Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2025 Jun 17;19(6):e0013176. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013176

Expression of interleukin-4 in schistosomiasis is influenced by age

Tresford Lwanga 1,, Lweendo Muchaili 1,2,, Gift C Chama 2, Lukundo Siame 1,2,3, Cornelius Simutanda 3, Situmbeko Liweleya 2, Bislom C Mweene 1,2, Sydney Mulamfu 1,2, Sepiso K Masenga 1,2,3,*
Editor: Feng Xue4
PMCID: PMC12173192  PMID: 40526709

Abstract

Background

Schistosomiasis, a Neglected Tropical Disease (NTD), remains a significant public health issue, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite various interventions, the disease persists, with a considerable burden on affected populations. This study aimed to characterize the hematological and immunological profiles associated with Schistosoma infection in pediatric and adult populations in Mulobezi district of Zambia.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study, which included participants aged 5–55 years, carried out in Mulobezi District in the Western Province of Zambia. The sample size was 143, participants were stratified into children (<15 years) and adults (≥15 years). Schistosomiasis diagnosis was confirmed through urine microscopy using filtration methods, while full blood count and cytokine (IL-4, IL-10) analysis were performed on blood samples. A Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with infection. Statistical analyses were conducted using two-sided tests to assess the significance of the observed differences between groups.

Results

Out of the 143 participants, 56 (39.2%) had schistosomiasis. In adjusted models, IL-4 showed age-dependent associations: significant in adults (AOR: 1.007, 95% CI: 1.003-1.012, p = 0.001) but not children (AOR: 1.001, 95% CI: 0.999-1.003, p = 0.072). Lymphocyte counts were elevated in both children (AOR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.07-3.54, p = 0.029) and adults (AOR: 2.96, 95% CI: 1.19-7.36, p = 0.020). Eosinophils (children: AOR: 13.94, 95% CI: 0.24-811.21, p = 0.204; adults: AOR: 12.27, 95% CI: 0.73-207.13, p = 0.082) and IL-10 lost significance after adjustment.

Conclusion

This study highlights IL-4 and lymphocyte counts as potential immunomarkers for schistosomiasis infection. The age-specific IL-4 association suggests differential immune activation patterns, while persistent lymphocyte elevation across both groups indicates sustained adaptive immune engagement.

Author summary

Schistosomiasis, a parasitic disease affecting millions in sub-Saharan Africa, triggers complex immune responses that vary with age. This study, conducted in Zambia’s Mulobezi District, analyzed 143 participants (aged 5–55) to identify age-specific immune markers linked to infection. Using urine microscopy for diagnosis and blood tests to measure cytokines and blood cells, we found that 39% of participants had schistosomiasis.

Key findings revealed that interleukin-4 (IL-4), a protein driving immune defense against parasites, was strongly associated with infection in adults but not children. Lymphocytes, white blood cells critical for adaptive immunity, were elevated in both age groups, suggesting sustained immune activation. Traditional markers like eosinophils (allergy-related cells) and anti-inflammatory IL-10 lost significance after adjusting for other factors, highlighting their limited diagnostic specificity.

The age-dependent role of IL-4 implies that chronic exposure reshapes immune responses, potentially worsening tissue damage in adults. Persistent lymphocyte elevation across ages underscores their importance in combating infection. These findings advance our understanding of how immune mechanisms evolve with age and exposure, offering insights for improved diagnostics and tailored treatments. By identifying IL-4 and lymphocytes as robust biomarkers, this study paves the way for better surveillance strategies in high-risk regions, emphasizing the need for age-specific approaches in managing schistosomiasis.

Introduction

Schistosomiasis is a major public health challenge in sub-Saharan Africa which has over 90% of the global burden concentrated in the region [1]. Previous estimates put the burden of schistosomiasis in Zambia at 2 million people with the majority of them in rural communities with limited access to clean water and sanitation [2]. Schistosomiasis manifests through a number of host-parasite interactions, thereby triggering distinct immunological responses that vary by age and exposure duration. While the typical T helper 2 (TH2)-skewed immune response to schistosomiasis is well-documented, the age-specific dynamics of key immunological markers, principally involving IL-4 and lymphocyte profiles, remain poorly characterized in endemic Zambian populations [3,4].

The immunopathology of schistosomiasis is mainly driven by host immune responses to parasite eggs, with cytokines playing important roles in modulating disease outcomes [5]. IL-4 and IL-10 have well-established and complementary roles in schistosomiasis immunobiology [68]. IL-4 is central in orchestrating the TH2-mediated immune response, promoting eosinophil activation and IgE production, both of which are hallmarks of schistosomiasis-associated granuloma formation [9,10]. On the other hand, IL-10 serves as an anti-inflammatory cytokine that counterbalances excessive immune activation, limiting tissue damage caused by the immune response [11]. These cytokines thus represent key immunological mediators in the host-parasite interaction and provide valuable insights into disease progression and control strategies.

Current diagnostic methods rely primarily on the parasitological detection of eggs in urine and stool, which has limited sensitivity in low-intensity infections [12]. Immunological biomarkers could complement existing tools by providing deeper insight into infection status and immune activation patterns [5]. However, most studies have focused on eosinophilia as a hallmark of infection despite its nonspecific nature [1316]. Few investigations have systematically evaluated IL-4, mainly secreted by TH2 lymphocytes and other lymphocyte subsets across pediatric and adult populations in high-transmission settings.

The present study addresses these gaps by analyzing hematological and cytokine profiles in schistosomiasis-infected individuals from rural Zambia stratified by age. We focus specifically on IL-4 and lymphocyte counts as potential immunomarkers while also examining why traditional markers like eosinophils and IL-10 may lack diagnostic specificity. Our findings aim to refine the understanding of age-dependent immune responses to schistosomiasis and identify robust biomarkers that could improve surveillance in endemic areas.

