Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2025 May 30;19(5):e0013141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013141

Repeat Ascaris challenge reduces worm intensity through gastric cellular reprograming

Yifan Wu 1, Charlie Suarez-Reyes 1, Nina L Tang 1, Alexander R Kneubehl 1,2, Jill E Weatherhead 1,2,3,4,*
Editor: Chao Yan5
PMCID: PMC12151467  PMID: 40446069

Abstract

Ascariasis (roundworm) is the most prevalent parasitic nematode infection worldwide, impacting approximately 500 million people predominantly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While people of all ages are infected with Ascaris, infection intensity (defined by worm burden) paradoxically peaks in pre-school and school-aged children but then declines with age. The cause of age-dependent Ascaris worm intensity is not well understood but may be dependent on cellular changes in mucosal barrier sites. We have previously found that the gastric mucosa is a critical barrier site for Ascaris infection as ingested Ascaris larvae use acidic mammalian chitinase (AMCase) secreted by gastric chief cells and acid secreted by gastric parietal cells to hatch. After hatching, larvae translocate across the gastric mucosa to initiate the larval migratory cycle. However, mucosal injury induced by administration of Tamoxifen results in cellular changes that impair Ascaris hatching and reduce larval translocation across the gastric mucosa. Since individuals in endemic settings often experience recurrent infection throughout their lives, we set out to determine how repeated Ascaris exposures affect the gastric mucosa and the intensity of resultant infections. In this study, we established a repeated Ascaris suum challenge mouse model and found that repeated Ascaris challenge caused cellular changes in the gastric mucosa which reduced worm intensity in the liver. Importantly, these decreases in infection intensity following repeated infections occurred independent of the adaptive immune response. These findings indicate that gastric cellular changes may be a key mechanism leading to the observed age-dependent Ascaris worm intensity changes from childhood to adulthood.

Author summary

Ascariasis (roundworm) predominantly impacts people living in low- and middle-income countries and poses a significant global threat to human health across the age-spectrum. While both adults and children can be infected with Ascaris worms, children harbor higher worm burden which leads to end-organ disease including liver and lung pathology, malnutrition, and growth restriction. However, the reason for this age-related difference in parasite burden is unclear. Here, we found that repeated Ascaris infection in mice resulted in lower worm burden compared to single infection models, suggesting that with repeated exposure, the mice acquired protection against high worm burden. We also found that this protection was a result of cellular changes to the gastric mucosa following repeated infections and was not associated with immunologic learning. These findings highlight the importance of the gastric mucosa as a barrier site for parasite infection and provide a critical foundation for understanding the role of Ascaris infection in other gastric pathologies.

Introduction

Ascariasis (roundworm) is the most prevalent parasitic nematode infection worldwide, impacting approximately 500 million people [1,2]. In endemic regions, particularly in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs), people are infected with either Ascaris lumbricoides or Ascaris suum by oral ingestion of eggs from contaminated soil or water [36]. After ingestion, Ascaris larvae hatch in the gastrointestinal tract and initiate a transient, highly immunogenic, larval migration cycle through the host’s liver, lungs, and eventually the intestines to develop into adult worms where they live for up to 2 years [7]. In endemic regions, individuals experience recurrent infection throughout their lives [8]. While people of all ages are infected with Ascaris, infection intensity (defined by worm burden) paradoxically peaks in pre-school and school-aged children but subsequently declines with age.

The cause of age-dependent Ascaris worm intensity is not well understood but likely results from a combination of changes in host behavior alongside changes to the adaptive immune response and/or cellular changes at mucosal barrier sites following repetitive infection. Since Ascaris is transmitted by oral ingestion of Ascaris eggs found in the environment, childhood behaviors such as pica (also known as geophagia) put younger children at risk of high worm intensity [9]. Meanwhile, adaptive immunity such as activation of CD4+ T cells [10] as well as IgE isotype class switching [11] may provide protective immunity against Ascaris at different immune barrier sites following recurrent infection. In a mouse model of Ascaris larval migration, recurrent infection was associated with reduced worm intensity in the lungs and was associated with an increased number of T cells, in addition to innate immune cells such as neutrophils, eosinophils and macrophages [10]. While each of these mechanisms are likely contributing to age-dependent differences in Ascaris worm intensity, evaluation of cellular changes at mucosal barrier sites has largely been unexplored.

The gastric mucosa is a critical barrier site for Ascaris infection. We have previously shown that following oral ingestion of Ascaris eggs, larvae use acidic mammalian chitinase (AMCase) secreted by gastric chief cells and acid secreted by gastric parietal cells to hatch [12]. Therefore, this hatching occurs in the host stomach despite prior literature suggesting larvae hatch in the intestines [12,13]. Once hatched, larvae translocate across the gastric mucosa to initiate the larval migratory cycle. Importantly, when we induced mucosal damage through administration of Tamoxifen, changes to the gastric mucosa resulted in reduced AMCase and gastric acid, impairing Ascaris hatching and reducing larval translocation across the gastric mucosa [14]. This resulted in decreased worm intensity in the liver and lungs during the larval migration cycle suggesting a critical role for the gastric mucosa in determining worm intensity [12]. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the mechanism by which gastric mucosa adaptations might contribute to age-dependent changes in worm intensity. Towards this goal, we established a repeated Ascaris suum challenge mouse model and evaluated its impact on the gastric mucosal barrier. We found that repeated Ascaris challenge caused cellular changes in the gastric mucosa which reduced worm intensity in the liver independent of the adaptive immune response.

Results

Repeat Ascaris challenge reduces Ascaris worm intensity in the liver

Prior literature has shown that Ascaris worm intensity in mice is reduced in the lungs following repeat Ascaris challenge [10]. However, the liver is the first site in the migration cycle. Therefore, we first asked if repeat Ascaris challenge in mice impacted larval intensity in the liver. Towards this, we used a repeat Ascaris challenge model in which wild-type mice were infected with 2500 embryonated Ascaris eggs twice a week for two weeks (a total of 4 challenges) by oral gavage (Fig 1A) compared to a single infection with Ascaris eggs [15]. Four days following the last Ascaris egg challenge, mice were euthanized. We found that mice exposed to repeat Ascaris challenge had reduced Ascaris larval burden in the liver compared to mice exposed to a single Ascaris challenge (Fig 1B).

Fig 1. Repeat Ascaris challenge by oral gavage reduces Ascaris worm intensity in the liver with associated impaired host gastric microenvironment function.

Fig 1

Repeat Ascaris infection mouse model (A) in which wild-type mice were infected with embryonated Ascaris eggs or PBS twice a week for two weeks by oral gavage (o.g.). Four days following the last infection mice were euthanized and stomach and liver tissue were harvested. Larval count in the liver (B) illustrating decreased intensity in the repeat Ascaris infection mouse model compared to a single Ascaris infection model. mRNA relative gene expression (C) of chia 1 (left) and atp4a (right) normalized to 18s in the stomach by qPCR following repeated Ascaris infection compared to PBS, non-infected controls. Western blot with quantification (D) of protein expression of Atp4a and AMCase in the stomach following repeated Ascaris infection compared to PBS, non-infected controls. Relative expressions of both AMCase and Atp4a were calculated based on densitometry normalization to the first control sample. (n ≥ 4, mean±S.E.M, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 using two-tailed Student’s t-test. Data are shown as representative of two independent experiments. Illustration created by biorender.com.).

