florentina Rus 1, Esther A Darfour 1, Elizabeth Kass 3, Katherine H Petersson 3, Martin K Nielsen 4, Heiko Liesegang 2, Gary R Ostroff 1, Raffi V Aroian 1,*
Editor: David Joseph Diemert5
PMCID: PMC11540219  PMID: 39453964

Abstract

Bacillus thuringiensis crystal (Cry) proteins have been expressed in commercial transgenic crops for nearly 30 years, providing safe and effective control of insect pests and significantly reducing the application of hazardous chemical pesticides. B. thuringiensis crystal proteins have also been shown to target parasitic nematodes, including plant parasitic nematodes. Recently, transgenic soybean crops expressing Cry14Ab have been shown to provide control against the soybean cyst nematode Heterodera glycines, marking the first time a crystal protein is being commercialized in transgenic crops for control of a nematode pest. However, apart from H. glycines and the free-living nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans, the breadth of nematode activity of Cry14Ab, e.g., against gastrointestinal parasitic nematodes (GINs), has not been reported. Here we study the efficacy of Cry14Ab against a wide range of gastrointestinal nematode parasites (GINs) in vitro and in vivo. We find that Cry14Ab is effective in vitro against the barber’s pole worm Haemonchus contortus larvae, small strongyles cyathostomin larvae, the hookworm Ancylostoma ceylanicum adults, the roundworm Ascaris suum L4 larvae, and the whipworm Trichuris muris adults. In rodents infected with GIN parasites, Cry14Ab is effective as an in vivo anthelmintic against the hookworms A. ceylanicum and N. americanus, against the mouse parasite Heligmosomoides polygyrus bakeri, and against the roundworm A. suum. Cry14Ab also variably reduces the reproduction of the whipworm T. muris in vivo. Using optimized profile Markov Models, we looked for other putative anthelmintic Cry proteins and, within this list, identified a Bt crystal protein, GenBank accession no. MF893203, that we produced and demonstrated intoxicated GINs. This protein, with 90% amino acid identity to Cry14Ab, is active against C. elegans, A. ceylanicum adults, and A. suum L4 larvae in vitro. MF893203 was given the official designation of Cry14Ac. Cry14Ac is also an effective in vivo anthelmintic against A. ceylanicum hookworms in hamsters and intestinal A. suum in mice. Taken together, our results demonstrate that Cry14Ab and Cry14Ac have wide therapeutic utility against GINs.

Author summary

Gastrointestinal parasitic nematodes or worms pose a significant threat to global health, causing illness in millions-billions of people and animals. Current treatments have limitations, including concerns about drug resistance. We are exploring a promising new approach using natural Crystal (Cry) proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria, which are already widely used as safe and effective insecticides. To date, we have focused on the anthelmintic (deworming) properties of Bt Cry protein Cry5Ba. Here, our research demonstrates that a newly characterized and different Bt Cry protein, Cry14Ab, can also effectively target and kill various types of harmful parasitic nematodes in both laboratory and animal models. Moreover, we identify another related Bt protein, Cry14Ac, with similar activities against parasitic nematodes. These findings highlight the potential of Bt proteins as a novel class of deworming medications, offering hope for the development and clinical deployment of safer and more effective treatments against parasitic nematode infections.

Introduction

Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt is a common gram-positive soil bacterium that produces pesticidal proteins [1]. The best studied are three-domain crystalline (Cry) proteins that accumulate in parasporal crystal inclusions during sporulation [1]. Each Cry protein kills only a narrow set of target invertebrates, including major insect pests [2]. Cry proteins are biodegradable and safe to all vertebrates, including humans, as well as to most beneficial invertebrates [3]. As such, Cry proteins have been used for decades to kill insect vectors of disease as well as insect crop pests in conventional and organic farming [1], accounting for ~90% of biopesticides sold worldwide [4]. Cry proteins have been produced in transgenic crops such as corn, cotton, and soybean that were planted on a cumulative total of 1.5 billion hectares from 1996 to 2022 [5,6]. More than a dozen Cry proteins produced by transgenic crops have been studied and approved as safe for human consumption by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [7,8]. Hundreds of Cry proteins in >50 different families have been identified and characterized [9,10].

Although commercial use of Bt and Bt Cry proteins to date has only applied to insect pests, studies have suggested Bt Cry proteins, closely related to those that target insects by sequence and structure [1114], are also relevant for controlling nematode pests, the most prevalent and ubiquitous eukaryotic parasites on earth. With regards to human and animal pests, orally-delivered Cry5Ba protein has been shown to be therapeutically effective in mammalian hosts against a wide array of gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) parasites, including hookworms, ascarids, barber’s pole worm, and Heligmosomoides polygyrus bakeri [1524]. With regards to plant pests, transgenic tomato roots expressing the Cry protein Cry5Ba showed protection against the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognito, inhibiting the establishment of infection sites and reducing progeny production 3-fold [25]. This latter use of a nematode-active Cry protein is the closest to the current use of Cry proteins against insect pests.

Based on this result, the related Cry protein, Cry14Ab1 (hereafter Cry14Ab), was explored for control of Heterodera glycines, the soybean cyst nematode, one of the most important disease agents of soybeans worldwide [26] (Cry14Ab falls broadly into the phylogenetic family of Cry proteins that target nematodes such as Cry5B [14,27]). Transgenic soybean plants expressing Cry14Ab significantly impaired the reproduction of H. glycines in both greenhouse and field trials [27]. These transgenic Cry14Ab soybean plants have received regulatory approval from the US EPA and FDA for deployment against H. glycines [28,29], suggesting they may be released soon as a commercial trait.

Apart from H. glycines, the activity of Cry14Ab against other nematode pests has not been reported. Indeed, although the related protein Cry14Aa has been identified as having activity against free-living nematodes or stages of nematodes [14,30,31], to date no Cry14A protein family member has been demonstrated to have anthelmintic activity, e.g., therapeutic activity against GIN parasitic infections [32,33]. Because of the approval of Cry14Ab in a food crop, we set out to examine if Cry14Ab has anthelmintic properties as well. Here, we test Cry14Ab against GIN parasites in vitro and in vivo. Using optimized profile Markov Models to identify novel anthelmintic family proteins in sequence databases such as UniProt, we also uncover a new anthelmintic member of this family, now called Cry14Ac1 (or abbreviated here as Cry14Ac) and explore its anthelmintic properties.

Results

Cry14Ab can be produced as IBaCC

We recently reported on a novel, safe, and scalable method for production of the nematode-active Cry5Ba proteins for use as an anthelmintic, called IBaCC for Inactivated Bacteria with Cytosolic Crystal(s) [20,22,24]. We cloned Cry14Ab downstream of the cry3Aa promoter to express it in vegetative cells and then transformed the construct into Bacillus thuringiensis 4D8 cells in which we had deleted the spo0A gene to prevent sporulation. As with Cry5Ba, Cry14Ab was robustly produced in vegetative cells in Δspo0A cells under control of the cry3Aa promoter (Fig 1A and 1B). These cells were then inactivated (killed) with essential oil treatment as described [24], resulting in no live cells (Fig 1C).

Fig 1. Cry14Ab IBaCC.