Results

Basic characteristics of study participants

The study enrolled a total of 143 participants, and the sample was stratified into two age groups to investigate age-related differences in immunological and hematological factors associated with schistosomiasis. Of the total participants, 65 (45.5%) were classified as pediatric (<15 years) and 78 (54.5%) as adults (≥15 years), Table 1 and 2. A total of 56 (39.2%) participants had schistosomiasis. Among pediatric participants, the median eosinophil count was 0.14 × 103/µL, lymphocyte count was 2.4 × 103/µL, and hemoglobin (Hb) concentration was 11.5 g/dL. The median levels of the regulatory cytokines were 56.1 pg/ml for IL-4 and 29.9 pg/ml for IL-10. Adult participants showed a lower median eosinophil count of 0.10 × 103/µL and lymphocyte count of 2.3 × 103/µL but a higher median hemoglobin level of 12.7 g/dL. The median concentration of IL-4 was 57.7 pg/ml, while IL-10 was 25.8 pg/ml in this group.

Table 1. Hematologic and immune profiles in relation to Schistosomiasis infection in pediatric participants.

Variable Schistosomiasis Present
(<15 years)
Schistosomiasis Absent
(<15 years)
p-value
n (%) 31 (47.7%) 34 (52.3%)
Sex
 Male 12 (38.7%) 19 (62.3%) 0.1662
 Female 19 (55.9%) 15 (44.1%)
IL-4 pg/mL, IQR 279.7 (188.7, 444.7) 28.5(14.9-100) <0.0001
IL-10 pg/mL, IQR 26. (18.05-43.29) 26 (19.96-50.93) <0.0001
Eosinophils (×10³/μL) 0.14 (0.08-0.7) 0.09 (0.05-0.12) 0.0047
HB (g/dL) 11.4 (10-11.8) 12.6 (14.1-2.9) 0.0089
Neutrophils (×10³/μL) 1.59 (2.42-1.36) 1.1 (2.1-1.29) 0.0784
Lymphocytes (×10³/μL) 3.14 (2.35-4.6) 1.73 (1.51-2.4) <0.0001
Monocytes (×10³/μL) 0.58 (0.16-0.9) 0.23 (0.12-0.5) <0.0001

Abbreviations: IL 4, Interleukin 4; IL-10, Interleukin 10; HB, Hemoglobin; IQR, Interquartile range.

Table 2. Hematologic and immune profiles in relation to schistosomiasis infection in adult participants.

Variable Schistosomiasis Present
(≥15 years)
Schistosomiasis Absent
(≥15 years)
p-value
n (%) 25 (32%) 53 (68%)
Sex 0.8197
 Male 6 (30%) 14 (70%)
 Female 19 (32.8%) 39 (67.2%)
IL-4 pg/mL, IQR 392.8 (259.3–853.3) 41.35 (21.88–56.1) <0.0001
IL-10 pg/mL, IQR 27.41 (19.36–64.29) 32.51 (20.34–51.51) <0.0001
Eosinophils (×10³/μL) 0.44 (0.09–0.98) 0.11 (0.06–0.28) 0.0046
HB (g/dL) 11.2 (9.6–12.9) 12.2 (11.5–13.3) 0.0115
Neutrophils (×10³/μL) 1.29 (1.04–1.76) 1.12 (1.01–1.71) 0.822
Lymphocytes (×10³/μL) 2.52 (2.4–4.5) 2.14 (1.78–2.54) 0.0047
Monocytes (×10³/μL) 0.4 (0.2–0.96) 0.2 (0.14–0.34) 0.0537

Abbreviations: IL 4, Interleukin 4; IL-10, Interleukin 10; HB, Hemoglobin; IQR, Interquartile range.

Relationship between schistosomiasis and hematological and immunological parameters

Immunological markers.

In pediatric participants (<15 years), those with schistosomiasis had significantly higher IL-4 levels (median: 279.7 pg/mL, IQR: 188.7–444.7) compared to uninfected counterparts (median: 28.5 pg/mL, IQR: 14.9–100), p < 0.0001, Table 2. IL-10 levels were also significantly higher in the infected participants (median: 26 pg/mL, IQR: 18.05–43.29) when compared to their uninfected counterparts (median: 26 pg/mL, IQR: 19.96–50.93), p < 0.0001.

Similarly, participants in the adult population (≥15 years) also had significantly elevated IL-4 levels in infected individuals (median: 392.8 pg/mL, IQR: 259.3–853.3) compared to their uninfected counterparts (median: 41.35 pg/mL, IQR: 21.88–56.1), p < 0.0001. IL-10 levels followed a similar trend, with significantly higher values in schistosomiasis-infected individuals (median: 27.41 pg/mL, IQR: 19.36–64.29) than in uninfected individuals (median: 32.51 pg/mL, IQR: 20.34–51.51), p < 0.0001.

Hematological parameters.

Among pediatric participants, schistosomiasis infection was associated with higher eosinophil counts (median: 0.14 × 10³/μL, IQR: 0.08–0.7) compared to uninfected individuals (median: 0.09 × 10³/μL, IQR: 0.05–0.12), p = 0.0047, Table 2. Similarly, lymphocyte (median: 3.14 × 10³/μL, IQR: 2.35–4.6 vs. 1.73 × 10³/μL, IQR: 1.51–2.4; p < 0.0001) and monocyte counts (median: 0.58 × 10³/μL, IQR: 0.16–0.9 vs. 0.23 × 10³/μL, IQR: 0.12–0.5; p < 0.0001) were significantly elevated in infected individuals. Neutrophil counts did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.0784). Additionally, pediatric participants with schistosomiasis had significantly lower hemoglobin levels (median: 11.4 g/dL, IQR: 10–11.8) compared to their uninfected counterparts (median: 12.6 g/dL, IQR: 14.1–2.9), p = 0.0089.

In the adult population, eosinophil counts were also significantly higher in the infected (median: 0.44 × 10³/μL, IQR: 0.09–0.98) when compared to the uninfected (median: 0.11 × 10³/μL, IQR: 0.06–0.28). p = 0.0046. Similarly, lymphocyte counts were also significantly higher in the schistosomiasis-infected participants (median: 2.52 × 10³/μL, IQR: 2.4–4.5) when compared to the uninfected (median: 2.14 × 10³/μL, IQR: 1.78–2.54). p = 0.0047. Adult participants also had significantly reduced hemoglobin levels (median: 11.2 g/dL, IQR: 9.6–12.9) relative to their uninfected counterparts (median: 12.2 g/dL, IQR: 11.5–13.3) (p = 0.0115). On the other hand, monocyte counts showed a non-significant increase, p = 0.0537, while neutrophil levels remained comparable between groups, p = 0.822.