Our prior work demonstrated that impairing gastric AMCase and acid secretion inhibited Ascaris hatching, larval translocation across the gastric mucosa, and migration to the liver and lungs [12]. Based on these data, we hypothesized that the stomach may be a primary barrier site involved in modulating Ascaris infection intensity through mucosal secretion of gastric acid and AMCase. To this end, we measured atp4a, a gene that encodes the proton pump responsible for gastric acid secretion, and chia1, a gene that encodes AMCase, mRNA expression from stomach tissue harvested from the wild-type repeat Ascaris challenge mouse model compared to wild-type, naive mice 4 days following the last Ascaris egg challenge. Indeed, atp4a and chia1 mRNA expression levels measured by qPCR were both reduced in the repeat Ascaris challenge mice (Fig 1C), and decreased Atp4a and AMCase protein levels were confirmed by western blot (Fig 1D). Together these results demonstrate a reduction in Ascaris worm intensity in the liver following repeat Ascaris challenge that is associated with decreased gastric mucosa function, specifically reduction in gastric acid and AMCase secretion.

Gastric CD4+ T cells are decreased following repeat Ascaris challenge

Following our findings that atp4a and chia1 were reduced in repeat Ascaris exposed mice, we next aimed to evaluate changes in the gastric transcriptome following repeat Ascaris challenge. Using our wild-type repeat Ascaris challenge model (Fig 1A), we compared bulk RNA sequencing from stomach tissue harvested 4 days following the last challenge with stomach tissue from naïve mice. A total of 19,166 genes were detected. Considering all genes, stomach tissue harvested from repeat Ascaris challenge mice had a distinct transcriptome by Euclidean distance matrix S1A Fig) and principal component analysis (S1B Fig) compared to naive controls. Of those genes, 751 were significantly downregulated and 695 were significantly upregulated in the stomach of wild-type repeat Ascaris challenge mice compared to wild-type naive mice as observed by volcano plot (S1C Fig). This was further depicted via gene ontology analysis on involved pathways (S1D and S1E Fig).

Based on the reported role of the adaptive immune response in controlling Ascaris infection [10], we hypothesized that recruitment and activation of CD4+ T cells would provide anti-Ascaris immunity in the stomach directly by killing the parasite or indirectly by altering gastric acid and AMCase secretion. To evaluate if gastric CD4+ T cells provide anti-Ascaris immunity following repeat Ascaris challenge, we identified T cell recruitment and activation genes in the stomach tissue from our RNA sequencing data. Surprisingly, genes involved in T cell recruitment and activation were downregulated in the stomach following repeat Ascaris challenge compared to naive controls (Fig 2A). The reduced expression of common T cell chemokine genes including cxcl13, ccl21b, ccl5, cxcr3, ccr7, il16, xcl1 found in the transcriptomic analysis were confirmed by qPCR (Fig 2B). Given this result, we next asked if the lack of T cell recruitment and activation chemokine gene expression was indicative of reduced CD4+ T cells in stomach tissue. Using flow cytometry on stomach tissue from wild-type repeat Ascaris challenge mice compared to wild-type naive controls, we found that repeat Ascaris challenge was associated with reduced CD4+ T cells in stomach tissue (Fig 2C). These data suggest that gastric adaptive immune responses, specifically CD4+ T cells, do not play a role in anti-Ascaris immunity at the gastric mucosa.

Fig 2. Reduced worm intensity is independent of the gastric adaptive immune response following repeated Ascaris challenge.

Fig 2

Repeat Ascaris infection mouse model in which wild-type mice were infected with embryonated Ascaris eggs or PBS twice a week for two weeks by oral gavage. Four days following the last infection, mice were euthanized and stomach tissue was harvested. Repeat Ascaris infection is associated with reduced expression of T cell recruitment and activation genes in gastric tissue relative to infection-naïve mice represented by Z-scores (A) from bulk RNA sequencing. mRNA relative expression (B) of T cell recruitment and activation genes from A in gastric tissue by qPCR normalized to the first control sample. Flow cytometry with quantification (C) showing concentration of CD4+ T cells in gastric tissue. Repeat Ascaris infection mouse model (D) in which mice deficient in T and B cells (RAG2-/-) were infected with embryonated Ascaris eggs or PBS twice a week for two weeks by oral gavage. Four days following the last infection, mice were euthanized and liver tissue was harvested. Larval count in the liver of RAG2-/- mice (E) illustrating decreased infection intensity for repeat Ascaris infection mouse model compared to a single Ascaris infection despite loss of adaptive immunity. (n ≥ 3, mean±S.E.M, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 using two-tailed Student’s t-test. Data are shown as representative of two independent experiments. Illustration created by biorender.com.).

To confirm that Ascaris larval hatching and translocation were not modulated by the adaptive immune response, particularly CD4+ T cells, we challenged mice deficient in T cells and B cells (RAG2-/- mice) with 2500 embryonated Ascaris eggs twice a week for two weeks (a total of 4 challenges) by oral gavage (Fig 2D). Despite deficiency in T cells and B cells, RAG2-/- repeat Ascaris challenge mice had reduced larval intensity in the liver compared to RAG2-/- mice exposed to a single Ascaris challenge (Fig 2E). Larval burdens in RAG2-/- repeat Ascaris challenge mice were similar to wild-type repeat Ascaris challenge mice (S1F Fig), confirming that gastric adaptive immune responses do not play an essential role in reducing larval worm intensity.

Repeat Ascaris challenge causes gastric cellular reprogramming

Based on the evidence that the gastric adaptive immune response was not responsible for modulating Ascaris larval intensity (Fig 2E), the unique transcriptome observed in Ascaris infected versus uninfected controls and the decreased expression of atp4a and chia1 evaluated with qPCR following repeated Ascaris challenge (Fig 1C), we hypothesized that the decreased larval intensity in our repeat challenge model was due to cellular changes in the gastric mucosal barrier. We therefore evaluated our stomach transcriptome data to assess genes associated with gastric cellular reprogramming and found decreased expression of parietal cell proton pump genes, atp4a and atp4b (Fig 3A), concordant with our prior qPCR data. Decreased parietal cell gene expression was accompanied by increased expression of genes involved in apoptosis by bulk RNA sequencing (Fig 3B). Given the combination of relatively increased apoptotic pathways and decreased parietal cell function in our repeat challenge model, we evaluated gastric histopathology from wild-type repeat Ascaris challenge mice compared to wild-type naive mice (Fig 3C). We found that repeat Ascaris challenge mice had increased apoptotic bodies in the gastric tissue consistent with parietal cell loss (Fig 3D).

Fig 3. Repeated Ascaris challenge causes cellular changes to the gastric mucosa.

Fig 3

Bulk RNA sequencing shows differential expression represented by z-score (A) for genes in stomach tissue associated with cellular reprogramming and development of pyloric metaplasia following mucosal injury including relatively decreased expression of atp4a and atp4b and increased expression of tff2 in the repeat Ascaris mouse models compared to naïve controls. Bulk RNA sequencing in stomach tissue also reveal (B) increased expression (represented by Z-score) of genes involved in cellular apoptosis pathways in repeat Ascaris infected mice compared to uninfected controls. Immunohistochemistry (C) shows increased apoptotic bodies (insert) consistent with parietal cell death identified by histopathology (H&E staining) in wild-type repeat Ascaris challenge model compared to wild-type naive mice (Scale bar: 100μm for 100x, 25 μm for insert). Quantification of apoptotic bodies (D) in the gastric mucosa supports increased cell death in the gastric mucosa following repeat Ascaris challenge compared to naive mice. Immunohistochemistry (E) demonstrates increased expression of tff2 (brown staining, Scale bar: 100μm) and qPCR (F) quantification of increased tff2 mRNA relative expression normalized to 18s in the gastric mucosa in repeated Ascaris challenge model compared to naive mice. (n = 4, mean±S.E.M, **p < 0.01, using two-tailed Student’s t-test. Magnification: 100× and 400× with 5 × zoom in. Scale bar: 100μm and 25 μm. Data are shown as representative of two independent experiments.).