Fig 1

A. Gel showing expression of Cry14Ab (*) in Bt 4D8 Δspo0A cells. MW = molecular weight markers; IBa = inactivated bacteria with empty vector; Cry14Ab = Cry14Ab IBaCC. B. Photomicrograph of IBaCC cells expressing Cry14Ab or IBa cells (inactivated bacteria with empty vector). C. Colony forming units (CFUs) of Cry14Ab cells before (BaCC = Bacteria with Cytosolic Crystals) and after (IBaCC) treatment with monoterpene. CFU/mL BaCC = 1.2 x 108; IBaCC = 0 (average of three experiments).

Cry14Ab is effective against GINs in vitro

Cry14Ab IBaCC was then quantitated against bovine serum albumin by SDS-PAGE and used in dose-response bioassays against the larval stages of two important veterinary GIN parasites, the blood-feeding parasite of sheep, Haemonchus contortus, and a common parasite of horses, cyathostomins, small strongyles that encompass 40 species and that commonly occur as coinfections of 15–25 species [34]. Cry14Ab IBaCC is highly effective against the larval stages of H. contortus (Fig 2A) and cyathostomins (Fig 2B), with complete inhibition of development at 5 ng/mL (about 10X more potent than Cry5Ba IBaCC at 56 ng/mL or ~400 pM; [22]). Given that Cry14Ab is a 132 kilodalton (kDa) protein, this 5 ng/mL dose represents a concentration of 38 pM.

Fig 2. Efficacy of Cry14Ab IBaCC against larval stages of veterinary GIN parasites.

Fig 2

A. Ratio of Haemonchus contortus L1 larvae that developed to the infectious third larval (iL3) stage on increasing doses of Cry14Ab (as IBaCC) relative to the number that developed to the iL3 in assay media without Cry14Ab (normalized to 1.0). B. Percent cyathostomin L1 larvae that developed to the iL3 stage on increasing doses of Cry14Ab (as IBaCC) relative to assay media without Cry14Ab (normalized to 1.0). n = ~ 50 L1s/well, repeated 3 independent times. Plotted are the mean and standard error.

We tested Cry14Ab IBaCC in vitro against the parasite stages of GINs that infect or are closely related to those that infect humans. Adult A. ceylanicum parasites, which are prominent hookworm parasites of humans especially in Southeast Asia [35], were harvested from infected hamsters and treated with varying doses of Cry14Ab IBaCC in 48-well format. Twenty-four hours later, the motility of the parasites was measured as a proxy for nematode health/intoxication using the Worminator system set up in our laboratory [21]. As shown, the motility of the hookworms was significantly inhibited in a dose-dependent manner (Fig 3A).

Fig 3. Efficacy of Cry14Ab IBaCC lysate against parasitic stages of the three major human GINs.

Fig 3

(A) Dose-response relative motility assay of Cry14Ab IBaCC lysate against Ancylostoma ceylanicum adult hookworms (average of 3 experiments; n = 8/experiment). Here and in (C), motility was normalized to movement of parasites in the absence of Cry protein (buffer only) using the Worminator. (B) Motility of Ascaris suum intestinal L4 stage roundworms at two different doses of Cry14Ab IBaCC lysate over time. 3 = fully motile; 2 = inhibited motility; 1 = immotile until touched; 0 = immotile even with touch (n = 20 per dose; 5 per experiments repeated 4 times). (C) Motility of Trichuris muris whipworms in vitro relative to no Cry14Ab control measured using the Worminator 72 hours after exposure to Cry14Ab IBaCC lysate. Average of two repeats, n = 13–14 whipworms total.

We also tested lysed Cry14Ab IBaCC against intestinal L4 staged Ascaris suum (pig roundworm) parasites. We recently reported on a new system that allows for robust development of A. suum parasites in mice past the lung phase and into the intestinal L4 stage [20,21]. A. suum is a very close relative of, if not the same species as, Ascaris lumbricoides (human roundworm) [3638]. We harvested fourth staged (L4) parasite A. suum larvae from the intestines of infected mice and studied their motility in 96-well format over time using the touch 3–0 scale ([39]; this stage of A. suum is too small to be read with our Worminator). Cry14Ab IBaCC was also highly effective against this parasite in vitro (Fig 3B).

A third major human GIN is whipworm. We tested lysed Cry14Ab IBaCC in vitro against this parasite, in particular mouse whipworm or Trichuris muris. As determined by our Worminator system [21], Cry14Ab IBaCC completely inhibited the motility of whipworm adults at 72 hr. at a dose of ~800 nM (110 μg/mL; Figs 3C and S1).

Cry14Ab is an effective anthelmintic in vivo

Given the in vitro activity of Cry14Ab against GINs, we next tested the in vivo anthelmintic activity of Cry14Ab to cure parasitic infections in rodents. Cry14Ab was given as a single oral dose to hamsters infected with either A. ceylanicum (Fig 4A) or N. americanus (Fig 4B) hookworms, which together encompass the two hookworm genera that infect humans. In both cases, significant reductions in parasite burdens and reproduction (fecal egg counts) were seen in Cry14Ab IBaCC treated groups relative to control groups. For example, single dose 20 mg/kg Cry14Ab reduced A. ceylanicum hookworm burdens by 68% and fecal egg counts by 92%. Single dose 50 mg/kg nearly eliminated N. americanus burdens. The doses used in Fig 4 would, at a molar level, not show any effects using other anthelmintics, e.g., albendazole.

Fig 4. Efficacy of Cry14Ab IBaCC against human hookworm infections in hamsters.

Fig 4

(A) Ancylostoma ceylanicum infections in hamsters in control (water) and Cry14Ab IBaCC treated groups. 20 mg/kg Cry14Ab is equivalent to 40 μg/kg albendazole on a molar basis. Left: Average intestinal hookworm burden per hamster; right: average fecal egg count per hamster (parasite reproduction). N = 5 hamsters/group. (B) Necator americanus infections in hamsters in control (water) and Cry14Ab IBaCC treated groups. 50 mg/kg Cry14Ab is equivalent to 100 μg/kg albendazole on a molar basis. Left: average intestinal hookworm burden per hamster; right: average fecal egg count per hamster (parasite reproduction). N = 3 hamsters/group. P values based on one-tailed Student’s t test.

We also looked at the impact of Cry14Ab on luminal feeding GINs. A double oral dose of Cry14Ab IBaCC was given to mice infected with A. suum that progressed to the intestinal phase. As shown (Fig 5A), a near complete (95%) elimination of intestinal Ascaris burdens relative to control was seen. Similarly, a single oral dose of Cry14Ab IBaCC of mice infected with Heligmosomoides polygyrus bakeri led to significant reductions in intestinal worm burdens and parasite reproduction (fecal egg counts) (Fig 5B).

Fig 5. Efficacy of Cry14Ab IBaCC against luminal feeding parasites.

Fig 5

(A) Average Ascaris suum intestinal worm burden per mouse in control (water; n = 6) and Cry14Ab IBaCC (n = 5) treated groups. Treated group: 30 mg/kg Cry14Ab (equivalent to 60 μg/kg albendazole on a molar basis) was given two days in a row to infected mice. (B) Heligmosomoides polygyrus infections in mice in control (water) and Cry14Ab IBaCC treated groups. 50 mg/kg Cry14Ab is equivalent to 100 μg/kg albendazole on a molar basis. Left: Average intestinal worm burden per mouse; right: fecal egg counts (parasite reproduction). N = 5 mice/group. P values based on one-tailed Student’s t test.