Univariate and multivariate analysis of factors associated with schistosomiasis

Pediatric participants (<15 years).

In the univariate analysis, lymphocyte count (OR: 2.505, 95% CI: 1.45–4.31, p = 0.0009) and monocyte count (OR: 6.006, 95% CI: 1.40–25.71, p = 0.0157) showed significant positive associations with schistosomiasis infection, Table 3. Eosinophil count also demonstrated a marginal association (OR: 17.7, 95% CI: 1.12–279.17, p = 0.0407). However, IL-4 levels (p = 0.0611), IL-10 levels (p = 0.24), hemoglobin (p = 0.0521), and gender (p = 0.1684) were not statistically significant predictors in the crude analysis.

Table 3. Immunological and hematological factors associated with schistosomiasis in pediatric participants.
Variable Crude analysis p-value Adjusted analysis p-value
OR 95%CI AOR 95%CI
Sex 2.005 0.745-5.398 0.1684 1.289 0.317-5.257 0.7224
IL 4 (pg/ml) 1.001 0.999-1.003 < 0.0611 1.001 0.999-1.003 0.0715
IL 10 (pg/ml) 0.986 0.963-1.009 0.24
Eosinophils count (μL) 17.7 1.12-279.17 0.0407 13.939 0.239-811.213 0.2038
HB (g/dl) 0.795 0.63-1.00 0.0521 0.830 0.638-1.081 0.1684
Lymphocyte count (μL) 2.505 1.45-4.31 0.0009 1.944 1.068-3.536 0.0294
Monocyte count (μL) 6.006 1.40-25.71 0.0157 2.166 0.297-15.765 0.4453

Abbreviations: IL 4; Interleukin 4; Interleukin 10;HB; Hemoglobin, OR; Odd Ratio; CI, confidence intervals.

After adjusting for potential confounders in the multivariate model, only lymphocyte count remained significantly associated with schistosomiasis (AOR: 1.944, 95% CI: 1.068–3.536, p = 0.0294). The associations for eosinophils (AOR: 13.939, p = 0.2038), monocytes (AOR: 2.166, p = 0.4453), and hemoglobin (AOR: 0.830, p = 0.1684) were no longer statistically significant.

Adult participants (≥15 years).

In the univariate analysis, IL-4 levels (OR: 1.008, 95% CI: 1.00–1.01, p < 0.0001), eosinophil count (OR: 11.10, 95% CI: 2.60–47.43, p = 0.0011), lymphocyte count (OR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.15–3.12, p = 0.0118), and monocyte count (OR: 3.52, 95% CI: 1.14–10.83, p = 0.0283) were significantly associated with schistosomiasis, Table 4. Lower hemoglobin levels also showed an association (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59–0.96, p = 0.0238), while gender (p = 0.8197) and IL-10 levels (p = 0.3231) were not significant predictors.

Table 4. Immunological and hematological factors associated with schistosomiasis adult participants.
Variable Crude analysis p-value Adjusted analysis p-value
OR 95%CI AOR 95%CI
Sex 1.136 0.37-3.42 0.8197 0.610 0.079-4.678 0.6352
IL 4 (pg/ml) 1.008 1.00-1.01 < 0.0001 1.007 1.003-1.012 0.0011
IL 10 (pg/ml) 1.00 0.99-1.00 0.3231
Eosinophils count (μL) 11.10 2.60-47.43 0.0011 12.265 0.726-207.125 0.0822
HB (g/dl) 0.76 0.59-0.96 0.0238 0.734 0.506-1.065 0.1043
Lymphocyte count (μL) 1.89 1.15-3.12 0.0118 2.956 1.186-7.364 0.0199
Monocyte count (μL) 3.52 1.14-10.83 0.0283 0.740 0.100-5.468 0.7687

Abbreviations: IL 4; Interleukin 4; IL-10, Interleukin 10;HB; Hemoglobin, OR; Odd Ratio; CI, confidence intervals.

In the adjusted multivariate model, IL-4 (AOR: 1.007, 95% CI: 1.003–1.012, p = 0.0011) and lymphocyte count (AOR: 2.956, 95% CI: 1.186–7.364, p = 0.0199) remained independently associated with schistosomiasis. However, eosinophil count (AOR: 12.265, p = 0.0822), monocyte count (AOR: 0.740, p = 0.7687), and hemoglobin (AOR: 0.734, p = 0.1043) lost statistical significance after adjustment.

Discussion

The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the complex immunological and hematological responses to Schistosoma infection across different age groups in rural Zambia. Our multivariate analysis revealed several key patterns that need careful consideration in the context of existing literature on schistosomiasis immunopathogenesis. The most interesting findings are on the differential expression of IL-4 between pediatric and adult populations, along with the consistent involvement of lymphocytes across all age groups, suggesting distinct but overlapping immune mechanisms in the host response to schistosomiasis.

The age-dependent significance of IL-4 in our multivariate models presents particularly intriguing findings. While IL-4 showed no independent association in pediatric participants (AOR 1.001, p = 0.0715), it emerged as a strong associate of schistosomiasis in adults (AOR 1.007, p = 0.0011). This pattern is in agreement with the current understanding of TH2 immune polarization in helminth infections but suggests this response becomes more pronounced with age and likely with chronicity of infection [17]. The stronger TH2 response in adults may reflect immunological memory and repeated antigen exposure, consistent with studies demonstrating enhanced IL-4 production in chronic schistosomiasis patients [1820]. This finding has important implications for understanding disease progression, as the TH2 response, while initially protective, may contribute to the fibrotic pathology characteristic of advanced schistosomiasis. The absence of this association in children could indicate either a less robust TH2 polarization or the predominance of other immune mechanisms in early infection.