Based on the decreases in chia1 mRNA expression by qPCR in our repeat challenge model, we hypothesized that chief cells were undergoing transdifferentiation. Indeed, stomach transcriptomic data demonstrated increased gene expression of trefoil factor 2 (tff2) also known as spasmolytic polypeptide and muc1 as well as decreased gene expression of mist1 (Fig 3A) following repeat Ascaris challenge. Increased expression of tff2 suggests gastric chief cells are transdifferentiating into spasmolytic polypeptide-expressing metaplasia (SPEM) which classically occurs following parietal cell loss. Upregulation of tff2 was visualized in the gastric crypts by immunohistochemistry staining (Fig 3E) and quantitated by RNA expression using qPCR (Fig 3F). Together these data demonstrate that repeat Ascaris challenge induces cellular reprogramming of the gastric mucosa known as pyloric metaplasia, apoptosis of parietal cells and transdifferentiation of chief cells, suggesting a novel mechanism that leads to differences in Ascaris intensity.

Discussion

We found that repeat Ascaris infection reduces worm intensity through the development of pyloric metaplasia, gastric cell reprogramming following mucosal injury that leads to parietal cell apoptosis and chief cell transdifferentiation into SPEM cells. These gastric cellular changes resulted in reduced gastric acid and AMCase secretion in the stomach which impaired Ascaris egg hatching and translocation across the gastric mucosa. This ultimately results in reduced larval intensity in the liver. Interestingly, these changes occurred independent of the adaptive immune response. While future studies are needed to compare the impact of uninfected, single-infection and chronic, repeated infection of Ascaris on gastric cellular changes, these findings highlight for the first time the role of the gastric mucosa as a primary barrier site in the prevention of heavy Ascaris infections following repeated exposures.

Our finding that repeated challenge with Ascaris induces the host gastric mucosa to undergo cellular changes which reduce AMCase and, thus, prevent Ascaris infection, raises the possibility that gastric cellular changes may be a conserved anti-nematode mechanism to reduce parasite burden in the host. Nematode eggs are covered in a thick chitin exterior that protects the egg in harsh environments but conversely requires a mechanism within the host to break down this chitin exterior to facilitate infection. We have previously shown for Ascaris infection that gastric AMCase serves this role, breaking down the chitinous egg [12]. Due to similar egg composition amongst different nematode species, it is reasonable to hypothesize that other nematodes may also use AMCase for hatching and that the gastric cellular changes observed here would confer host resistance to other nematodes in a similar mechanism. If true, this mechanism could be targeted for the development of a pan-nematode vaccine which has been hampered by the complexity of the nematode life cycle and the host systemic immune response mounted during infection [1619].

Gastric mucosal injury triggers the development of gastric cell reprogramming known as pyloric metaplasia to create an environment that rapidly protects and restores the mucosal barrier. Interestingly, these cellular changes also lead to overexpression of surface receptors, such as selectins like sialyl-LewisX receptor and integrins, used by Helicobacter pylori to adhere to and colonize the gastric mucosa [20,21]. Adherence to the gastric corpus epithelium allows H. pylori colonization and expansion of pyloric metaplasia in the gastric corpus in a positive feedback loop [22,23]. The type of gastric cellular changes we observed following Ascaris infection would therefore suggest that individuals who have endured repeat Ascaris infection and subsequent Ascaris-induced pyloric metaplasia would have a higher risk for H. pylori colonization. Indeed, the geographic niche of these pathogens overlaps and co-infection has been documented in the literature [24]. However, no studies to date have examined the mechanisms that influence Ascaris and H.pylori co-infection. Interestingly, compared to children living in high-income countries, those living in LMICs are more commonly infected with H. pylori in early childhood [25,26]. By adulthood, up to 50–80% of individuals in LMICs are colonized with H. pylori compared to <40% of individuals in high-income countries [27,28]. The reasoning behind the earlier colonization and more prevalent disease in LMICs remains unknown. However, Ascaris-induced pyloric metaplasia at an early age may influence early childhood colonization with H. pylori as well as the overall lifetime risk of H. pylori associated morbidity and mortality such as gastric cancer. This finding would have a significant impact on public health efforts in Ascaris and H. pylori endemic regions of the world.

Based on our findings, it is likely that pyloric metaplasia not only aids in gastric repair and restoration following mucosal injury but also serves as an anti-Ascaris mechanism to prevent high worm intensity following repeated Ascaris infection over time. Thus, in endemic regions, where individuals experience recurrent infection throughout their lives, pyloric metaplasia is a likely contributor to the observed age-dependent Ascaris worm intensity changes from childhood to adulthood. In this study, mice were infected over a two-week period. While this model recapitulates the real-world experiences of individuals spending shorter periods in Ascaris endemic settings such as travelers, military personnel, and public health workers, this acute re-infection model has limited relevance to long-term residents with chronic re-exposure. Instead, a chronic repeat infection model over months rather than weeks in mice of different ages will provide a more relevant evaluation of the long-term cellular changes that occur in the gastric mucosa of individuals with prolonged exposures in endemic regions. This short-term repeated infection model will also need to be compared to a single-infection model in mice of different ages to differentiate the impacts of single and repeated Ascaris infections on the gastric mucosa. Additionally, while Ascaris-induced pyloric metaplasia prevents high larval intensity following repeat Ascaris infection, pyloric metaplasia may also lead to collateral gastric pathology. Although there is evidence of H. pylori and Ascaris co-infection and there are high rates of gastric pathology in LMICs, to date, there is no human connection between these health outcomes. Further evaluation of the collateral damage to the gastric mucosa and the downstream sequalae to the gastrointestinal tract as a result of Ascaris-induced pyloric metaplasia is critical to understanding the complex relationship between Ascaris and the gastric mucosal barrier.

Methods

Ethics statement

All mice were housed at the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care-accredited vivarium at Baylor College of Medicine under specific-pathogen-free conditions. Upon arrival, complete randomization of mice into longitudinal groups was performed. All experimental protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Baylor College of Medicine and followed federal guidelines (AN-6297).

Mice

Ten 8-week-old BALB/c female mice (wildtype or Rag2-/-) were purchased from Jackson Laboratories (cat: 000651) or Taconic Biosciences (cat: 601). Upon arrival, complete randomization of mice into longitudinal groups was performed. Only female mice were used to ensure consistency in infectious burden [29]. All mice were housed in a vivarium under specific-pathogen-free conditions. All experimental protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Baylor College of Medicine and followed federal guidelines.

A. suum experimental murine model

A. suum eggs were obtained from adult female worms from infected pigs in the Weatherhead laboratory at Baylor College of Medicine. Briefly, adult female worms were isolated and dissected to remove the uterus. The uterus was then strained through a filter to release unembryonated eggs. The eggs were washed with PBS three times and subsequently resuspended in sulfuric acid for 60 days to allow for embryonation. For single infections, BALB/c mice were treated with a single inoculum of 2,500 embryonated A. suum eggs via oral gavage or PBS as previously described [12,15]. For repeated infections, BALB/c mice were infected with an inoculum of 2,500 embryonated A. suum eggs or PBS via oral gavage twice per week for 2 weeks. The infectious dose of Ascaris has been standardized in the literature in order to replicate human disease in a murine model [15,30]. The A. suum life cycle in a murine model mimics the life cycle in humans and has been previously described [15,31]. Following oral gavage of A. suum eggs or PBS, mice were euthanized at 4 days post last infection (p.i). and stomachs and liver were harvested in preparation for experiments described below. For stomach tissue, the forestomach was removed and discarded and the remaining tissue was washed in PBS.