As we saw effects on the whipworms in vitro, we tested whether Cry14Ab would have impacts on whipworm infections in vivo. Since T. muris is present in the cecum and since we currently lack a formulation to protect Cry14Ab through the stomach and small intestine, we injected solubilized Cry14Ab protein directly into the small intestine of mice infected with T. muris and followed fecal egg counts. The experiment was repeated three times. In two of three experiments, Cry14Ab treatment resulted in a dramatic reduction in whipworm reproduction (S2 Fig).

The newly uncovered and related protein Cry14Ac is also anthelmintic

The Liesegang laboratory has reported on an in silico approach for detecting and characterizing novel pesticidal proteins from publicly available sequence databases based on optimized profiling using hidden Markov models (HMM) methodology [40]. In the case of Cry proteins, the group is represented by several CRY-HMMs to account for the sequence diversity and modular nature of the protein class. The search was narrowed down based on HMM scores and domain signatures similar to those of known nematicidal Cry proteins according the IDOPS tool. This HMM tailored to recognize nematicidal Cry proteins was used on UniProt, giving rise to a number of putative anthelmintic Cry proteins. These were synthesized as genes and expressed. Among these, we found that the protein encoded by GenBank accession no. MF893203 was highly active against GINs (see below). MF893202 has 90% amino acid identity with Cry14Ab (S3 Fig), with 87% amino acid identity in the bioactive domain (crystal protein domains 1+2+3) and 94% amino acid identity in the crystallization domain (C terminal domain). MF893203 was previously identified in a Bt strain that also contained a Cry21Aa-family protein, but the biological activity of MF893203 was unknown at that time, and whether or not it had anti-nematode activity was not determined [41]. As such, MF893203 did not receive an official Cry protein designation [41]. As demonstrated below, M893203 is an anthelmintic and has now received the official designation of Cry14Ac1 (hereafter Cry14Ac).

We generated Cry14Ac IBaCC cells [24] (Fig 6A). To test for anti-nematode activity, we exposed fourth larval stage (L4) C. elegans, both wild-type and bre-5(ye17) mutants that are resistant to Cry5Ba [31,42], to Cry14Ac IBaCC. We found that Cry14Ac IBaCC is highly active against C. elegans and that, unlike Cry5Ba, is able to qualitatively intoxicate the bre-5(ye17) resistance mutant (Fig 6B), which lacks the functional receptor for Cry5Ba [43].

Fig 6. Efficacy of Cry14Ac IBaCC against Caenorhabditis elegans nematodes.

Fig 6

A. SDS-PAGE showing expression of Cry14Ac (*) in IBaCC. Here and panel B: IBa = inactivated bacteria with empty vector; Cry14Ac = Cry14Ac IBaCC. MW = molecular weight markers. B. L4 C. elegans were grown in the presence of indicated bacteria for 6 days at 25° C. All images were taken at the same magnification. N2 = wild-type C. elegans. bre-5(ye17) = Cry5Ba-resistant C. elegans. Cry5Ba = Cry5Ba IBaCC. N2 animals are healthy (large, motile, and well-fed or dark) when fed IBa but are severely intoxicated (stunted, immotile, pale) when fed Cry5Ba or Cry14Ab IBaCC. Cry5Ba-resistant bre-5(ye17) C. elegans are healthy when fed IBa or Cry5Ba (towards which bre-5(ye17) but are intoxicated by Cry14Ac.

To test if Cry14Ac is also active against GINs, we used Cry14Ac IBaCC to treat in vitro parasitic intestinal stages of hookworms (A. ceylanicum) and roundworms (A. suum). Cry14Ac IBaCC was highly effective against both parasites in vitro (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Efficacy of Cry14Ac IBaCC lysate against parasitic stages of the two major human GINs.

Fig 7

(A) Dose-response relative motility assay of Cry14Ac IBaCC lysate against Ancylostoma ceylanicum adult hookworms (average of 3 experiments; n = 8/experiment). Motility is normalized to movement of hookworms in the absence of Cry protein using the Worminator. (B) Motility of Ascaris suum intestinal L4 stage at two different doses of Cry14Ac IBaCC lysate over time. 3 = fully motile; 2 = inhibited motility; 1 = immotile until touched; 0 = immotile even with touch (average of 2 experiments; n = 5 per dose per experiment). IBa = inactivated bacteria with empty vector.

We also tested the anthelmintic activity of Cry14Ac in vivo against A. ceylanicum hookworm infections in hamsters and intestinal A. suum infections in mice. Single dose Cry14Ac (10 mg/kg) as IBaCC resulted in ~70% elimination of hookworm burdens and fecal egg counts (Fig 8A and 8B). Double dose Cry14Ac (20 mg/kg) as IBaCC resulted in strong (80%) reduction in A. suum intestinal burdens (Fig 9).

Fig 8. Efficacy of Cry14Ac IBaCC against human hookworm infections in hamsters.

Fig 8

Ancylostoma ceylanicum infections in hamsters in control (water) and Cry14Ac IBaCC treated groups. 10 mg/kg Cry14Ab is equivalent to 20 μg/kg albendazole on a molar basis. Left: average intestinal hookworm burden per hamster; right: average fecal egg count per hamster (parasite reproduction). N = 4 hamsters/group. P values based on one-tailed Student’s t test.

Fig 9. Efficacy of Cry14Ac IBaCC against intestinal Ascaris suum infections in mice.

Fig 9

Average A. suum intestinal worm burdens per mouse in control (water; n = 5) and Cry14Ac IBaCC treated groups (n = 5). Treated group: 20 mg/kg Cry14Ac was given two days in a row to infected mice. P values based on one-tailed Student’s t test.

Discussion

Here for the first time we demonstrate that Cry14A family proteins target human and animal parasitic nematodes. This work was motivated by the recent expression and regulatory approval of Cry14Ab expression in soybeans for transgenic control of the soybean cyst nematode. It was not known whether this protein, useful against plant-parasitic nematodes when expressed in transgenic plants, would have good efficacy against GINs.

Indeed, we find Cry14Ab protein is highly effective against the environmental larval stages of two important parasites in veterinary medicine, H. contortus (ovine host) and cyathostomins (equine host). Cry14Ab is also effective in vitro against intestinal parasitic stages of GINs in genera that encompass the three major parasites of humans: hookworms (Ancylostoma), roundworms (Ascaris), and whipworms (Trichuris). On a molar level, the GIN parasites are extremely sensitive to this protein in vitro, showing strong intoxication in the 40–800 nM range.

In parallel with results in vitro, we demonstrated that Cry14Ab is also an effective anthelmintic in vivo. Cry14Ab IBaCC is active against infections of two human hookworm species, A. ceylanicum and N. americanus, in hamsters. The efficacy is significant and high, albeit lower than that of our published Cry5Ba IBaCC data against the same hookworm infections (although the exact same doses were not used [24]). Cry14Ab is also a highly effective anthelmintic against luminal GINs, namely A. suum and H. polygyrus bakeri infections in mice, with efficacy similar to that published for Cry5Ba [20,24]. For the first time, we also report the variable efficacy of a Cry protein against T. muris whipworms, with Cry14Ab leading to significant reductions in fecal egg counts when injected directly into the intestine in two of three experiments. These data suggest potential for further optimization of this protein against whipworms, e.g., via improved formulation and delivery.