The lack of a significant association between IL-10 levels and schistosomiasis in our multivariate analysis, despite significance in univariate analysis, needs careful consideration. IL-10 is a key regulatory cytokine in helminth infections, known for its role in modulating excessive immune responses and limiting tissue damage. However, its production is highly context-dependent, influenced by factors such as the stage of infection, host immune status, and co-infections. In schistosomiasis, IL-10 is often elevated during chronic stages to counterbalance pro-inflammatory responses, but this increase may not always correlate directly with infection status when controlling for confounders. Our findings suggest that IL-10 may act more as a secondary regulator than a primary indicator of infection. This pattern is consistent with observations in other parasitic diseases, where IL-10 functions to maintain immune homeostasis rather than serve as a reliable marker of active infection.

Lymphocyte counts remained significantly elevated in infected individuals across both age groups after multivariate adjustment. This consistent finding strongly supports the central role of lymphocyte-mediated immunity in schistosomiasis, corroborating numerous studies demonstrating T-cell activation in response to schistosome antigens [21,22]. The higher odds ratio in adults may reflect either greater antigenic stimulation over time or age-related differences in immune regulation. Current literature suggests that while lymphocyte activation is crucial for parasite control, excessive or dysregulated responses may contribute to the granulomatous inflammation characteristic of chronic infection [5,23,24]. Our findings extend this understanding by demonstrating that lymphocyte involvement persists across the age spectrum, though potentially with different functional consequences in pediatric versus adult patients.

Several variables that showed significance in univariate analysis failed to maintain independent associations in our multivariate models. The lack of association with sex after adjustment challenges some previous reports of gender-based differences in schistosomiasis susceptibility. While biological factors like hormone-mediated immune modulation have been proposed to explain sex differences, our findings contradict these assertions [25]. This has important implications for control programs, emphasizing the need for gender-neutral prevention strategies.

The non-significance of IL-10 in adjusted models presents an interesting paradox, given its well-established role as a regulatory cytokine in helminth infections [26,27]. While IL-10 levels differed significantly between infected and uninfected individuals in univariate analysis, this association disappeared after controlling for other factors. This may suggest that IL-10 production in schistosomiasis is secondary to other immune processes rather than being an independent determinant of infection status. Alternatively, the timing of sample collection relative to infection may have influenced our ability to detect regulatory effects, as IL-10 dynamics can vary considerably during the course of infection.

Similarly, eosinophil counts, while significantly elevated in infected individuals in univariate comparisons, did not maintain independent associations in multivariate models. This finding challenges the traditional view of eosinophils as central effectors in anti-schistosome immunity [28,29]. One possible explanation is that eosinophilia in schistosomiasis may be primarily driven by IL-4 and other TH2 cytokines, making it a secondary rather than primary marker of infection when these other factors are considered, these has been previously proposed by a number of researchers and the finding in this present study supports this theory [6,30,31]. This has important diagnostic implications, suggesting that eosinophil counts alone may have limited value as a screening tool in endemic areas.

The hematological findings, particularly the consistent association between schistosomiasis and reduced hemoglobin levels, reinforce the significant burden of anemia in schistosomiasis-endemic populations. While this association was somewhat attenuated in multivariate models, it’s a clinically important finding. The mechanisms linking schistosomiasis to anemia are likely multifactorial and include both direct blood loss and inflammation-mediated suppression of erythropoiesis [32,33]. The public health implications of this finding are substantial, as they highlight the need to integrate schistosomiasis control with anemia management programs, particularly in pediatric populations where the developmental consequences of anemia can be most severe.

Our study findings carry significant implications for both the scientific understanding of schistosomiasis immunopathogenesis and the practical management of the disease in endemic settings like Zambia. From a scientific standpoint, the age-stratified immunological responses, mainly the differential role of IL-4 and consistent lymphocyte involvement emphasize the complexity and dynamism of the host-parasite interaction over time. Our study contributes to the growing body of knowledge suggesting that the immune landscape of schistosomiasis is not static but evolves with age and exposure history, therefore necessitating longitudinal studies to gain insight into these temporal dynamics. Clinically and programmatically, our results suggest that interventions may need to be age-specific, with pediatric cases potentially benefiting from strategies targeting early inflammatory responses, while on the other hand, adult cases may require therapeutic approaches that modulate chronic TH2-driven pathology. Furthermore, the attenuation of traditional markers such as eosinophilia and IL-10 in multivariate analysis highlights the complex interplay between immune effectors and regulatory pathways in schistosomiasis. Our findings suggest that eosinophilia, long regarded as central in helminth infections, may be largely dependent on upstream TH2 cytokines, chiefly IL-4, rather than being an independent indicator of infection status. This reinforces the notion that eosinophil elevation in schistosomiasis may be a downstream consequence of IL-4, driven immune polarization, rather than a primary immune event as previously held. As such, reliance on eosinophil counts for diagnosis or disease monitoring in endemic regions may be inadequate without concurrent assessment of TH2 responses. These insights inform the refinement of diagnostic strategies and have important implications for vaccine development. Targeting IL-4 and other TH2-associated pathways could offer a strategic advantage in modulating host immunity to achieve protective, non-pathogenic responses. Understanding the temporal and functional relationships between cytokines and effector cells like eosinophils may guide the design of vaccines that mimic natural, protective immunity without exacerbating pathology. Ultimately, our study underscores the value of context-specific immunological data in developing more precise, stage-tailored, and effective interventions for the prevention and control of schistosomiasis.

Strengths and limitations

A notable strength of this research work is the specificity of the area under consideration, the Mulobezi District; an area rarely investigated in relation to schistosomiasis studies. This localized approach enables accurate tracking of the progression of the disease in the community thus offering information for public health measures. In addition, the expansion of endpoints toward biomarkers of immunologic activity, such as interleukin-4 and eosinophil count, which cannot be obtained by conventional histological examination, makes the study valuable from both clinical and immunologic standpoints. With multivariable logistic regression analysis, potential confounding factors are mutually adjusted, which offers relatively accurate results concerning the relationships between threats and schistosomiasis. Finally, the data thus obtained enlighten environmental and behavioral determinants prevailing over schistosomiasis infection and transmission and may hence be useful in restructuring preventive measures towards reduced disease load.