Quantitative PCR

Stomach tissue was homogenized in TRIzol (15596026, Thermofisher scientific, Waltham MA) using M tubes on gentleMACS dissociator (130-093-236, Miltenyi, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) for RNA extraction following the TRIzol RNA extraction manual. Relative expression of mRNA for chia1 and atp4a to 18s was detected by two-step, real-time quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) with the 7500 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) using Taqman probe (Mm00458221, Mm00444417, Hs03003631 Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) and TaqMan Fast Advanced Master Mix for qPCR (4444557, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham MA) [32,33]. Relative expression was calculated based on ΔΔct to control group.

Western blot

Stomach tissue was homogenized in tissue lysis buffer (50mM NaCl, 20mM HEPES, 1mM EDTA, 2% Triton-X 100, 10% glycerol, with proteinase and phosphatase inhibitor) for protein extraction [34].

Protein expression levels of AMCase and Atp4a were detected using western blot. (4%-12% Nupage Bis-Tris gel, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham MA)(Antibody: ab207169, ab174293, 1:2000, Abcam, Cambridge MA; #4970S, #13901T, 1:2000 Cell signaling, Danvers MA). Secondary antibody was goat anti-rabbit IgG, HRP (1:10000, 31460, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham MA). Band intensity was calculated based on ImageJ and normalized to control group.

Histopathology

Gastric tissue was fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin solution, processed and embedded in paraffin. 5 μm sections were cut, and slides were stained with H&E. Apoptotic bodies were numerated from each section from each individual mouse. Alternatively, gastric tissue was processed and embedded in paraffin, 5 μm sections were cut and immunohistochemistry was completed. Briefly, slides were deparaffinized, then permeabilized using 0.2% Triton X 100 (X100, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO). After that, antigen recovery was completed using Diva Decloaker (DV2004, Biocare Medical, Pacheco, CA), and peroxidase blocked using 3% hydrogen peroxide. Slides were then blocked using 5% bovine serum albumin (A0100-005, Gendepot, Baker, TX) for 1 hour at room temperature, and incubated with primary anti-Tff2 antibody in 5% bovine serum albumin (1:50, 13681–1-AP, Thermofisher scientific, Waltham MA) overnight at 4 °C. Slides were then incubated and stained using ABC-HRP and DAB kit (PK-6200, SK-4100, Vector Laboratories, Newark, CA). Slides were then counterstained with hematoxylin, dehydrated and mounted.

Isolation of A. suum larvae from the liver

Mice infected with A. suum eggs were euthanized 4 days p.i. to assess larval burden in the liver. We measured larval burden in the liver at day 4 p.i. because this is when intensity peaks [15]. Liver tissue was harvested and macerated with scissors, suspended into pre-warmed PBS and transferred into a modified Baermann apparatus. The collection system was then filled up to 40 ml of pre-warmed PBS and incubated at 37°C for 4 hours. Following incubation, the solution containing larvae was collected from the apparatus, centrifuged at 800 xg for 5 minutes at room temperature, and washed with water to remove red blood cells. Larvae were washed with PBS for 3 more times and counted under the microscope.

Bulk RNA sequencing

Stomach tissues from mice were collected 18 days after the initial A. suum infection, which was 4 days after the last infection, into 1mL of 1x DNA/RNA Shield reagent (R1100-50, Zymo Research, Irvine, CA) in a 2mL ZR bashingbead lysis tube (S6012-50, Zymo Research, Irvine, CA). The tissues were lysed using a Precellys 24 homogenizer (03119.200.RD000, Bertin Technologies, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France) using the 6m/sec setting for 40s. The homogenates were transferred to 1.5mL DNA LoBind tubes (022431021, Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) and shipped on dry ice to SeqCenter (Pittsburgh, PA) for RNA extraction, polyA purification, and RNA sequencing. RNA was extracted using the Quick-RNA miniprep kit (R1054, Zymo Research, Irvine, CA). PolyA selection and library preparation for RNA sequencing were performed using the Illumina stranded mRNA prep kit, 2x150bp reads (20040534, Illumina, San Diego, CA). RNA sequencing was performed on a NovaSeq X Plus instrument. Each sample was sequenced using SeqCenter’s 50M paired end, polyA read option and on average 20 Gbp of read data were generated for each sample. Read data were submitted to the Sequence Read Archive (BioProject PRJNA1231119).

RNA sequencing analysis was performed using Nextflow’s nf-core/rnaseq pipeline (v3.14.0) [35] to generate read counts using the STAR aligner [36] and salmon [37] for gene counts. Differential gene expression analysis was performed using DEseq2 [38]. Exploratory data analysis from DEseq2 (PCA and Euclidean distance matrix analysis) indicated two outlier samples, one in each group. The DEseq2 analysis was performed again with these outliers removed and all further analysis was done without the outliers. To visualize the differentially expressed genes, a volcano plot was generated using the EnhancedVolcano R package [39]. Significantly differentially expressed genes (|log2 fold change| > 2 and <0.05 p adjusted value) were highlighted in figure. Gene ontology (GO) analysis was performed using clusterProfiler R package [40]. Heatmaps of gene expression for selected genes were generated using the pheatmap R package [41]. Analytical scripts along with version information and the R environment used can be found on GitHub (https://github.com/kneubehl/repeated-ascaris-infection-gastric-rnaseq-analysis). The DEseq2 normalized counts for each sample were submitted to the Gene Expression Omnibus repository and are publicly available (PRJNA1231119).

Single cell suspension

Stomach tissues from mice post multiple infections were collected 4 days p.i. Stomachs were cut into small pieces and incubated in digestion buffer (2mg/ml collagenase (#LS004177, Worthington), 0.04mg/ml DNAse (#10104159001, Sigma) and 20% FBS in HBSS for 1 h at 37°C after which they were disaggregated by pressing through a 40 μM nylon mesh and centrifuged at 400 × g for 5 minutes at 4°C. Supernatants were discarded, and 1.5 mL of ACK (Thermofisher scientific, Waltham MA) was added and incubated for 3 min at room temperature for erythrocyte lysis. ACK was then neutralized with 7.5 mL of complete RPMI-1640 (Corning, NY), with 10% FBS and 1% Pen Strep, Gibco, Waltham MA). The resulting single cell suspension was prepared for flow cytometry analysis [42].

Flow cytometry

Total stomach cells isolated above were stained with Live/Dead Fix Blue (L34961, Thermofisher scientific, Waltham MA) and CD45 (103112, Biolegend, San Diego, CA). For T helper cell staining, cells were stained with CD3 and CD4 (100222, 100412, Biolegend, San Diego, CA). [42,43].

Statistical analysis

Data are presented as means ± standard errors of the means. Significant differences relative to PBS-challenged mice are expressed by P values of <0.05, as measured two tailed Student’s t-test, one-way or two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test for multiple comparison. Data normality was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Experiments were repeated at least twice. All data points in the manuscript identify biological replicates. Sample size was determined based on preliminary data and was powered to detect a minimum effect size of 1.79-fold with 80% power at a significance level (α) of 0.05. These parameters guided our choice of using n ≥ 4 group.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Repeated Ascaris challenge is associated with a distinct gastric transcriptomic profile, and larval burden in the liver is independent of adaptive immunity.