Using a novel in silico method to detect and cluster pesticidal proteins, we also detected a new anthelmintic member of the Cry14A family, Cry14Ac. Cry14Ac readily overcomes a C. elegans strain resistant to Cry5Ba, indicating that it must, to some extent, use a different receptor than the bre-5-associated Cry5Ba glycosphingolipid receptor [43]. Moreover, Cry14Ac is effective in vitro against A. ceylanicum hookworm adults and A. suum L4 larvae. Cry14Ac is also an effective anthelmintic in hamsters infected with A. ceylanicum hookworms and mice infected with intestinal A. suum roundworms. In the case of hookworms, Cry14Ac efficacy appears to be superior to that of Cry14Ab.

An interesting question to consider is whether Cry14Ab expressed in a transgenic soybean plant can have any anthelmintic effect, e.g., on GIN-infected farm animals. Although the levels of Cry14Ab expression in various tissues in these plants is not reported, Cry proteins can be expressed at levels ranging from 0.003–0.5% of total soluble protein in the plant [44,45]. Based on these data, we believe that the level of expression would not be sufficient to deliver an effective anthelmintic dose in normal feed.

This investigation also indicates that deep data mining techniques in silico are useful for uncovering new nematode-active Cry proteins. This study also demonstrates that the Cry14A family of proteins can broadly play an impactful role in the control and treatment of GIN parasites. Additional anthelmintics are critically needed as parasitic recalcitrance to synthetic anthelmintics continues to increase among human, livestock, and companion animal populations [24,46,47]. This report is also the first instance to demonstrate that multiple members of a single family of Cry proteins are anthelmintics and only the second, after Cry5Ba, to demonstrate that Bt Cry proteins have anthelmintic activity in vivo against a range of parasitic GINs. The ability of Cry14Ac to overcome Cry5Ba resistance suggests that multiple Cry protein families (e.g., Cry5B, Cry14A) may be productively stacked (combined) to prolong their anthelmintic efficacy, as occurs in natural Bt strains and has been engineered into transgenic plants [4850].

Given the global burden of GIN infections, the pressing need for new therapeutic options, and the increasing threat of anthelmintic resistance, this research represents a promising advancement in the field. The broad-spectrum activity of Cry14Ab, combined with its safety profile as part of approved transgenic crops and along with Cry14Ac, make these proteins promising candidates for further development as a novel anthelmintics.

Materials and methods

Microbiology methods

Escherichia coli 5α cells (NEB) were used for cloning and maintained on Luria-Bertani (LB) medium including ampicillin (100 μg/ml) at 37° C or erythromycin (300 ug/ml) at 30° C. E. coli dam-/dcm- (NEB) cells were used to generate nonmethylated plasmids for Bt transformations and similarly maintained on LB medium with appropriate antibiotics. Bt strains were maintained at 30° C with LB medium, including erythromycin (10ug/ml) for plasmid maintenance when appropriate. Solid media contained 1.6% agar. The Bt strains used here are Bt HD1 4D8, into which we generated a spo0A deletion (HD1 4D8 Δspo0A) as part of another study (manuscript in preparation) and Bt 407 Δspo0A::kan [24,51].

To express Cry14Ab1, called Cry14Ab throughout this manuscript, DNA encoding Cry14Ab1 (GenBank accession no. KC156652) was transcriptionally fused between the cry3A promoter region -635 to +18 [52] and the cry5B terminator in the shuttle vector pHT3101 [53], by Genscript (Piscataway, NJ), as previously done for cry5B expression [24]. Later, DNA encoding Cry14Ac (GenBank accession no. MF893203) was synthesized and cloned by Genscript into the expression cassette of pHY170 (aka pKF45 [54]), a pHT3101-derived plasmid which contains the promoter region of cry3A -635 to ATG and the downstream terminator of cry5B. Nonmethylated plasmids were sequenced again prior to use. For cry14Ab, electrocompetent HD1 4D8 Δspo0A cells and 407 Δspo0A::kan cells were subsequently transformed with the empty vector pHT3101 or the above cry14Ab construct (pHY171, Pcry3A-cry14Ab, aka pKF36). For cry14Ac, electrocompetent 407 Δspo0A::kan cells were subsequently transformed with the empty vector pHT3101 or the above cry14Ac construct (pHY172, Pcry3A-cry14Ac, aka pDH13). Bt isolates harboring pHT3101 (empty vector), pHY171 (Pcry3A-cry14Ab), or pHY172 (Pcry3A-cry14Ac) were confirmed by PCR.

Production and characterization of IBa and IBaCC

To produce any IBaCC, a single vegetative colony of Cry5Ba (Cry5Ba1), Cry14Ab-, or Cry14Ac-expressing asporagenous Bt was incubated in 3X LB at 25°C with shaking at 125rpm for 3 days. Cry14Ab-expressing Δspo0A Bt was similarly incubated in a 350L fermenter at a biomanufacturing facility with constant monitoring and adjustments of pH and oxygen levels at 25°C with 150 rpm agitation for 48 h. Exhausted expression cultures were harvested by centrifugation and resuspended to 10% initial volumes in ice-cold water, then processed to IBa (Inactivated Bacteria with empty vector, i.e., no Cry protein) or IBaCC as previously described [24]. Briefly, 10X concentrated cell suspensions were treated with 0.1% terpene for 15 minutes at room temperature and washed three times with ice-cold water and centrifugation. Lab-cultured IBa and IBaCC samples were additionally subjected to organic extraction with food-grade corn oil prior to water washes, to remove residual terpene. Samples of concentrated IBa/IBaCC suspensions were used to analyze Cry protein quantification, IBaCC cell viability, and assays for nematicidal bioactivity. The IBa (inactivated bacteria with empty vector) and IBaCC cells were observed using an Olympus BX60 microscope equipped with a UPlanFl 100x/1.30 Oil Ph3 objective (Fig 1B).

Cry protein content of IBaCC preparations were quantified by SDS-PAGE relative to Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA; Sigma-Aldrich) standards analyzed by densitometry using ImageJ software [55]. Cell and BSA samples were denatured in Laemmli sample buffer for denaturing SDS-PAGE using cast or precast acrylamide gels (Bio-Rad) with tris-glycine running buffer.

For the experiment shown in Fig 1C, two cultures of pHY171 (Pcry3A-cry14Ab) were grown in LB overnight at 30° C in 10 μg/ml erythromycin till saturation. The next day, 100 μl of each culture was inoculated in 3X LB at 30° C with 10 μg/ml erythromycin and agitated at 250 rpm for three days. Exhausted cultures were harvested and one was processed to IBaCC with our standard protocol (see above); the remaining culture was concentrated down 10-fold to match the IBaCC sample. After each sample was appropriately diluted, 100 μl was plated onto a LB plate and incubated at 30° C overnight. Growth or lack of growth was recorded the following day. The data represent the average of three independent experiments.

To make IBaCC lysate (lysed IBaCC), IBaCC was lysed by vortexing in 50 mM Tris-HCl pH6.5, 250 mM NaCl, mutanolysin (35 U/mL), lysozyme (20 mg/mL), and 0.02% Pluronic F127. This suspension was rotated overnight at room temperature and then centrifuged at 5000xg for 20 min at 4° C to pellet crystals, which were washed 3X in cold sterile water and stored in the same.