However, several limitations must be considered when interpreting the results. First, the relatively small sample size (143 participants) limits the statistical power of the study and may reduce the generalizability of the findings to other regions. The cross-sectional design of the study prevents the establishment of causality, as it captures a single point in time rather than following participants over time to assess changes in infection status and immune responses. This limitation is particularly important when interpreting immune markers like IL-4 and eosinophils, as their levels can fluctuate during different stages of infection.

Another limitation is the reliance on single measurements of laboratory markers such as IL-4 and eosinophils may not fully capture the dynamic nature of the immune response in schistosomiasis. Repeated measures over time would provide a more accurate picture of immune activity.

Additionally, unmeasured confounders, such as genetic factors, and nutritional status, could influence the associations observed in the study. Variations in environmental factors, such as seasonal changes in water quality or snail populations, were not accounted for, which may affect infection rates and immune responses. These therefore need to be considered in future larger studies to ascertain their influence in the schistosomiasis outcomes.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates distinct but overlapping immune profiles associated with schistosomiasis in pediatric and adult populations. The age-dependent significance of IL-4 suggests the maturation of the TH2 response with prolonged exposure, while the lymphocyte involvement in both populations highlights the central role of adaptive immunity in the two age groups. These findings contribute to our understanding of schistosomiasis immunopathogenesis and may inform the development of more targeted approaches to diagnosis and surveillance in endemic areas. Future research should focus on the longitudinal assessment of these immune parameters in relation to infection dynamics and treatment outcomes.

Methods

Ethics statement

Before the study, approval and permission were obtained from the National Health Research Authority (NHRA) on 11th January 2024 with Reference number: NHRA-825/04/01/2024, Mulungushi University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Ethics Committee (MUHSREC) on 26th December 2023 with Reference number: SMHS-MU4-2023-031 and Mulobezi District Health Office (DHO) on 8th February 2024. All participants were required to sign an informed consent form. Written informed consent form was obtained from all participants. We ensured that the confidentiality of the data and study participants’ privacy was maintained. The study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits were explained to the participants in a language they understood, and their participation was entirely voluntary.

Study design and setting

This cross-sectional study was conducted in Mulobezi District, located in Western Zambia. The district is predominantly rural, with most communities relying on river water for daily activities. The study included participants from Machile, Sichili, and Mulobezi communities. The study enrolled a total of 143 participants, 92 females and 51 males. These were stratified into two age groups, pediatric (<15 years) and adults (≥15 years).

Eligibility criteria

The study included participant aged 5–55 who had resided in Mulobezi District for more than three months. Pregnant women, individuals with severe underlying health conditions such as advanced HIV disease and autoimmune disease.

Variables

The outcome variable was schistosomiasis infection classified as binary (yes or no) and the independent variables that were considered were age, sex (male or female), immune profile (IL4, IL-10) and blood tests: Hemoglobin, eosinophils count, neutrophils count, lymphocyte count, and monocyte count.

Data collection

Participants provided urine samples and completed a questionnaire collecting demographic data. Each participant provided 2 blood samples and one urine sample. Blood samples were collected via standard venipuncture into sterile vacutainer tubes, while urine samples were obtained using the midstream clean-catch method. Blood samples were analyzed for Full blood count and serological markers using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and urine samples were analyzed for Schistosoma hematobium using microscopy. Urine samples were collected in 50 mL pre-labelled pre-labeled containers and transported within 7 hours in cool boxes to Sichili Mission Hospital for laboratory analysis. Blood samples were collected in labeled containers, with whole blood stored and transported to Metropolis laboratory for a full blood count analysis, while serum from the red-top containers was sent to TDRC Ndola for IL-4 and IL-10 analysis using ELISA. Urine microscopy was performed by centrifuging 10 mL the collected urine samples at 2,000 rpm for 5 minutes. The sediment was then examined under 10x and 40x magnification for Schistosoma haematobium ova. Standard laboratory procedures were followed throughout sample handling and analysis to maintain data integrity.

Cytokine quantification by ELISA

Plasma levels of IL-4 and IL-10 were measured using human sandwich ELISA kits from Elabscience Biotechnology Inc. (Houston, TX, USA). IL-4 was quantified using kit E-EL-H0101 (sensitivity: 18.75 pg/mL; range: 31.25–2000 pg/mL), while IL-10 was assessed using kit E-EL-H0103 (sensitivity: 0.94 pg/mL; range: 1.56–100 pg/mL). Both assays followed the manufacturer’s instructions, used 100 μL of plasma, and were completed in ~3.5 hours. No significant cross-reactivity or interference was reported, and intra-assay variability was < 10%. Each ELISA run included commercially available positive and negative controls to ensure assay reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy in line with standard quality control procedures. Absorbance was read at 450 nm, and cytokine concentrations were derived from standard curves.

Data analysis

The data was analyzed using StatCrunch data analysis software. Data cleaning and coding were conducted using a codebook. Descriptive statistics were used to provide summary statistics for demographic variables and clinical characteristics, schistosomiasis infection status, and other relevant variables. Measures of central tendency (e.g., median) and dispersion (e.g., interquartile range) were calculated for continuous variables, while frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables.

To test for Normality Shapiro Wilk’s test and histograms were used. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the median between two groups with not normally distributed data.

The Chi-square Test was used to assess whether there is a significant relationship between two categorical variables. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of independent variables with schistosomiasis infection. Statistical tests were performed using two-sided tests to determine the significance of the data, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.

Supporting information

S1 File. STROBE - A checklist to aid reporting.

(DOCX)

pntd.0013176.s001.docx (32.2KB, docx)
S1 Data. Data that underlies this paper.