Heat map (A) and principal component analyses (B) demonstrate stark variations in transcriptomes based on infection status. Volcano plot (C) shows significantly differentially expressed genes (|log2 fold change| > 2 and <0.05 p adjusted value) in the gastric mucosa of mice repeatedly challenged with Ascaris compared to naïve mice. Gene ontology (GO) analysis illustrate (D) significantly downregulated and (E) upregulated pathways in infected gastric tissue compared to naive tissue. (F) There was no difference in Ascaris larvae intensity in the liver between wild-type and RAG2-/- mice following single and repeat Ascaris infection. (n = 4, mean±S.E.M, n.s.: not significant, using two-way ANOVA. Data are shown as representative of two independent experiments.).

(TIF)

pntd.0013141.s001.tif (4.4MB, tif)

Acknowledgments

This manuscript was prepared with the assistance of a science writer, Ariel M Lyons-Warren.

Data Availability

All data are available in the figures, tables, and supplementary material. Sequencing data and RNAseq analysis is publicly available on NCBI through BioProject PRJNA1231119. Analytical scripts used in the analysis of the sequencing data are publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/kneubehl/repeated-ascaris-infection-gastric-rnaseq-analysis.

Funding Statement

Funding for the manuscript was provided by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases K08A143968 and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society Foundation Pichichero Family Foundation Vaccines for Children Initiative Research Award to JEW. ARK was supported through the Infection and Immunity T32 Fellowship T32AI055413 at Baylor College of Medicine. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.IHME. Ascariasis - Level 4 Causes 2019 [cited 2019]. Available from: https://www.healthdata.org/research-analysis/diseases-injuries-risks/factsheets/2021-ascariasis-level-4-disease [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Holland C, Sepidarkish M, Deslyper G, Abdollahi A, Valizadeh S, Mollalo A, et al. Global prevalence of Ascaris infection in humans (2010-2021): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Dis Poverty. 2022;11(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s40249-022-01038-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Weatherhead JE, Hotez PJ. Worm infections in children. Pediatrics in review. 2015;36(8):341–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hotez PJ, Bundy DA, Beegle K, Brooker S, Drake L, de Silva N. Helminth infections: soil-transmitted helminth infections and schistosomiasis. 2nd ed. 2006. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.da Silva TE, Barbosa FS, Magalhães LM, Gazzinelli-Guimarães PH, Dos Santos AC, Nogueira DS. Unraveling Ascaris suum experimental infection in humans. Microbes and Infection. 2021;23(8):104836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Betson M, Nejsum P, Bendall RP, Deb RM, Stothard JR. Molecular epidemiology of ascariasis: a global perspective on the transmission dynamics of Ascaris in people and pigs. J Infect Dis. 2014;210(6):932–41. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiu193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.CDC. Parasites - Ascariasis 2019 [cited 2019 19th July]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/dpdx/ascariasis/index.html [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jia T-W, Melville S, Utzinger J, King CH, Zhou X-N. Soil-transmitted helminth reinfection after drug treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(5):e1621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ali SA, Niaz S, Aguilar-Marcelino L, Ali W, Ali M, Khan A, et al. Prevalence of Ascaris lumbricoides in contaminated faecal samples of children residing in urban areas of Lahore, Pakistan. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):21815. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78743-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nogueira DS, Gazzinelli-Guimarães PH, Barbosa FS, Resende NM, Silva CC, de Oliveira LM, et al. Multiple Exposures to Ascaris suum Induce Tissue Injury and Mixed Th2/Th17 Immune Response in Mice. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(1):e0004382. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.McSharry C, Xia Y, Holland CV, Kennedy MW. Natural immunity to Ascaris lumbricoides associated with immunoglobulin E antibody to ABA-1 allergen and inflammation indicators in children. Infect Immun. 1999;67(2):484–9. doi: 10.1128/IAI.67.2.484-489.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wu Y, Adeniyi-Ipadeola G, Adkins-Threats M, Seasock M, Suarez-Reyes C, Fujiwara R, et al. Host gastric corpus microenvironment facilitates Ascaris suum larval hatching and infection in a murine model. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024;18(2):e0011930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011930 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jenkins DC. Observations on the early migration of the larvae of Ascaris suum Goeze, 1782 in white mice. Parasitology. 1968;58(2):431–40. doi: 10.1017/s0031182000069456 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Saenz JB, Burclaff J, Mills JC. Modeling murine gastric metaplasia through tamoxifen-induced acute parietal cell loss. Gastrointestinal Physiology and Diseases: Springer; 2016. p. 329–39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gazzinelli-Guimarães PH, Gazzinelli-Guimarães AC, Silva FN, Mati VLT, Dhom-Lemos L de C, Barbosa FS, et al. Parasitological and immunological aspects of early Ascaris spp. infection in mice. Int J Parasitol. 2013;43(9):697–706. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2013.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gazzinelli-Guimarães AC, Gazzinelli-Guimarães P, Weatherhead JE. A historical and systematic overview of Ascaris vaccine development. Parasitology. 2021;148(14):1795–805. doi: 10.1017/s0031182021001347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gazzinelli-Guimarães AC, Nogueira DS, Amorim CCO, Oliveira FMS, Coqueiro-Dos-Santos A, Carvalho SAP, et al. ASCVac-1, a Multi-Peptide Chimeric Vaccine, Protects Mice Against Ascaris suum Infection. Front Immunol. 2021;12:788185. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.788185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zawawi A, Else KJ. Soil-Transmitted Helminth Vaccines: Are We Getting Closer?. Front Immunol. 2020;11:576748. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.576748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhan B, Beaumier CM, Briggs N, Jones KM, Keegan BP, Bottazzi ME, et al. Advancing a multivalent “Pan-anthelmintic” vaccine against soil-transmitted nematode infections. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2014;13(3):321–31. doi: 10.1586/14760584.2014.872035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mahdavi J, Sondén B, Hurtig M, Olfat FO, Forsberg L, Roche N, et al. Helicobacter pylori SabA adhesin in persistent infection and chronic inflammation. Science. 2002;297(5581):573–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1069076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sáenz JB, Vargas N, Mills JC. Tropism for Spasmolytic Polypeptide-Expressing Metaplasia Allows Helicobacter pylori to Expand Its Intragastric Niche. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(1):160-174.e7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.09.050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Shi H, Xiong H, Qian W, Lin R. Helicobacter pylori infection progresses proximally associated with pyloric metaplasia in age-dependent tendency: a cross-sectional study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018;18(1):158. doi: 10.1186/s12876-018-0883-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Goldenring JR, Mills JC. Cellular plasticity, reprogramming, and regeneration: metaplasia in the stomach and beyond. Gastroenterology. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Aniekwe O, Jolaiya T, Ajayi A, Adeleye IA, Gerhard M, Smith SI. Co-infection of Helicobacter pylori and intestinal parasites in children of selected low-income communities in Lagos State, Nigeria. Parasitol Int. 2024;101:102896. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2024.102896 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kienesberger S, Perez-Perez GI, Olivares AZ, Bardhan P, Sarker SA, Hasan KZ. When is Helicobacter pylori acquired in populations in developing countries? A birth-cohort study in Bangladeshi children. Gut Microbes. 2018;9(3):252–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yuan C, Adeloye D, Luk TT, Huang L, He Y, Xu Y, et al. The global prevalence of and factors associated with Helicobacter pylori infection in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2022;6(3):185–94. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00400-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Poddar U. Helicobacter pylori: a perspective in low- and middle-income countries. Paediatr Int Child Health. 2019;39(1):13–7. doi: 10.1080/20469047.2018.1490100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chen Y-C, Malfertheiner P, Yu H-T, Kuo C-L, Chang Y-Y, Meng F-T, et al. Global Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori Infection and Incidence of Gastric Cancer Between 1980 and 2022. Gastroenterology. 2024;166(4):605–19. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wu Y, Li E, Knight M, Adeniyi-Ipadeola G, Song L-Z, Burns AR, et al. Transient Ascaris suum larval migration induces intractable chronic pulmonary disease and anemia in mice. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(12):e0010050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Holland CV. The long and winding road of Ascaris larval migration: the role of mouse models. Parasitology. 2021;148(14):1–9. doi: 10.1017/S0031182021000366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Weatherhead JE, Porter P, Coffey A, Haydel D, Versteeg L, Zhan B. Ascaris larval infection and lung invasion directly induce severe allergic airway disease in mice. Infection and Immunity. 2018;86(12). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ohno M, Kimura M, Miyazaki H, Okawa K, Onuki R, Nemoto C, et al. Acidic mammalian chitinase is a proteases-resistant glycosidase in mouse digestive system. Sci Rep. 2016;6:37756. doi: 10.1038/srep37756 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ohno M, Togashi Y, Tsuda K, Okawa K, Kamaya M, Sakaguchi M, et al. Quantification of Chitinase mRNA levels in human and mouse tissues by real-time PCR: species-specific expression of acidic Mammalian Chitinase in stomach tissues. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67399. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067399 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wu Y, Du S, Johnson JL, Tung H-Y, Landers CT, Liu Y, et al. Microglia and amyloid precursor protein coordinate control of transient Candida cerebritis with memory deficits. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):58. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07991-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ewels PA, Peltzer A, Fillinger S, Patel H, Alneberg J, Wilm A. The nf-core framework for community-curated bioinformatics pipelines. Nature Biotechnology. 2020;38(3):276–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, Drenkow J, Zaleski C, Jha S, et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(1):15–21. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Patro R, Duggal G, Love MI, Irizarry RA, Kingsford C. Salmon provides fast and bias-aware quantification of transcript expression. Nat Methods. 2017;14(4):417–9. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550. doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Blighe KS, Rana S, Lewis M. EnhancedVolcano: Publication-ready volcano plots with enhanced colouring and labeling (R package version 1120, 2021). 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wu T, Hu E, Xu S, Chen M, Guo P, Dai Z. clusterProfiler 4.0: A universal enrichment tool for interpreting omics data. The innovation. 2021;2(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kolde R. pheatmap: Pretty Heatmaps. R package version 1.0. 12. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wu Y, Zeng Z, Guo Y, Song L, Weatherhead JE, Huang X. Candida albicans elicits protective allergic responses via platelet mediated T helper 2 and T helper 17 cell polarization. Immunity. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wu Y, Green FM, Shaw SA, Bonilla LJ, Ronca SE, Bottazzi ME, et al. SARS-CoV-2 triggers Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1) modulation of T helper cells and lung pathology in mice. Genes Dis. 2023;11(4):101167. doi: 10.1016/j.gendis.2023.101167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2025 May 30;19(5):e0013141. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013141.r001

Author response to Decision Letter 0


Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

2 Oct 2024

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013141.r002

Decision Letter 0

Chao Yan

15 Jan 2025

Repeat Ascaris challenge reduces worm intensity through gastric cellular reprograming

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. Weatherhead,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases'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 within 60 days Mar 16 2025 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 plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ 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 editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* 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, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chao Yan

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Uriel Koziol

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

Journal Requirements:

1) Please ensure that the CRediT author contributions listed for every co-author are completed accurately and in full.

At this stage, the following Authors/Authors require contributions: Yifan Wu, Charlie Suarez-Reyes, Alexander Robert Kneubehl, and Jill Elizabeth Weatherhead. Please ensure that the full contributions of each author are acknowledged in the "Add/Edit/Remove Authors" section of our submission form.

The list of CRediT author contributions may be found here: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/authorship#loc-author-contributions

2) Please provide an Author Summary. This should appear in your manuscript between the Abstract (if applicable) and the Introduction, and should be 150-200 words long. The aim should be to make your findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. Sample summaries can be found on our website under Submission Guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission

3) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/figures

4) We notice that your supplementary figure is uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

5) Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOSu2019s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

i) Figures 1a, and 2d. Please confirm whether you drew the images / clip-art within the figure panels by hand. If you did not draw the images, please provide (a) a link to the source of the images or icons and their license / terms of use; or (b) written permission from the copyright holder to publish the images or icons under our CC BY 4.0 license. Alternatively, you may replace the images with open source alternatives. See these open source resources you may use to replace images / clip-art:

- https://commons.wikimedia.org

- https://openclipart.org/.

6) Thank you for stating that " Sequencing data and RNAseq analysis is publicly available on NCBI through BioProject PRJNA1141177." Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal dataset will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption.

7) In the online submission form, you indicated that "The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request."  All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either

1. In a public repository

2. Within the manuscript itself

3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

8) Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

1) State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant. For example: "This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (####### to AM; ###### to CJ) and the National Science Foundation (###### to AM)."

2) Please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.".

9) Thank you for stating that "Analytical scripts used in the analysis of the sequencing data are publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/kneubehl/repeated-ascaris-infection-gastric-rnaseq-analysis." This link reaches a 404 error page. Please amend this to a new link or provide further details to locate the data.

Reviewers' Comments:

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: 1. Abstract Evaluation:

Assess the clarity and conciseness of the abstract to ensure it covers the key points and objectives of the study.

Check for proper use of abbreviations; specifically, confirm that each abbreviation is accompanied by the full term upon first use.

2. Introduction Review:

Evaluate the structure and logic of the introduction to ensure it effectively introduces the topic, highlights the research’s significance, and provides a brief review of previous studies.

Verify the accurate and appropriate use of scientific references to support the arguments made.

Suggest adding studies that discuss the roles of microbiome and gastric cells in reducing infection intensity to reinforce the article’s arguments.

3. Materials and Methods Review:

Evaluate the accuracy and clarity of the methods to ensure reproducibility.

Assess the control variables and provide a thorough justification for selecting specific doses and the number of experimental challenges for the mice.

Ensure the correct selection and description of statistical methods for data analysis, and suggest applying more precise statistical tests if needed.

Reviewer #2: The authors clearly articulate their hypothesis and provide a good introduction to set the scene so that the reader can follow. However, I feel that the study design does not address the stated objectives that aimed to reveal age-dependent effects of Ascaris infection by using repeated infection mouse model. Please see further details in the "Summary and General comments".

Methodology section should be expanded to ensure readers understand exactly how the research was performed and to allow data reproducibility. For example, please expand:

1) qPCR method description to include how was the RNA extracted, the primer sequences used, which gene was used to calculate relative expression and how was relative expression calculated.

2) western blotting method description to include how was the band intensity quantified and normalized, and which secondary antibodies were used.

3) histopathology, could you clarify if the 4 sections are from 1 mouse?

4) Statistical analysis description - it would also be beneficial to the manuscript and readers to define which experiments were performed in duplicate and if those were technical or biological replicates.

The references cited in the RNAseq method description do not match references in bibliography

Flow cytometry method description should be revised as it currently includes description of analysis that is not shown in the manuscript (eg. T-bet/GATA/etc).

Additionally, I note the data will be made publicly available, however, the github link takes reader to "Page not found" and PRJNA1141177 could not be located on SRA or BioProject servers potentially due to paper being currently under review.

**********

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: Results Analysis:

Evaluate the clarity and accuracy in presenting the results and ensure alignment with the study’s objectives.

Review the adequacy and appropriateness of tables and figures for displaying data.

Assess the statistical analysis of the results to confirm the validity and accuracy of the conclusions and suggest additional statistical analyses if necessary.

Reviewer #2: The authors present the data clearly and provide nice schematics of the mouse infection schedules.

For further clarity could the authors add the following details to the Results Section 1/Fig. 1:

1) define "o.g." in the legend

2) expand legend to include what the protein levels of Atp4a and AMCase are normalised to

For further clarity could the authors add the following details to the Results Section 2:

1) add p-value and logFC cut-offs for volcano plot

2) add what the mRNA levels are relative to in Fig. 2B)

3) if RAG2-/- mice were used as per methods please change labels on figures and throughout the manuscript

4) for the observation “Larva burden in RAG-/-, repeat Ascaris challenge mice were similar to wild-type, repeat Ascaris challenge mice (Figure 1B)" please graph side-by-side and perform statistical analysis with select comparisons of Single infection in RAG-/- vs WT mice, and Repeat Infection in RAG-/- vs WT mice.

For further clarity could the authors add the following details to the Results Section 3:

1) please label the pathways that the genes are associated with on the figures (Fig 3A+B). It would be beneficial to mention that upregulation of eg. muc1 is associated with gastrointestinal worm infections. It would also be beneficial to show a pathway enrichment analysis of the RNAseq data

2) Fig 3 legend - D) is mislabeled to F)

3) Scale bar on histopathology images are difficult to see. I would recommend to add these details in the figure legend, including the scale bar on the insert image.

In sections 2 and 3, I feel that comparing repeatedly infected mice to naïve mice is expected to show huge differences in gene expression between infected and uninfected animals. This is also clear from the PCA plot where the presence/absence of infection accounts for most of the variance observed, and also from the genes identified as upregulated (muc1, ttf2). However, it is not mentioned in the manuscript that these changes were expected.

**********

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: Discussion and Conclusion Review:

Evaluate the interpretation of results and comparison with prior studies to strengthen the arguments.

Assess the logical flow and coherence of the conclusions, including a clear mention of the study’s limitations.

Recommend exploring the potential for generalizing the results to humans and addressing future experimental needs on the topic.

Reviewer #2: I feel that some of the conclusions are not supported by the data presented here as expanded in the "Summary and General Comments" section.

It would be beneficial to expand on the limitations of the analysis performed and on the significance of the H. pylori infections.

The authors discuss how these data can advance our understanding of the topic under study and propose that the new pathway they identified in repeat Ascaris infection could be a vaccine target for other gastrointestinal nematodes. Could the authors please provide appropriate references for statements regarding the need for vaccine development.

Additionally, the authors make interesting links to H. pylori infection which is also of public health relevance.

Please revise reference for the following sentence: “Adherence to the gastric corpus epithelium allows H. pylori colonization and expansion of pyloric metaplasia in the gastric corpus in a positive feedback loop8.” – reference 8 does not mention H. pylori.

Please amend statement “However, no studies to date have examined co-infection.” as this in now out of date – see publication https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parint.2024.102896

**********

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: Scientific and Quality Review of Figures and Tables:

Figures and tables convey scientific information effectively and are generally suitable for publication. However, Figure D has low quality and requires revision to enhance clarity for publication.

Ensure that all abbreviations and symbols are clearly explained in the images.

Reviewer #2: Overall the manuscript is very well presented, with some small editorial revisions:

1) Replace "," with "." in line: "Based on decreased chia1 mRNA expression we hypothesized that chief cells were undergoing transdifferentiation, Indeed, stomach transcriptomic data demonstrated increased gene expression of trefoil factor 2 (ttf2) also known as spasmolytic polypeptide and muc1 as well as decreased gene expression of mist1 (Figure 3A) following repeat Ascaris challenge."

2) Replace "follow" with "following" in line: “Gastric CD4+ T cells are decreased follow repeat Ascaris challenge”.

3) Replace RAG-/- label to RAG2-/- as mention before

4) Scale bars size as mentioned before

**********

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: 1. Scientific Originality Check:

Assess the potential for similarity or overlap with previous studies to ensure scientific originality.

If highly similar or even identical studies are found, they will be highlighted and recommended for comparison.

2. Review of Abbreviations and Scientific Terms:

Ensure correct usage of abbreviations with full terms introduced at first use.

Certain abbreviations like "AMCase" and "Ascaris suum" were not introduced with full terms initially and require correction.

3. Italicization of Genus and Species Names:

Confirm that genus and species names are correctly italicized. This should be corrected in cases like Ascaris suum and Helicobacter pylori.

4. Reference Review According to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Guidelines:

Align the references with the journal’s specific formatting guidelines, which require full author names, year of publication, full article title, italicized journal name, volume, and page numbers. For example:

Reference 2 should have a complete article title, and the journal name should be italicized.

Reference 10 should follow the standard format without quotation marks around the article title, and the author order should be corrected.

Reference 21 incorrectly uses numerals instead of the full journal name, which needs correction.

5. English Language and Writing Quality Assessment:

The article’s English language is fluent and academic, yet certain sentences need rewriting for improved clarity and precision. Additionally, minor grammatical errors require correction. For example:

In the sentence "Following oral ingestion of Ascaris eggs, larvae use AMCase secreted by gastric chief cells...", rewriting as "After ingestion of Ascaris eggs, larvae utilize AMCase, which is secreted by gastric chief cells, to hatch" enhances clarity.

In "We found that repeat Ascaris challenge caused cellular changes in the gastric mucosa which reduced worm intensity in the liver", using "that" instead of "which" improves scientific accuracy.

In "Once hatched, larvae translocate across the gastric mucosa to initiate the larval migratory cycle", changing "Once hatched" to "After hatching" eliminates minor grammatical issues.

Reviewer #2: The authors aim to demonstrate age-dependent effects of Ascaris infection are due to cellular changes in the gastric mucosa barrier. However, I feel that the data do not fully support this conclusion. Specifically, the authors compare gene expression changes (by RNAseq, qPCR and western blot), histopathological changes and the number of CD4+ T cells in mice repeatedly infected with Ascaris against naïve (uninfected) mice. The basis of the research is there, however, this study requires additional experiments. Particularly, I feel that inclusion of single Ascaris infection in their RNAseq, qPCR, western blot, histopathology and Flow Cytometry experiments (compared to the repeat infection) is required in order to make conclusions specifically on age-dependent effects. Inclusion of singly-infected WT mice was already used in the manuscript to clearly show that repeated infection leads to lower worm burdens, therefore if tissues have been saved from those singly-infected mice they could be used to provide the additional data requested. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of comparing repeated infection to uninfected mice only and revise manuscript conclusions to reflect that the cellular changes observed are not specifically an age-dependent effect and that these changes could be present in single infection. To continue with, the authors clearly show using a RAG-/- mouse model that adaptive immune responses are not involved in the reduction of worm burdens observed in repeat infection vs single infection. It would be interesting (although not necessary for the revisions asked here) to investigate the differences in gene expression between the repeat and single infection in the RAG-/- model as it could reveal new or provide additional evidence supporting the authors' hypothesis.

Other comments:

1) Affiliation no. 4 is not attributed to any author.

2) Please define AMCase in the abstract and ensure all species names are in italics (line 12)

3) It would be beneficial to the reader to expand on why changes to immunity do not fully explain age-dependent intensity changes - line "While each of these mechanisms are likely contributing to age-dependent Ascaris worm intensity, none fully explain observed age-dependent intensity changes."

4) Please cite appropriate literature for line "We have previously shown…cells to hatch."

4) The authors should revise the references and ensure correct citation. For example, reference 1 and 7 the link takes reader to “Page not found” while references 8, 11, 13, 15 require further attention.

In general, in the future it would be beneficial to adapt manuscript and format it according to the author guidelines of the journal chosen for submission. For example, an author summary is required but currently not available, the funding sources should be removed from the acknowledgements, pages and lines are not numbered etc.

**********

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: Yes:  Ahmad Hosseini-Safa

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

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. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013141.r004

Decision Letter 1

Chao Yan

7 May 2025

Response to Reviewers Revised Manuscript with Track Changes Manuscript

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

Additional Editor Comments: Reviewers' comments:

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

Yes, the objectives of the study are clearly articulated, and the testable hypothesis regarding the role of gastric cellular reprogramming in reducing Ascaris worm intensity after repeated infections is stated clearly. The study aims to explore whether gastric cellular adaptations, such as pyloric metaplasia, contribute to reduced worm burden during repeated Ascaris infection.

Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

Yes, the study design is appropriate. The use of a repeated Ascaris challenge model in mice allows for the investigation of the cellular and immune changes induced by recurrent infections, and the results support the hypothesis that gastric cellular changes are key in modulating infection intensity.

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

Yes, the study clearly describes the mouse model used, particularly the use of wild-type and RAG2-/- mice. The mouse population used is appropriate for testing the hypothesis, as the model simulates human Ascaris infection and is suitable for studying immune responses and gastric cellular changes.

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

The sample size appears to be adequate for the comparisons made (n ≥ 4). However, more details could be provided on how power was calculated to justify the chosen sample size, especially for key comparisons.

Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

Yes, correct statistical analyses, such as two-tailed Student’s t-tests and ANOVA, were used to support the conclusions. The inclusion of p-values and fold changes is appropriate for the analysis.

Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

The ethical statement is included, and all experimental protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Based on the information provided, there are no concerns regarding ethical or regulatory requirements.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

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: Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

Yes, the analysis matches the plan described. The study adequately addresses the effect of repeated Ascaris infections on gastric mucosa, including the impact on worm intensity and gastric cellular changes.

Are the results clearly and completely presented?

Yes, the results are presented clearly. Data are shown with appropriate statistical analysis, and the figures help to elucidate the findings. However, the figure legends could benefit from more detailed descriptions of what the data represent (e.g., relative gene expression normalization).

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

Overall, the figures and images are of sufficient quality. However, there are a few suggestions for improvement:

The histopathology images could have clearer scale bars and more detailed legends, including magnifications and methods of quantification.

In Figure 2, the volcano plot could benefit from a clearer explanation of the p-value and fold change cut-offs.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

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: Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

Yes, the conclusions are supported by the data. The results from the repeated Ascaris challenge model show that gastric cellular changes, such as pyloric metaplasia, correlate with a reduction in worm intensity, which aligns with the hypothesis that gastric mucosal adaptations contribute to altered infection intensity.

Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

The limitations could be more explicitly discussed, particularly regarding the use of a short-term infection model (2 weeks) and how this might limit generalization to long-term, chronic infections. More discussion on how the findings may differ in humans or in a long-term setting would strengthen the conclusions.

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

Yes, the authors effectively discuss how their findings contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms behind age-dependent changes in Ascaris worm intensity, particularly the role of gastric cellular adaptations. They suggest potential applications in the development of therapeutic interventions or vaccines.

Is public health relevance addressed?

The study addresses public health relevance, especially in terms of understanding the factors that influence worm burden and potential implications for vaccine development in Ascaris-endemic regions.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

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: Editorial suggestions and minor modifications:

Clarify the normalization method used for qPCR data in the figures and legends (e.g., relative to control group).

Improve figure legends, especially in Figure 2, to include more detail on statistical cut-offs and p-values.

Add clearer labels and scale bars to histopathology images in Figure 3.

Consider providing more details on the pathway analysis from the RNA sequencing data.

Ensure that the references for RNA sequencing methods are updated and match the bibliography.

Minor revision suggestion:

Based on the minor modifications mentioned above, this manuscript can be considered for "Minor Revision."

Reviewer #2: There are some spelling mistakes, missing words, and lack of spaces between words across the document. Some examples include:

- “Gastric mucosal injury triggers the development of gastric ell reprogramming…” - ell=cell?

- “Bulk RNA sequencing: Stomach tissues from mice were collected 18 days after the initial A. suum, which was 4 days after the last infection…” - missing the word infection after the A. suum?

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: Strengths: The study is well-designed and provides valuable insights into the role of gastric mucosal adaptations in modulating worm intensity following repeated Ascaris infection. The methodology is appropriate, and the results are clearly presented, supporting the hypothesis.

Weaknesses: The limitations of the study could be discussed more thoroughly, especially regarding the short duration of the infection model. Additionally, more detailed information on the statistical analyses, including power calculations and sample size justification, would enhance the rigor of the study.

Novelty and Significance:

The study is novel in its focus on gastric cellular reprogramming, particularly pyloric metaplasia, as a mechanism of reduced worm intensity following repeated Ascaris infection. The findings could potentially inform vaccine development and public health strategies in endemic regions.

Suggestions for Major Revision:

No new experiments are necessary, but more clarification of the methods and data presentation, as well as additional discussion on the limitations and relevance to human disease, would strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The authors have taken several of the reviewers suggestions on board and the manuscript has now a strong discussion section. In particular, the authors expand on the implications of H. pylori co-infection and acknowledge in the discussion the need for further experiments/comparisons with single infections too, and with models across varying ages to be able to comment on age-dependent effects.

Most (if not all) of the references require further attention. To point some of issues with references, many only report the first author without the "et al"; reference 44 is missing the volume(issue)pages information, etc.

Furthermore, as mentioned previously, references 1 and 7 links take reader to "Page not found". Please update these references with the appropriate links to the latest IHME and CDC data.

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: Yes:  Ahhmad Hosseini-Safa

Reviewer #2: No

Figure resubmission:Reproducibility:--> -->-->To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit 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-->

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013141.r006

Decision Letter 2

Chao Yan

14 May 2025

Dear Dr. Weatherhead,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Repeat Ascaris challenge reduces worm intensity through gastric cellular reprograming' 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,

Chao Yan

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Uriel Koziol

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-636XX

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

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

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 14.0px Arial; color: #323333; -webkit-text-stroke: #323333}span.s1 {font-kerning: none

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013141.r007

Acceptance letter

Chao Yan

Dear Dr. Weatherhead,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Repeat Ascaris challenge reduces worm intensity through gastric cellular reprograming," 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. Repeated Ascaris challenge is associated with a distinct gastric transcriptomic profile, and larval burden in the liver is independent of adaptive immunity.

    Heat map (A) and principal component analyses (B) demonstrate stark variations in transcriptomes based on infection status. Volcano plot (C) shows significantly differentially expressed genes (|log2 fold change| > 2 and <0.05 p adjusted value) in the gastric mucosa of mice repeatedly challenged with Ascaris compared to naïve mice. Gene ontology (GO) analysis illustrate (D) significantly downregulated and (E) upregulated pathways in infected gastric tissue compared to naive tissue. (F) There was no difference in Ascaris larvae intensity in the liver between wild-type and RAG2-/- mice following single and repeat Ascaris infection. (n = 4, mean±S.E.M, n.s.: not significant, using two-way ANOVA. Data are shown as representative of two independent experiments.).

    (TIF)

    pntd.0013141.s001.tif (4.4MB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 03-06-25.docx

    pntd.0013141.s003.docx (27.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 20250512_responsetoreviewers_JWedits.docx

    pntd.0013141.s004.docx (18.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data are available in the figures, tables, and supplementary material. Sequencing data and RNAseq analysis is publicly available on NCBI through BioProject PRJNA1231119. Analytical scripts used in the analysis of the sequencing data are publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/kneubehl/repeated-ascaris-infection-gastric-rnaseq-analysis.


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

    RESOURCES