Animal experiments

Caenorhabditis elegans

Caenorhabditis elegans was maintained using standard techniques [56]. The following strains were used in this study: N2 Bristol (wild type) and bre-5(ye17) [42]. For images shown in Fig 6B, 20–40 L4 hermaphrodites were incubated in 160 μl S-medium supplemented with 20 μl Escherichia coli OP50 (OD600 ~ 3) and either 1) 20 μl S-medium, or (2) 20 μl IBa (inactivated bacteria with empty vector) suspended in S-medium or (3) 20 μl Cry protein IBaCC (final Cry protein concentration 50 μg/mL per well) suspended in S-medium in 48-well format. The images were taken after six days of incubation at 25°C. Pictures are representative from two independent trials.

Parasites and hosts

Ancylostoma ceylanicum and Necator americanus hookworm life cycles were maintained in hamsters as previously described [18] with the exception that N. americanus was maintained with use of 2 mg/liter dexamethasone in the drinking water. H. polygyrus bakeri life cycle was maintained in Swiss Webster mouse as previous described [18]. Trichuris muris life cycle was maintained in B6/STAT6KO mice as previously described [39]. Ascaris suum infectious-staged eggs were from Joseph F. Urban, Jr. at United States Department of Agriculture and shipped to University of Massachusetts Medical School. All rodent experiments were carried out under protocols approved by the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (IACUC; PROTO202000044, PROTO202000071). The procedures for collection of fecal samples from sheep were approved by University of Rhode Island’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee under protocol AN2021-013. The procedures for collection of fecal samples from horses were approved by University of Kentucky’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee under protocol 2021–3879. All housing and care of laboratory animals used in this study conform to the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H., U.S.A.) Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals in Research (see 18-F22) and all requirements and all regulations issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.), including regulations implementing the Animal Welfare Act (P.L. 89–544) as amended (see 18-F23).

In vitro experiments

Larval development assays for H. contortus and cyathostomins (Fig 2) were carried out as described [17,22]. Reagents for hookworm culture medium (HCM), including RPMI 1640 medium, fetal bovine serum (FBS), penicillin-streptomycin, and fungizone antimycotic, were all purchased from Gibco, USA. Adult A. ceylanicum hookworms harvested from the intestines of infected hamsters day 20 post-inoculation (PI) were assayed in vitro using the Worminator system to measure motility as previously reported [21] with the following modifications: 25 mM Hepes pH 7.2, 96-well format, 100 μL hookworm medium per well. For the Cry14Ab experiment, the AMU for 100% motility was 141; for the Cry14Ac experiment, 137.

A. suum L4 parasites (day 12 harvested from the intestines of B6/STAT6KO mice; [20]) were exposed to no protein, 50 μg/ml, and 100 μg/mL Cry proteins for 5 days (37 °C, 5% CO2) in RPMI 1640 with (all final concentrations) 25 mM HEPES (pH 7.2), 5% fetal bovine serum, anti-microbials (100 U/mL penicillin, 100 mg/mL streptomycin; 2.5 μg/mL amphotericin B). One adult parasite per well were placed in 100 μl medium in a 96-well format with the designated treatment using 5 wells/condition (mixed gender) and then set up 4 independent times for Cry14Ab (lysed IBaCC) and 2 independent times for Cry14Ac (IBaCC). A. suum L4s were scored on a 0 to 3 scale (0, nonmotile even when touched; 1, nonmotile unless touched; 2, slowly motile; 3, fully motile) as described previously [23]. The L4 stage (instead of the adult stage) is used for A. suum as STAT6KO mice expel this parasite after they reach the L4 intestinal stage but before they reach the adult intestinal stage.

Adult T. muris in vitro assays were carried out using one adult per well (3–6 male and 3–6 female worms per condition) harvested between days 35–40 PI and placed in buffer (same as for A. suum above) in a volume of 300 μL in 48-well plates. IBaCC lysate was used for these studies as intact IBaCC is not accessible to whipworms. Whipworm motility was measured using the Worminator system set up in our laboratory [21]. The AMU for 100% motility was 100.

In vivo experiments

The A. ceylanicum and N. americanus in vivo experiments were carried out as described previously [18,19,24]. For curative Cry14Ab IBaCC experiments in hamsters against A. ceylanicum only, cimetidine was given per os 15 min ahead of Cry5B administration, as previously described [18]. Experiments using H. polygyrus bakeri were carried out as described previously [24]. To determine the in vivo efficacy of Cry14Ab IBaCC and Cry14Ac IBaCC against intestinal A. suum, experiments were carried out as described previously [20], except B6/STAT6KO mice were inoculated per os with 5000 infective A. suum eggs. Treatment occurred on days 12 and 13 PI and intestinal burdens determined on day 18 PI. Intact IBaCC was used for all these in vivo experiments.

For the T. muris in vivo experiments, the Cry14Ab was solubilized to make it accessible to the whipworm parasites. IBaCC lysate (see above) was solubilized in 20 mM citrate buffer pH 3 [57] that contained 0.1% Pluronic F-127 (Sigma-Aldrich, P2443). The solubilization process was carried out at 4 °C, with periodic mixing during a 30-minute incubation. After solubilization, the tubes were centrifuged for 10 minutes at 3500g. The resulting supernatant containing the soluble Cry14Ab protein was then transferred to an Amicon 50 kDa centrifugal filter (Millipore-Sigma, UFC905008) and concentrated. The concentrated soluble Cry14Ab protein was then immediately used for in vivo experiments.

To get pre-treatment parasite egg counts, feces were collected from individual mice on day 35 PI. Mice were treated with 500 μL of pH 3 solubilized Cry14Ab (50 mg/kg) on day 36 PI via direct injection into the distal small intestine of the mice to bypass the stomach. Control animals received 500 μL citrate buffer alone via direct instillation. Feces were collected overnight day 42–43 PI for fecal egg counts and then mice sacrificed for whipworm burdens [39]. For all in vivo experiments, worm burdens per host animal are shown.

Statistics

All graphs were produced and statistical analyses (one-tailed Student’s t test) carried out using GraphPad Prism v10. All the data used in plots are included in S1 Table.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Trichuris muris in vitro motility experiment with Cry14Ab IBaCC compared to IBa (inactivated bacteria with empty vector).

We have already demonstrated that IBa has no effect on hookworms [24] and roundworms (Fig 7B). Two independent batches of Cry14Ab IBaCC were prepared. All conditions were repeated for a total of two times and n = 12 parasites per condition.

(TIF)

pntd.0012611.s001.tif (256KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Efficacy of solubilized Cry14Ab IBaCC lysate against Trichuris muris whipworms in vivo.

Fecal egg counts were taken seven days after direct instillation of solubilized Cry14Ab (single dose, 50 mg/kg) in 20 mM citrate buffer into the distal small intestine of the mice. P values based on one-tailed Student’s t test. Control groups received 20 mM citrate buffer (same volume). Three independent trials were carried out. In none of the experiments was a significant difference in whipworm burdens seen but in 2/3 experiments, a significant change in fecal egg counts was seen. Shown are the fecal egg counts and standard error for each group in each of the three experiments. For the experiment on the left, n = 5 control, n = 6 Cry14Ab; for the experiment in the middle, n = 4 for both groups; for the experiment on the right, n = 3 for both groups.

(TIF)

pntd.0012611.s002.tif (485.3KB, tif)
S3 Fig. Alignment of full length Cry14Ab and Cry14Ac.