(XLSX)

pntd.0013176.s002.xlsx (33.5KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mulobezi District health office, and Sichili Mission hospital Management for having granted permission to conduct the study at Sichili Mission hospital laboratory. We are also grateful to the Mulobezi District laboratory coordinator, Adrian Chiyokoma, Chanda Kalebwe and our assistant principal investigators Mwamba Joseph and Kelvin Solochi for their continued support during data collection process. We also thank the Team at Livingstone Center for Prevention and Translational Science (LCPTS) for their support.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Aula OP, McManus DP, Jones MK, Gordon CA. Schistosomiasis with a Focus on Africa. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2021;6(3):109. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed6030109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Payne L, Turner-Moss E, Mutengo M, Asombang AW, Kelly P. Prevalence of schistosome antibodies with hepatosplenic signs and symptoms among patients from Kaoma, Western Province, Zambia. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6:344. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Damian RT. Immunological aspects of host-schistosome relationships. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1987;82 Suppl 4:13–6. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02761987000800004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hambrook JR, Hanington PC. Immune Evasion Strategies of Schistosomes. Frontiers in Immunology. 2020;11:624178. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.624178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Colley DG, Secor WE. Immunology of human schistosomiasis. Parasite Immunol. 2014;36(8):347–57. doi: 10.1111/pim.12087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nakagome K, Nagata M. The Possible Roles of IL-4/IL-13 in the Development of Eosinophil-Predominant Severe Asthma. Biomolecules. 2024;14(5):546. doi: 10.3390/biom14050546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ndlovu H, Brombacher F. Role of IL-4Rα during acute schistosomiasis in mice. Parasite Immunol. 2014;36(9):421–7. doi: 10.1111/pim.12080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hoffmann KF, Cheever AW, Wynn TA. IL-10 and the dangers of immune polarization: excessive type 1 and type 2 cytokine responses induce distinct forms of lethal immunopathology in murine schistosomiasis. J Immunol. 2000;164(12):6406–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yasuda K, Kuroda E. Role of eosinophils in protective immunity against secondary nematode infections. Immunol Med. 2019;42(4):148–55. doi: 10.1080/25785826.2019.1697135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jackson DJ, Akuthota P, Roufosse F. Eosinophils and eosinophilic immune dysfunction in health and disease. Eur Respir Rev. 2022;31(163). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wilson MS, Cheever AW, White SD, Thompson RW, Wynn TA. IL-10 blocks the development of resistance to re-infection with Schistosoma mansoni. PLoS Pathog. 2011;7(8):e1002171. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ajibola O, Gulumbe BH, Eze AA, Obishakin E. Tools for detection of schistosomiasis in resource limited settings. Med Sci. 2018;6(2):39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bierman WFW, Wetsteyn JCFM, van Gool T. Presentation and diagnosis of imported schistosomiasis: relevance of eosinophilia, microscopy for ova, and serology. J Travel Med. 2005;12(1):9–13. doi: 10.2310/7060.2005.00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dawson-Hahn EE, Greenberg SLM, Domachowske JB, Olson BG. Eosinophilia and the seroprevalence of schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in newly arrived pediatric refugees: An examination of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening guidelines. J Pediatr. 2010;156(6):1016-1018.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Malta KK, Palazzi C, Neves VH, Aguiar Y, Silva TP, Melo RCN. Schistosomiasis mansoni-recruited eosinophils: an overview in the granuloma context. Microorganisms. 2022;10(10):2022. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10102022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jauréguiberry S, Paris L, Caumes E. Acute schistosomiasis, a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010;16(3):225–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.03131.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fallon PG, Gibbons J, Vervenne RA, Richardson EJ, Fulford AJC, Kiarie S, et al. Juvenile rhesus monkeys have lower type 2 cytokine responses than adults after primary infection with Schistosoma mansoni. J Infect Dis. 2003;187(6):939–45. doi: 10.1086/368130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.de Oliveira Fraga LA, Torrero MN, Tocheva AS, Mitre E, Davies SJ. Induction of type 2 responses by schistosome worms during prepatent infection. J Infect Dis. 2010;201(3):464–72. doi: 10.1086/649841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Costain AH, Phythian-Adams AT, Colombo SAP, Marley AK, Owusu C, Cook PC, et al. Dynamics of host immune response development during Schistosoma mansoni infection. Front Immunol. 2022;13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Houlder EL, Stam KA, Koopman JPR, König MH, Langenberg MCC, Hoogerwerf M-A, et al. Early symptom-associated inflammatory responses shift to type 2 responses in controlled human schistosome infection. Sci Immunol. 2024;9(97):eadl1965. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.adl1965 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zheng B, Zhang J, Chen H, Nie H, Miller H, Gong Q. T lymphocyte-mediated liver immunopathology of schistosomiasis. Front Immunol. 2020;11:61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wilson MS, Mentink-Kane MM, Pesce JT, Ramalingam TR, Thompson R, Wynn TA. Immunopathology of schistosomiasis. Immunol Cell Biol. 2007;85(2):148–54. doi: 10.1038/sj.icb.7100014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rumbley CA, Zekavat SA, Sugaya H, Perrin PJ, Ramadan MA, Phillips SM. The schistosome granuloma: characterization of lymphocyte migration, activation, and cytokine production. J Immunol. 1998;161(8):4129–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lundy SK, Lukacs NW. Chronic schistosome infection leads to modulation of granuloma formation and systemic immune suppression. Front Immunol. 2013;4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Remoué F, To Van D, Schacht AM, Picquet M, Garraud O, Vercruysse J, et al. Gender-dependent specific immune response during chronic human Schistosomiasis haematobia. Clin Exp Immunol. 2001;124(1):62–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2249.2001.01495.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bustinduy AL, Sutherland LJ, Chang-Cojulun A, Malhotra I, DuVall AS, Fairley JK. Age-stratified profiles of serum IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α cytokines among Kenyan children with Schistosoma haematobium, Plasmodium falciparum, and other chronic parasitic co-infections. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92(5):945–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Webster HC, Gamino V, Andrusaite AT, Ridgewell OJ, McCowan J, Shergold AL, et al. Tissue-based IL-10 signalling in helminth infection limits IFNγ expression and promotes the intestinal Th2 response. Mucosal Immunol. 2022;15(6):1257–69. doi: 10.1038/s41385-022-00513-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.de Oliveira VG, Rodrigues VF, Moreira JMP, Rodrigues JL, Maggi L, Resende SD. Eosinophils participate in modulation of liver immune response and tissue damage induced by Schistosoma mansoni infection in mice. Cytokine. 2022;149:155701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Capron M, Capron A. Effector functions of eosinophils in schistosomiasis. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1992;87(Suppl 4):167–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sunata K, Miyata J, Kawashima Y, Konno R, Ishikawa M, Hasegawa Y, et al. Multiomics analysis identified IL-4-induced IL1RL1high eosinophils characterized by prominent cysteinyl leukotriene metabolism. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2024;154(5):1277–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2024.07.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dubois GR, Schweizer RC, Versluis C, Bruijnzeel-Koomen CA, Bruijnzeel PL. Human eosinophils constitutively express a functional interleukin-4 receptor: interleukin-4 -induced priming of chemotactic responses and induction of PI-3 kinase activity. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 1998;19(4):691–9. doi: 10.1165/ajrcmb.19.4.3208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Adewale B, Mafe MA, Mogaji HO, Balogun JB, Sulyman MA, Ajayi MB. Urinary schistosomiasis and anemia among school-aged children from southwestern Nigeria. Pathog Glob Health. 2024;118(4):325–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wijshake T, Rose J, Wang J, Zielke J, Marlar-Pavey M, Chen W. Schistosome Infection Impacts Hematopoiesis. J Immunol. 2024;212(4):607–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013176.r002

Decision Letter 0

Feng Xue

Mar 27 2025

Immunological biomarkers and correlates of schistosomiasis in Mulobezi District: a cross-sectional study

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. Masenga,

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 27 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,

Feng Xue, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Jong-Yil Chai

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) Thank you for including an Ethics Statement for your study. For child participants, please include:

i) A statement that formal consent was obtained (must state whether verbal/written) from the parent/guardian OR the reason consent was not obtained (e.g. anonymity). 

2) Please upload the main figure as a separate Figure file 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

3) We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a complete list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list.

4) 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) Figure 1. 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/.

Comments to the Authors:

Please note that one of the reviews is uploaded as an attachment.

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: See comments below

Reviewer #2: 1.The inclusion criteria for study participants were not rigorous enough. For example, previous infections are not considered, and previous infections may be important factors that affect immune markers.

2.The details of ELISA were not provided.

3.Why did you only choose IL-4 and IL-10?

4.Did you think the factors you investigated be enough?

5.Relative to the high prevalence of schistosomiasis, the inclusion of study participants is insufficient, and the results are less convincing.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The study is appropriately designed and methodology supports the objectives and results. The author's have addressed the limitation of the study and sample size which is important for the conclusion of the finding.

Reviewer #5: In the methods section of the abstract (and line 168), please specify whether your tests were one (> or <) or two-sided.

In the methods section of the abstract, please consider replacing “A logistic regression model (bivariate and multivariable) was used to …” with “Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were use to …” or “Simple and multiple logistic regression models were used to …” In lines 167-168, you write, “Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the factors …” This is fine, but you need to be consistent in your usage of these terms (correct lines 219-221 in the results section because you alternate between -ate and -able suffixes and they mean different things).

Did you run a sample size calculation based on accurate assumptions? Can you provide a power analysis? It seems like you included a lot of variables in your multivariable model given the small sample size.

Reviewer #6: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

Yes

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

Yes, but I expected the authors to use a greater number of immunological markers and a larger sample size categorized by population type.

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

Yes, it is clearly described, but it is not entirely appropriate.

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

No

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

It is not fully supported due to the sample size and population.

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

No

Please, can you provide bibliographical support for the following:

-Why did you choose that sample size, and how would this limit the conclusions of your study?

-Susceptibility to infection according to the sex and age of the patients.

I suggest adding a figure showing the study area.

I suggest indicating how many blood and urine samples were taken per person. Indicate how the samples were taken, and how the analysis of the samples was performed. Also, mention which were the positive and negative controls in the analysis of the samples.

**********

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: See comments below

Reviewer #2: Although the analysis presented match the analysis plan, it is not appropriate due to the shortcomings of the design. moreover, no novel findings were produced from this study.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: In the Results section of the abstract, you write, “The prevalence of schistosomiasis in the study population was 39.2% (95% CI).” The values for the 95% CI are missing, so please insert them.

Throughout the results section of the abstract, consider including the p-values or the 95% CIs. Including both is redundant.

In the results section of the abstract (for example), you write, “… river as a source of water for drinking and domestic use was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of schistosomiasis … and the presence of symptoms related to schistosomiasis greatly increased the likelihood of infection …” OR is not a probability, so consider avoiding using the “likelihood” terminology. Instead, just say the odds were higher (or lower). As a reminder, likelihood is related to risk and relative risk, which are probabilities. Throughout the paper, please avoid using “likelihood” unless you plan to use relative risk instead of odds ratios. Instead, just say “higher odds” or “lower odds” here.

In the Synopsis, you write, “We found a significant proportion of 39% of children and adults infected with Schistosoma haematobium.” Consider replacing “significant” with “substantial” so as not to be confused with statistical significance.

Line 120: Replace “march” with “March” and insert the last day for June 2024.

Did you control/adjust for community in your multivariable logistic regression model?

In your multivariable logistic regression model, did you consider any two-way interactions/effect modifications?

What did you include as symptoms related to schistosomiasis? Would there be any benefit to examining them separately?

Throughout the paper, please be consistent in the way you present dates (day, month, year or month, day, year), e.g., lines 120, 171, 173, 174.

In the results section, be consistent in if/how you present the IQR text—as (Q1, Q3) or the difference Q3-Q1—personal preference for the former. Also, be consistent in how you present summary stats for the categorical variables—personal preference for frequency (percent).

In Tables 1 and 2 of the results section, you report only n=1 employed participant. It seems odd to identify this as an occupation variable. n=94 are in school, so there seems to be overlap with the education variable. Consider combining these two variables, given your small sample size, in your models. Consider combining secondary and tertiary education in your models, too. Also, consider combining rarely and never contact with contaminated water in your models. Also, replace “domestic us” with “domestic use” in table 1.

In Table 1, what constitutes “protective measures” here?

What were the other medical conditions that n=15 participants were diagnosed with?

In Table 2, you have some cells with 0-2 participants. Consider collapsing categories for these variables before running statistical tests and fitting models.

In Table 2, the p-value for “treated with schistosomiasis” is incorrect given the cell counts. Please double check all your results. It should be <0.0001.

In your multivariable model (table 3), you use a lot of variables given the small sample size. Please run a power analysis.

Reviewer #6: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

The analysis presented does not fully match the analysis plan. In the methods, they mention the use of Chi-square, but in the results, there is no value for it. Therefore, I suggest indicating the Chi-square values. Also, I suggest indicating the results of normality tests used. Please.

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

I suggest representing the relevant results in the tables using plots. Also, I recommend removing Figure 1 if it is not a result of the original research or conceptual interpretation of the discussion process carried out in the paper. In addition, it is necessary to add the reference(s) that allowed this figure to be constructed.

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

Yes, but keep in mind representing the relevant results on plots. Please.

**********

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: See comments below

Reviewer #2: although you discussed the limitations of your study, it needs significant improvements from design and analysis.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Reviewer #6: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

Please. Limit the conclusion according to the scope and limitations of your research.

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

Yes, in the discussion, but no in the conclusions.

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

Yes

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Yes

Please. Add the year of publications named with the author name et al., eg. On discussion the lines following:

244 “Tembo et al.”

251 “Olorunlana et al.”

**********

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: See comments below

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Minor Revision

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

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: This manuscript reported the association between potential risk factors and schistosomiasis in Mulobezi District based on a cross-sectional study. The topic falls into the scope of the journal. The research is well presented. However, I have several questions before it can be published.

1. Title: ‘correlates’ looks weird. Could be ‘risk factors’?

2. Abstract: Line 37- 38. “A logistic regression model (bivariate and multivariable) was used to…”, which is inconsistent with the method (Univariable and

multivariable logistic regression) described in the method section and result section

3. Introduction: Please briefly provide some background on biomarkers for Schistosomiasis

4. Methods: can the authors obtain some other environmental and biological data, such as land cover, meteorological data, snail population, water exposure data?

5. In the regression model, how did the authors select the final model? Is the multicollinearity issue considered?

6. Results: what are the associations for different age groups (children, elderly). It is likely that young children and elderly population are vulnerable to this infection.

7. What are confounders considered in the multivariable logistic regression?

8. Discussion: The authors found the significant association between using river water likelihood of schistosomiasis infection. Can the authors elaborate what the pathways to expose the parasite through river water, such as drinking, recreational activities, or clothe and hand washing? Is the water boiled or treated before drinking?

9. Can the authors discuss the potential influence on the results by confounders?

10. Some associations are staggering, for example: “the presence of symptoms related to schistosomiasis greatly increased the likelihood of infection (AOR = 108.07, 95% CI: 11.24-1037.61, p < 0.001)”. Can the author explain what the possible reasons are?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Minor Comments

-Line 96; the sentence is incomplete and uncomprehensive.

-Line 154; Please provide the code book reference and some details.

-Line 194; The eosinophil count representation is confusing, either correct or please provide detail.

In the discussion, line 242-243, the author's state about the prevalence of disease is more in females in comparison to males, and later provide the describe the reasoning about it. The sample size is too small for the statement and probably the statement could be described with the reasoning together at the same place.

The study is well planned and results are supported by appropriate statistical analysis. This kind of studies are important for the epidemiological mapping, containment of the disease and its timely treatment by providing more information to the affected people.

Reviewer #5: Overall, the manuscript is well-written and the statistical methods are correct. Please double check spelling and punctuation throughout the manuscript. Make sure your results are correct. There are some typos that may change your results/interpretations.

Reviewer #6: The paper titled “Immunological biomarkers and correlates of schistosomiasis in Mulobezi District: a cross-sectional study” interestingly presents a study that combines the use of clinics and epidemiological traits to find relationships between immune response and schistomatosomiasis in Mulobezi, a location with no information on the subject. I applaud the tenacity in obtaining these samples. However, the study lacks an adequate sample size, a categorization of the study population, and an exhaustive environmental sampling. In addition, more in-depth cellular and molecular studies are needed to propose an immune response mechanism.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: 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:

?>

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments_250103.docx

pntd.0013176.s003.docx (14.2KB, docx)
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013176.r004

Decision Letter 1

Feng Xue

Dear Prof. Masenga,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Expression of Interleukin-4 in Schistosomiasis is influenced by Age' 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,

Feng Xue, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Jong-Yil Chai

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The major drawbacks for this paper is the low sample size of 143 and the simple age grouping of <15 and >15, which may limit the statistical power and generalizability of the findings reported.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The study design address the undertaken hypothesis and the results are supported by proper data and statistical analysis.

Reviewer #5: Ok

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The design will limit the statistical power and generalizability of the findings reported.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Ok

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The findings from this study is only limited to schistosomiasis caused by Schistosoma haematobium or any other

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Ok

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Accept

Reviewer #5: The authors have addressed all my questions and/or concerns. I have no further comments or edits.

**********

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 concerns. No additional comments

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: The authors have addressed all my questions and/or concerns. I have no further comments or edits.

**********

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:  Jianyong Wu

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013176.r005

Acceptance letter

Feng Xue

Dear Prof. Masenga,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Expression of Interleukin-4 in Schistosomiasis is influenced by Age," 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 File. STROBE - A checklist to aid reporting.

    (DOCX)

    pntd.0013176.s001.docx (32.2KB, docx)
    S1 Data. Data that underlies this paper.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013176.s002.xlsx (33.5KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review comments_250103.docx

    pntd.0013176.s003.docx (14.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter (1).docx

    pntd.0013176.s004.docx (36.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


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

    RESOURCES