Identical residues are highlighted in green, conservative changes in yellow. Pairwise alignment was generated with Geneious Prime 2022.1.1.

(TIF)

pntd.0012611.s003.tif (3.1MB, tif)
S1 Table. Means and standard error for all data points shown in graphs.

(XLSX)

pntd.0012611.s004.xlsx (12.5KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All the crystal proteins used in this research can be found at Genbank: Cry14Ab1 has accession no. KC156652 and Cry14Ac has accession no. MF893203. All other relevant information are in the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was financially supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grants R01-AI056189 to R.V.A. and USDA-NIFA-AFRI Grant no. 2021-67015-34574 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture to K.H.P. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sanahuja G, Banakar R, Twyman RM, Capell T, Christou P. Bacillus thuringiensis: a century of research, development and commercial applications. Plant Biotechnol J. 2011;9: 283–300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.van Frankenhuyzen K. Insecticidal activity of Bacillus thuringiensis crystal proteins. J Invertebr Pathol. 2009;101: 1–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bravo A, Gómez I, Porta H, García-Gómez BI, Rodriguez-Almazan C, Pardo L, et al. Evolution of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxins insecticidal activity. Microb Biotechnol. 2013;6: 17–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kumar J, Ramlal A, Mallick D, Mishra V. An overview of some biopesticides and their importance in plant protection for commercial acceptance. Plants. 2021;10: 1185. doi: 10.3390/plants10061185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Isaaa. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2019: Biotech Crops Drive Socio-Economic Development and Sustainable Environment in the New Frontier. ISAAA Brief No. 55. Cornell University Ithaca, NY, USA; 2019.
  • 6.Tabashnik B. E. Carrière Y. Wu Y. Fabrick J.A. Global perspectives on field-evolved resistance to transgenic Bt crops. J Econ Entomol. 2023; in press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Betz FS, Hammond BG, Fuchs RL. Safety and advantages of Bacillus thuringiensis-protected plants to control insect pests. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000;32: 156–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Koch MS, Ward JM, Levine SL, Baum JA, Vicini JL, Hammond BG. The food and environmental safety of Bt crops. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6: 283. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Crickmore N, Berry C, Panneerselvam S, Mishra R, Connor TR, Bonning BC. A structure-based nomenclature for Bacillus thuringiensis and other bacteria-derived pesticidal proteins. J Invertebr Pathol. 2020; 107438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bacterial Pesticidal Protein Resource Center. In: Bacterial Pesticidal Protein Resource Center [Internet]. [cited 1 Mar 2023]. https://www.bpprc.org
  • 11.Best HL, Williamson LJ, Heath EA, Waller-Evans H, Lloyd-Evans E, Berry C. The role of glycoconjugates as receptors for insecticidal proteins. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2023;47. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuad026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Li J, Wang L, Kotaka M, Lee MM, Chan MK. Insights from the Structure of an Active Form of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry5B. Toxins (Basel). 2022;14: 823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hui F, Scheib U, Hu Y, Sommer RJ, Aroian RV, Ghosh P. Structure and glycolipid binding properties of the nematicidal protein Cry5B. Biochemistry. 2012;51: 9911–9921. doi: 10.1021/bi301386q [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wei J-Z, Hale K, Carta L, Platzer E, Wong C, Fang S-C, et al. Bacillus thuringiensis crystal proteins that target nematodes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100: 2760–2765. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cappello M, Bungiro RD, Harrison LM, Bischof LJ, Griffitts JS, Barrows BD, et al. A purified Bacillus thuringiensis crystal protein with therapeutic activity against the hookworm parasite Ancylostoma ceylanicum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103: 15154–15159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hu Y, Georghiou SB, Kelleher AJ, Aroian RV. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry5B protein is highly efficacious as a single-dose therapy against an intestinal roundworm infection in mice. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4: e614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hu Y, Miller M, Zhang B, Nguyen T-T, Nielsen MK, Aroian RV. In vivo and in vitro studies of Cry5B and nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist anthelmintics reveal a powerful and unique combination therapy against intestinal nematode parasites. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12: e0006506. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hu Y, Nguyen T-T, Lee ACY, Urban JF Jr, Miller MM, Zhan B, et al. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry5B protein as a new pan-hookworm cure. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2018;8: 287–294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hu Y, Zhan B, Keegan B, Yiu YY, Miller MM, Jones K, et al. Mechanistic and single-dose in vivo therapeutic studies of Cry5B anthelmintic action against hookworms. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6: e1900. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Urban JF Jr, Nielsen MK, Gazzola D, Xie Y, Beshah E, Hu Y, et al. An inactivated bacterium (paraprobiotic) expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry5B as a therapeutic for Ascaris and Parascaris spp. infections in large animals. One Health. 2021;12: 100241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chicca J, Cazeault NR, Rus F, Abraham A, Garceau C, Li H, et al. Efficient and scalable process to produce novel and highly bioactive purified cytosolic crystals from Bacillus thuringiensis. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10: e0235622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sanders J, Xie Y, Gazzola D, Li H, Abraham A, Flanagan K, et al. A new paraprobiotic-based treatment for control of Haemonchus contortus in sheep. International Journal for Parasitology: Drugs and Drug Resistance. 2020. pp. 230–236. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2020.11.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Urban JF Jr, Hu Y, Miller MM, Scheib U, Yiu YY, Aroian RV. Bacillus thuringiensis-derived Cry5B has potent anthelmintic activity against Ascaris suum. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7: e2263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Li H, Abraham A, Gazzola D, Hu Y, Beamer G, Flanagan K, et al. Recombinant Paraprobiotics as a New Paradigm for Treating Gastrointestinal Nematode Parasites of Humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2021;65. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01469-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Li X-Q, Tan A, Voegtline M, Bekele S, Chen C-S, Aroian RV. Expression of Cry5B protein from Bacillus thuringiensis in plant roots confers resistance to root-knot nematode. Biol Control. 2008;47: 97–102. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Arjoune Y, Sugunaraj N, Peri S, Nair SV, Skurdal A, Ranganathan P, et al. Soybean cyst nematode detection and management: a review. Plant Methods. 2022;18: 110. doi: 10.1186/s13007-022-00933-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kahn TW, Duck NB, McCarville MT, Schouten LC, Schweri K, Zaitseva J, et al. A Bacillus thuringiensis Cry protein controls soybean cyst nematode in transgenic soybean plants. Nat Commun. 2021;12: 3380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Current and previously registered Section 3 plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) registrations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2020. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/current-and-previously-registered-section-3-plant-incorporated
  • 29.Biotechnology Notification File No. 000172. CFSAN Note to the File. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2022; 2022. https://www.fda.gov/media/158266/download
  • 30.Griffitts JS, Huffman DL, Whitacre JL, Barrows BD, Marroquin LD, Müller R, et al. Resistance to a bacterial toxin is mediated by removal of a conserved glycosylation pathway required for toxin-host interactions. J Biol Chem. 2003;278: 45594–45602. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M308142200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Griffitts JS, Whitacre JL, Stevens DE, Aroian RV. Bt toxin resistance from loss of a putative carbohydrate-modifying enzyme. Science. 2001;293: 860–864. doi: 10.1126/science.1062441 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cantón L, Lanusse C, Moreno L. Chemical agents of special concern in livestock meat production. New Aspects of Meat Quality. Elsevier; 2022. pp. 785–808. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dasenaki ME, Kritikou AS, Thomaidis NS. Meat safety: II Residues and contaminants. Lawrie’s Meat Science. Elsevier; 2023. pp. 591–626. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Macdonald SL, Abbas G, Ghafar A, Gauci CG, Bauquier J, El-Hage C, et al. Egg reappearance periods of anthelmintics against equine cyathostomins: The state of play revisited. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2023;21: 28–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2022.12.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Colella V, Bradbury R, Traub R. Ancylostoma ceylanicum. Trends Parasitol. 2021;37: 844–845. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2021.04.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Easton A, Gao S, Lawton SP, Bennuru S, Khan A, Dahlstrom E, et al. Molecular evidence of hybridization between pig and human Ascaris indicates an interbred species complex infecting humans. Elife. 2020;9. doi: 10.7554/eLife.61562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zhou C, Lei Y, Zhao S, Shi Q, Ouyang S, Wu X. Human-type and pig-type Ascaris hybrids found in pigs. Vet Parasitol. 2022;302: 109646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Leles D, Gardner SL, Reinhard K, Iñiguez A, Araujo A. Are Ascaris lumbricoides and Ascaris suum a single species? Parasit Vectors. 2012;5: 42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hu Y, Ellis BL, Yiu YY, Miller MM, Urban JF, Shi LZ, et al. An extensive comparison of the effect of anthelmintic classes on diverse nematodes. PLoS One. 2013;8: e70702. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Díaz-Valerio S, Lev Hacohen A, Schöppe R, Liesegang H. IDOPS, a profile HMM-based tool to detect pesticidal sequences and compare their genetic context. Front Microbiol. 2021;12: 664476. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.664476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Verduzco-Rosas LA, García-Suárez R, López-Tlacomulco JJ, Ibarra JE. Selection and characterization of two Bacillus thuringiensis strains showing nematicidal activity against Caenorhabditis elegans and Meloidogyne incognita. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2021;368. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnaa186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Marroquin LD, Elyassnia D, Griffitts JS, Feitelson JS, Aroian RV. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin susceptibility and isolation of resistance mutants in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 2000;155: 1693–1699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Griffitts JS, Haslam SM, Yang T, Garczynski SF, Mulloy B, Morris H, et al. Glycolipids as receptors for Bacillus thuringiensis crystal toxin. Science. 2005;307: 922–925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Koul B, Yadav R, Sanyal I, Amla DV. Comparative performance of modified full-length and truncated Bacillus thuringiensis-cry1Ac genes in transgenic tomato. Springerplus. 2015;4: 203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Koul B, Srivastava S, Sanyal I, Tripathi B, Sharma V, Amla DV. Transgenic tomato line expressing modified Bacillus thuringiensis cry1Ab gene showing complete resistance to two lepidopteran pests. Springerplus. 2014;3: 84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Liu M, Panda SK, Luyten W. Plant-based natural products for the discovery and development of novel anthelmintics against nematodes. Biomolecules. 2020;10: 426. doi: 10.3390/biom10030426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ahuir-Baraja AE, Cibot F, Llobat L, Garijo MM. Anthelmintic resistance: is a solution possible? Exp Parasitol. 2021;230: 108169. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2021.108169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Pacheco S, Gómez I, Chiñas M, Sánchez J, Soberón M, Bravo A. Whole genome sequencing analysis of Bacillus thuringiensis GR007 reveals multiple pesticidal protein genes. Front Microbiol. 2021;12: 758314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hassan AA, Youssef MA, Elashtokhy MMA, Ismail IM, Aldayel M, Afkar E. Isolation and identification of Bacillus thuringiensis strains native of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Egypt J Biol Pest Contr. 2021;31. doi: 10.1186/s41938-020-00352-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zhao J-Z, Cao J, Li Y, Collins HL, Roush RT, Earle ED, et al. Transgenic plants expressing two Bacillus thuringiensis toxins delay insect resistance evolution. Nat Biotechnol. 2003;21: 1493–1497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lereclus D, Agaisse H, Gominet M, Chaufaux J. Overproduction of Encapsulated Insecticidal Crystal Proteins in a Bacillus thuringiensis spo0A Mutant. Nat Biotechnol. 1995;13: 67–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Agaisse H, Lereclus D. Structural and functional analysis of the promoter region involved in full expression of the cryIIIA toxin gene of Bacillus thuringiensis. Mol Microbiol. 1994;13: 97–107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lereclus D, Arantès O, Chaufaux J, Lecadet M. Transformation and expression of a cloned delta-endotoxin gene in Bacillus thuringiensis. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1989;51: 211–217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Morrison M. Broadening the Scope of Phage-Assisted Continuous Evolution. Ph.D., Harvard University. 2021.
  • 55.Bischof LJ, Huffman DL, Aroian RV. Assays for toxicity studies in C. elegans with Bt crystal proteins. Methods Mol Biol. 2006;351: 139–154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Brenner S. The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 1974;77: 71–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kho MF, Bellier A, Balasubramani V, Hu Y, Hsu W, Nielsen-LeRoux C, et al. The pore-forming protein Cry5B elicits the pathogenicity of Bacillus sp. against Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS One. 2011;6: e29122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012611.r001

Decision Letter 0

David Joseph Diemert, jong-Yil Chai

5 Jul 2024

Dear Prof. Aroian,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14A family proteins as novel anthelmintics against gastrointestinal nematode parasites" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

Sincerely,

David Joseph Diemert, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

jong-Yil Chai

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: The manuscript meets all the key criteria

Reviewer #2: Objectives clear and testable

Study appropritate

Population appropriate

No ethical concerns

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

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: The results are clearly presented

Reviewer #2: Analysis matches plan

Results clearly and completely presented

Figs of good quality

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

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The conclusions are supported by the data

Reviewer #2: Conclusions supported by data, limitations clearly described

Data well described and contextualised

Public helath relevance addressed

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

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript contains a significant number of typographical errors but since no page or line numbers are given it is too much effort for this reviewer to have to describe their location. I am happy to do this in a revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2: From the accession number given in the methods section, it appears that the Cry14Ab variant used in the study is Cry14Ab1. It would be helpful if this full designation were given at least once in the manuscript eg in the methods section, if not throughout.

The work involves horse cyathosomins, which is a collection of parasites and may not be commonly known. It might be useful to help the reader by including a short sentence to introduce/describe this term.

In general, the work could be a little more clear about which controls were used in different experiments, and why.

• The use of two terms, IBa and EVC throughout the manuscript, is a little confusing. If they are the same thing, I would suggest using just one term (or explaining early that they are the same and then using just one term). If IBa is a treated form of EVC, it would be useful for this to be explained clearly at some point and with the reasons for using each as a control in particular circumstances.

• Figure 2 legend, the phrasing “relative to no Cry14Ab alone” is a little confusing (if there’s no Cry14Ab, it can’t be alone). Does this mean relative to control (which control could be specified)? Figures 2 and 3 seem to be compared to a no Cry14Ab control but it is not clear whether this is water, buffer, EVA, IBa.

• Figure 4 seems to use a water control. Why isn’t the control an IBa (or extract from it)?

•In the discussion it is stated that “This report is also the first instance to demonstrate that multiple members of a single family of Cry proteins are anthelmintics”. However, doi 10.1128/AEM.03505-16 indicates antihelminthic activity for Cry5B and Cry5C proteins, so the statement should be removed or modified.

• Figure 5, I assume that worm burden (panels A and B) is expressed as per animal. Can this be stated (and added to the methods)? Similarly for figure 9

• Figure 6, please state here or elsewhere, which variant of Cry5Ba was used.

• Figure S3: what algorithm was used to identify and assign conserved residues? Different methods will identify different residues as conserved. I am surprised to see at residue 770 for example, the acidic E marked as conservative with the basic K (similarly at 907)

Minor typographical errors:

• “The doses use in Figure 4 would, a molar level, not ...”: use -> used

• “recognize nematocidal cry”: cry -> Cry

• “Among these, we synthesized, expressed, and found accession no. MF893203 as highly active”. The phrasing here might be improved eg found … synthesised, expressed or change “as” to “to be” depending on the intended meaning

• “5% CO2” , make subscript

• Reference 9 should be corrected to show the publication date as 2021 and to add the volume number (186). References 11, 24, 35, 40, 48 – seem to lack page numbers.

• Figure 9 legend, remove italics from “infections”

• Figure S2 legend “was see” -> was seen

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

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The manuscript provides convincing data that Cry14Ab and Cry14Ac have activity against GIN parasites. I do though have the following comments that would improve the presentation of the publication (see also comment above about typos).

1) In the third paragraph of the introduction it says that Cry14Ab is related to Cry5Ba - the authors should specify in which way it is related.

2) In the 2nd results section it is stated that the dose of Cry14Ab that gives complete inhibition of H. contortus coreesponds to 380 pM. We are told that in a w/w comparison this is 10x more potent than Cry5Ba so we should be told what the difference is using a molar comparison

3) Although it is probably obvious to those in the field it is not obvious to others why larval stages were used in some assays and adults in others. This should be explained.

4) The section on the identification of Cry14Ac implies that the software used is somehow capable of identifying nematicidal toxin genes. It isn't - it is only capable of identifying genes likely to be related to known pesticidal protein encoding genes. The authors should therefore explain how they narrowed down their search to nematicidals (presumably by searching for genes with homology to those known to have this activity)

5) In many places no gap if left between the text and the in-text citation number

6) Species names are not italicized in the most of the references

7) Use superscript in legend to Fig 1

8) This reviewer struggled to understand the term "no Cry14Ab alone" in the legend to Fig2

Reviewer #2: This is a clear an interesting manuscript describing the activity of two Cry14A variant proteins against a range of nematodes including gastrointestinal parasites of medical and veterinary interest. In vitro experiments are built on with in vivo experiments showing reduced worm burdens or reduced egg production. Overall the manuscript is clearly written and a good contribution to the field with clear implications for future control strategies.

As a general note, it would help the reviewing process if page and line numbers were marked.

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

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

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

Data Requirements:

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

Reproducibility:

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

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012611.r003

Decision Letter 1

David Joseph Diemert, jong-Yil Chai

12 Sep 2024

Dear Prof. Aroian,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14A family proteins as novel anthelmintics against gastrointestinal nematode parasites" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

Sincerely,

David Joseph Diemert, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Jong-Yil Chai

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Only minor changes required

Reviewer #2: The issues listed in previous reviewer comments appear to have been addressed satisfactorily

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

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my previous concerns. I now only have some minor comments on presentation:

1) Pg 2 Line 12 and throughout. It is no longer standard practice to italicize in vivo and in vitro

2) Pg 6 lines 9-10. Firstly the formatting is a bit odd with the parentheses including citation 26. Secondly are the authors sure that all those toxins that have activity against nematodes cluster together in a phylogenetic tree.

3) Pg7 Line 14 Cry3A

4) Pg9 line 18 "at molar level"

5) Pg10 Line 15 "for detecting...." not "to detecting"

6) Pg13 Line 6 "also a highly"

7) Pg13 Line 7 change to "similar to that published for Cry5Ba [20,24]."

8) Pg14 Line 9 the manuscript is rather overselling the data mining aspect. The only reported outcome of the IDOPS method was a protein with >90% sequence identity to an existing protein. A simple BLAST search would have easily found that! That is not to say that IDOPS is not a useful tool but this manuscript does not provide a strong endoresment.

9) Pg15 Line 15 why is there a superscripted - in the 4D8 spo0A deletion but not in the parent strain? Does this represent the Cry- phenotype?

10) Pg15 Line 23 the gene not the protein was synthesized (lower case italicized).

11) Pg16 Line 4 - see 9) above - yet another version

12) Pg17 Line 13 For the experiment

13) Pg18 Line 12 space after the 2nd 20

14) Pg 20 Line 20 studies was used as intact

15) Pg 22 Line 2 change to "of pH3 solubilized Cry14Ab

16) Legend to Fig 1 yet another way of formating the strain name (see 9) and 11) above)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

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

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

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

Data Requirements:

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

Reproducibility:

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

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012611.r005

Decision Letter 2

David Joseph Diemert, jong-Yil Chai

7 Oct 2024

Dear Prof. Aroian,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14A family proteins as novel anthelmintics against gastrointestinal nematode parasites' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

David Joseph Diemert, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Jong-Yil Chai

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012611.r006

Acceptance letter

David Joseph Diemert, jong-Yil Chai

21 Oct 2024

Dear Prof. Aroian,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Bacillus thuringiensis Cry14A family proteins as novel anthelmintics against gastrointestinal nematode parasites," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Trichuris muris in vitro motility experiment with Cry14Ab IBaCC compared to IBa (inactivated bacteria with empty vector).

    We have already demonstrated that IBa has no effect on hookworms [24] and roundworms (Fig 7B). Two independent batches of Cry14Ab IBaCC were prepared. All conditions were repeated for a total of two times and n = 12 parasites per condition.

    (TIF)

    pntd.0012611.s001.tif (256KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Efficacy of solubilized Cry14Ab IBaCC lysate against Trichuris muris whipworms in vivo.

    Fecal egg counts were taken seven days after direct instillation of solubilized Cry14Ab (single dose, 50 mg/kg) in 20 mM citrate buffer into the distal small intestine of the mice. P values based on one-tailed Student’s t test. Control groups received 20 mM citrate buffer (same volume). Three independent trials were carried out. In none of the experiments was a significant difference in whipworm burdens seen but in 2/3 experiments, a significant change in fecal egg counts was seen. Shown are the fecal egg counts and standard error for each group in each of the three experiments. For the experiment on the left, n = 5 control, n = 6 Cry14Ab; for the experiment in the middle, n = 4 for both groups; for the experiment on the right, n = 3 for both groups.

    (TIF)

    pntd.0012611.s002.tif (485.3KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Alignment of full length Cry14Ab and Cry14Ac.

    Identical residues are highlighted in green, conservative changes in yellow. Pairwise alignment was generated with Geneious Prime 2022.1.1.

    (TIF)

    pntd.0012611.s003.tif (3.1MB, tif)
    S1 Table. Means and standard error for all data points shown in graphs.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0012611.s004.xlsx (12.5KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviews Cry14Ab to submit.docx

    pntd.0012611.s005.docx (289.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviews Cry14Ab round 2.docx

    pntd.0012611.s006.docx (284.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All the crystal proteins used in this research can be found at Genbank: Cry14Ab1 has accession no. KC156652 and Cry14Ac has accession no. MF893203. All other relevant information are in the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES