Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2025 Sep 16;21(9):e1013513. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013513

A non-canonical activation of the host’s ESCRT machinery is required for the scission of parasitophorous vacuoles and the replication of Leishmania donovani

Javier Rosero 1, Peter E Kima 1,*
Editor: Tracey J Lamb2
PMCID: PMC12453208  PMID: 40956840

Abstract

Leishmania donovani (Ld) is the causative agent of visceral leishmaniasis, which results in death if not treated. In mammalian cells, Ld live in vacuolar compartments called Leishmania parasitophorous vacuoles (LdLPVs) that enigmatically divide following parasite replication. We evaluated the role of the endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) machinery in the scission of LdLPVs. We found that ESCRT components are constitutively recruited to LdLPVs. We propose that this recruitment depends on the expression of PI(3,4)P2 on LdLPVs. The knockdown (KD) of upstream components of the ESCRT machinery revealed that ALIX, but not TSG101 or VPS28, led to a significant reduction in the parasite burden in infected cultures. Interestingly, LdLPVs in ALIXKDs were more distended and harbored more than 2 parasites. Incorporation of BrdU into Leishmania in THP-1 macrophages revealed that parasite replication was inhibited in ALIXKD due to defective LdLPV scission. These findings establish that non-canonical activation of the ESCRT machinery is required for Leishmania to replicate within macrophages.

Author summary

The endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) machinery plays critical roles in physiological processes, including the biogenesis of extracellular vesicles within multivesicular bodies and cytokinesis. In addition, it can be hijacked to promote the spread and persistence of infectious agents, including the budding of viruses and the acquisition of nutrients by pathogens. In this study, we uncover a new role for the ESCRT machinery in the infection of macrophages by Leishmania donovani. Within mammalian cells, LdLPV that harbor individual Leishmania donovani parasites enigmatically divide to accommodate daughter parasites. We demonstrate that the engagement of the ESCRT machinery, initiated by the recruitment of ALIX, an ESCRT accessory molecule, is required for the division of LdLPVs and parasite persistence. Interestingly, the knockdown of other upstream ESCRT components, including TSG101 and VPS28, had no discernible impact on LdLPV division. Future studies on the mechanisms of selective ESCRT machinery activation initiated by ALIX recruitment are expected to reveal targets for controlling this deadly pathogen.

Introduction

Leishmania spp. parasites are single-celled protozoan organisms that are transmitted by sandflies. Leishmania donovani is the causative agent of visceral leishmaniasis, which has an estimated 50,000–90,000 new cases per year, 95% of which are fatal if left untreated [1]. Visceral leishmaniasis presents as irregular bouts of fever, weight loss, splenic and hepatic enlargement, and anemia [2]. In addition to infecting monocytes and macrophages, L. donovani infects hematopoietic stem cells, megakaryocytes, and other cell lineages that are not known to be phagocytic [3]. Once inside mammalian cells, Leishmania spp. are lodged in membrane-enclosed compartments, often referred to as Leishmania parasitophorous vacuoles (LPVs). LPVs fuse extensively with late endosomal compartments and with vesicles from the secretory pathway [46]. Interestingly, LPVs that harbor L. donovani (LdLPVs) retain early endosomal characteristics over a prolonged period as they acquire late endosomal characteristics slowly [7]. Moreover, LdLPVs harbor individual parasites and enigmatically divide following parasite replication to accommodate daughter parasites that segregate into separate LdLPVs [4,8]. Leishmania replication in mammalian cells is poorly understood. It is known that soon after the internalization of the infective metacyclic promastigote form into mammalian cells, Leishmania parasites commence an orderly transformation process characterized by the gradual shutdown of promastigote-specific molecules and the synthesis of intracellular stage molecules, including A2 [9,10]. Approximately 24 hours after the parasite enters cells, and depending on the type of cell, parasite replication commences [9]. In infections with L. donovani where parasites live in separate LPVs, parasite division is enigmatically linked to the scission of the LPV. As we considered the likely underlying mechanisms of LdLPV scission or division, we wondered whether it is mechanistically like the division of organelles within the cell, including the division of mitochondria [11,12]. Alternatively, the LdLPV division could be mechanistically like the budding of enveloped viruses from membrane-delimited compartments, including the nuclear or plasma membrane, as described in studies on the egress of EBV from the nucleus or HIV from the plasma membrane of infected cells [13,14]. It could also be mechanistically like cytokinesis, where a cytoplasmic bridge at the midbody between nascent daughters is eventually cleaved in a process called abscission [15,16]. In both cytokinesis and viral budding, the endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) machinery has been implicated.

The ESCRT machinery is composed of 4 molecular complexes that are functionally conserved in eukaryotes. In mammalian cells, ESCRT 0 members include the hepatocyte growth factor-regulated tyrosine kinase substrate (HGRS-1) and signal transducing adaptor molecule (STAM) 1 and 2 [17]. The ESCRT I complex includes tumor-susceptibility gene 101 (TSG101), vacuolar protein sorting (VPS) members VPS28, VPS37 (A-D), and UBAP1 [18]. ESCRT II includes subunits of ELL-associated protein 20/vacuolar protein sorting (EAP) (20, 30, and 45) [19]. While ESCRT III includes the Charged membrane proteins (CHMPs) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, with 2 variants for CHMP1 (a and b), 2 variants for CHMP2 (a and b), and 3 variants of CHMP4 (a, b, and c) [20]. In addition to these complexes, there are accessory molecules that associate with some complexes and that play crucial roles in the overall functions of the ESCRT machinery. Notably, ALG-2 interacting protein X (ALIX) is an accessory molecule to the ESCRT I complex and may substitute for ESCRT I in some activities [21]. The AAA ATPase vacuolar protein sorting-associated protein (VPS4 (a and b)) is another accessory molecule that interacts most extensively with members of the ESCRT III complex and catalyzes membrane scission by ESCRT III and promotes their recycling from membranes [22]. Activation of the ESCRT machinery for the formation of intraluminal vesicles within multivesicular endosomes, for example, follows a canonical scheme where there is sequential recruitment of ESCRT complexes [23,24]. Increasingly, studies on the function of the ESCRT machinery are revealing the non-canonical participation of ESCRT complexes [21,25,26], where some complexes appear to be dispensable to accomplish tasks of the ESCRT machinery. For example, although the role of ALIX in cytokinesis remains unsettled, some studies have found it to be more essential in this process [2729]. Similar observations were made in studies of plasma membrane repair [30] and HIV budding from the plasma membrane [14]. Such non-canonical schemes for activating the ESCRT machinery have led to approaches that selectively target specific ESCRT molecules to limit well-defined ESCRT-dependent processes [25,31,32]. Conversely, the occurrence of lethal diseases due to defects in specific ESCRT members highlights the crucial roles that the ESCRT machinery plays in maintaining good health [33].

The ESCRT machinery has been implicated in the pathogenesis of intracellular bacteria and parasites that reside within vacuolar compartments in infected cells [34]. Most intracellular bacteria express secretion systems whose components are inserted into the vacuole-delimiting membrane. Insertion of the secretion apparatus into the vacuole membrane causes some damage, which then activates the ESCRT machinery that responds to any damage in the endomembrane systems [35,36]. Such is the case with Mycobacteria infections, where damage of the Mycobacterium-containing compartment (MCV) has been shown to occur due to the insertion of ESX machinery, components of the Type VII secretion system [37,38]. Damage to the MCV is known to result in the spillage of Mycobacteria-derived molecules, including nucleic acids, to the cytosol, where they activate the cytosolic surveillance response that induces innate immune responses. The ESCRT machinery is then activated to repair the damaged MCV endomembrane [3841]. In Salmonella infections of epithelial cells, where bacteria reside in the Salmonella-containing compartment (SCV), which is an intricate network of tubules, the bacteria express the Type III secretion apparatus that is deployed to release effectors into the cell cytoplasm. It was shown that components of the ESCRT machinery are recruited to the SCV, presumably to limit damage from the secretion apparatus [42]. In Coxiella burnetii infections, too, damage to their pathogen-containing vacuole was suggested by the recruitment of galectin 3, a known indicator of lysosome damage [43]. This was believed to be the trigger for the recruitment of ESCRT components.

Membrane damage is not the only inducer for the recruitment of ESCRT molecules to pathogen-containing vacuolar compartments. In Toxoplasma infections, where the parasite-containing vacuoles (TgPV) are non-fusogenic, it was found that components of the ESCRT machinery are recruited to the TgPV membrane (TgPVM) [44,45]. There, they interact with parasite-derived molecules, including the GRA proteins that are inserted into the TgPVM. As regards the function of the components of the ESCRT machinery that are recruited to the TgPVM, they were implicated in the acquisition of nutrients from the host cell [45]. This function of the ESCRT machinery is different from the canonical functions of the ESCRT machinery in cytokinesis and extracellular vesicle biogenesis [36]. It is not known what the underlying mechanisms are that preferentially activate the ESCRT machinery to accomplish such non-canonical functions. In the study by Riviera-Cueves and colleagues [45] the interactions of TSG101 with the TgPVM were found to be more consequential for the uptake of nutrients than the interactions of ALIX with parasite molecules at the TgPVM.

There is evidence that some phosphoinositide species are the membrane anchor to which ESCRT components are recruited [4648]. It was shown that for the completion of cytokinesis, phosphoinositides serve as critical membrane anchors for ESCRT molecules. In the lens of the eye, for example, the PI(3,4)P2 (phosphatidylinositol 3,4-bisphosphate), was identified as the binding partner of the ESCRT II complex member VPS36 [47]. Interestingly, the absence or loss of either the lipid or the complex member resulted in impaired cytokinesis.

As discussed earlier, Leishmania resides in fusogenic endocytic compartments. Unlike intracellular bacteria, Leishmania lack a secretion apparatus that delivers pathogen-derived molecules across the LPV to the cell cytosol. It is, therefore, not known whether, in the absence of vacuole damage-inducing machinery, there are other inducers of ESCRT recruitment to the LdLPVs. The studies here were initiated when we sought to investigate the biogenesis of extracellular vesicles (EV) released from infected macrophages [49]. Proteomic analysis of EVs derived from infected cells had shown significantly higher levels of ESCRT components as compared to EVs from non-infected cells [49]. Preliminary studies then revealed that members of the ESCRT I and ESCRT III complexes are recruited to LdLPVs. We then proceeded to track the recruitment of representative ESCRT molecules to LdLPVs in L. donovani-infected cells. We took advantage of the availability of the dominant negative construct of VPS4 (pEGFP-VPS4-E228Q) whose expression has been shown to slow down the recycling of ESCRT III from membranes [45,50], which therefore permits the visualization of transient associations of the ESCRT machinery with membranes. To gain insight into how cells would respond to damage of LdLPVs, we studied the effects of the lysosome membrane-rupturing agent l-leucyl-l-leucine methyl ester (LLOME) on the recruitment of ESCRT molecules to LdLPVs. To begin addressing the critical roles of an activated ESCRT machinery in Leishmania-infected cells, we monitored the effect of knocking down TSG101 or ALIX. TSG101 and ALIX can function in the recruitment of downstream components, including ESCRT III members [26]. The effect of ALIX knockdown was dramatic. There was an increase in the frequency of larger LdLPVs harboring greater than 4 parasites. The LdLPVs division was defective in ALIX knockdowns due to the failure of proper ESCRT machinery activation. BrdU incorporation studies, which were more interpretable in the THP-1 cell line, confirmed the essentiality of ALIX for LdLPV division, specifically and more globally, to L. dononani parasite replication.

Results

ESCRT I and ESCRT III molecules are recruited to LdLPVs

All members of the ESCRT machinery are cytosolic proteins that are recruited to membranes where they exercise their functional activities [25,35]. We wanted to know whether the ESCRT machinery is assembled on LdLPVs. To supplement observations using commercially available antibodies to mouse ESCRT molecules, we elected to evaluate the redistribution of fluorophore-tagged recombinants of a representative ESCRT I member, TSG101 (mEGFP-TSG101), representative ESCRT III members, CHMP2B (mCherry-CHMP2B) and CHMP4B (mCherry-CHMP4B), in L. donovani-infected RWA264.7 macrophages. We also evaluated the distribution in infected cells of the ATPase VPS4A (mCherry-VPS4A), an accessory molecule critical for recycling ESCRT III molecules from membranes. The experimental scheme is illustrated in Fig 1A. On average, just under 60% of macrophages were infected under our experimental infection conditions. Unlike in uninfected cells, where these molecules are diffused and punctately labeled, in some infected cells, they are recruited to and displayed on LdLPVs. Representative images showing the distribution of the tagged molecules in uninfected cells and their recruitment to LdLPVs in infected cells are presented in Fig 1B, Fig 1C. Parasite nuclei and host cell nuclei were detected with DAPI staining. To visualize the contours of the LdLPV membrane, the lysosome-associated membrane protein 1 (LAMP1) was labeled. In some infected cells, the tagged ESCRT molecule was at the midpoint of two LdLPVs (Fig 1B, Fig 1C).

Fig 1. The ESCRT machinery assembles on LdLPVs.

Fig 1

(A).The scheme for expressing recombinant fluorophore-tagged components of the ESCRT machinery in RAW264.7 macrophages is shown. Transfected cells on coverslips were infected for 24, 48 or 72 hrs with metacyclic L. donovani parasites. B) Representative images of transfected and infected cells are shown. Parasite and host cell nuclei are labeled with DAPI (blue). C) The proportion of Leishmania parasitophorous vacuoles with colocalization of the fluorophore-tagged iESCRT molecule was plotted. At least 100 parasite vacuoles were counted per coverslip time point. Counts were performed in duplicate on coverslips for at least three independent experiments. One-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons followed by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test to determine statistical significance was performed. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N. S, not significant.

We proceeded to count the number of LdLPVs within transfected cells that were deemed to be positive for each of these molecules. The counts compiled from 3 experiments are shown in Fig 1C. Approximately 15% to 19% of LdLPVs displayed TSG101-GFP at 24, 48 and 72 hours after infection. Approximately 21% to 26% of LdLPVs positively displayed CHMP2B-mCherry or CHMP4B-mCherry at 24,48 and 72 hours after infection. A comparable number of LdLPVs were positive for VPS4A-mCherry at the exact times post-infection.

Inert particles, including latex beads or Zymosan particles that are internalized by phagocytosis, are often used to probe the interactions of phagocytic compartments as they traverse through the endocytic pathway [51,52]. Here, we monitored the recruitment of CHMP2B and CHMP4B to phagosomes harboring 2 micrometer-sized latex beads. Representative images from CHMP2B-mCherry transfected cells harboring latex beads show no recruitment to the phagosomes (S1 Fig). The enumeration of phagosomes harboring latex beads shows that less than 5% of those vacuoles displayed CHMP2B-mCherry or CHMP4B-mCherry molecules. Our interpretation, therefore, is that the composition and characteristics of LdLPVs that permit the recruitment of ESCRT molecules differ from those of generic phagosomes.

Currently, there is no information available that provides insight into the expected frequency of ESCRT component recruitment to LdLPVs [45] and others [50,53] had reported on the value of expressing VSP4-E228Q, a dominant negative variant of VPS4A in cells. The inability of this variant to hydrolyze ATP prevents the recycling of ESCRT III complexes from membranes, thereby forcing their accumulation. We proceeded to perform a dual transfection of pEGFP-VSP4-E228Q and CHMPB-mCherry following the scheme in Fig 2A, followed by infection with L. donovani (Fig 2). Representative images of transfected cells without infection and transfected cells with infection are shown (Fig 2B). The figure shows a more accentuated labeling of CHMP4B-mCherry on LdLPVs. Enumeration of the number of LdLPVs that were positive for CHPMP4B-mCherry revealed that greater than 90% were positive for this molecule (Fig 2C). We also determined that the course of infection in cells transfected with pEGFP-VSP4-E228Q was comparable to the infection in control cells (Fig 2D). When the recycling of ESCRT III molecules was prevented due to the expression of VSP4-E228Q, there was an accumulation of CHMP4B on most LdLPVs. This result suggested that the counts for the proportion of LdLPVs with recruited ESCRT molecules presented in Fig 1C were possibly an undercount of the number of LdLPVs that recruit CHMP4B-mCherry. Taken together, these results suggest that ESCRT molecules are constitutively recruited to LdLPVs. However, a subsequent signal may be required to trigger the nucleation of some ESCRT components and the aggregation of the ESCRT machinery, resulting in more pronounced labeling of these components.

Fig 2. Assessing the effect of VSP4-E228Q on the retention of ESCRT on LPVs.

Fig 2

(A). The scheme for assessing the effect of expressing the VPS4a dominant negative on ESCRT III distribution in transfected and infected cells. Macrophages were transfected with pEGFP-VSP4-E228Q and pLNCX2-mCherry-CHMP4B, plated on coverslips, and infected with L. donovani. Cells on coverslips were fixed at 24, 48, and 72 hours. B) Representative images of uninfected and infected cells are shown. (C) LPVs harboring parasites in VPS4-E228Q-transfected cells were scored for CHMP4B mCherry reactivity. (D) The course of infection in transfected cells was assessed at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-infection. Counts were obtained in duplicate on coverslips for at least three independent experiments. One-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons followed by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test to determine statistical significance was performed. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N. S, not significant. Graphs were generated in GraphPad Prism*8. Illustration was generated with Biorender.

Effect of LLOMe on ESCRT recruitment to LdLPVs

Several studies have shown that damage to lysosomes is a potent activator of the ESCRT machinery [43]. Induced lysosomal damage can be accomplished by treating cells with the lysosomotropic compound L-Leucyl-L-leucine methyl ester (LLOMe) that disrupts the membrane of lysosomes [54]. We sought to determine whether treating infected cells with LLOMe would cause damage to LdLPVs, thereby inducing the recruitment of ESCRT components and activating the ESCRT machinery. The experimental scheme for LLOMe is illustrated in Fig 3A. CHMP4B-mCherry or CHMP2B-mCherry transfected cells plated on coverslips were infected with L. donovani for 48 hours. Thereafter, the cultures were pulsed with LLOMe (1mM or 5mM) or vehicle for 30 min. The cultures were washed and fixed at the indicated times. Almost all lysosomes within treated cells recruited CHMP4B-mCherry or CHMP2B-mCherry, which was monitored here as the positive indicator of LLOMe-induced damage. Representative images show that CHMP4B-mCherry is recruited to LdLPVs (Fig 3B). Approximately 95% of LdLPVs recruited CHMP4B-mCherry immediately after the pulse of 5mM LLOMe (Fig 3C, Fig 3D). The proportion of positive LdLPVs diminished rapidly when the drug was chased out. A significantly lower percentage of LdLPVs recruited CHMP2B-mCherry after 5mM LLOMe treatment than CHMP4B-mCherry (Fig 3E, Fig 3F). This observation suggested that ESCRT III components are differentially recruited to LdLPVs to repair induced damage. This pattern of differential recruitment of CHMP2b and CHMP4b contrasts with the earlier observations on the recruitment of these ESCRT III molecules to LdLPVs. Although there is the possibility that damage to LdLPVs may occur, which will necessitate repair, the LLOMe experiments suggest that recruitment for that purpose may be mechanistically distinct from the ‘constitutive’ recruitment of ESCRT molecules to LdLPVs, where CHMP2B and CHMP4B are recruited equivalently (Fig 1).

Fig 3. LLOMe-induced damage of LdLPV suggests that damage-dependent ESCRT recruitment is mechanistically different from the ‘normal’ scheme of ESCRT recruitment to LdLPVs.

Fig 3

(A). The experimental scheme is shown. Cells were transfected with either pLNCX2-mCherry-CHMP2B or pLNCX2-mCherry-CHMP4B and plated on coverslips. They were then infected for 48 hrs, after which they were incubated with LLOMe (1mM or 5mM) or vehicle for 30 min. Cover slips were recovered when the drug was washed out (time 0) and then subsequently after 10-minute intervals. (B). Representative images of LLOMe-treated CHMP4B-transfected cells without infection are shown (red circles are due to CHMP4B in damaged lysosomes). Images from CHMP4B transfected and infected cells treated with either the vehicle or the drug are shown. LAMP1 labeling was used to delineate the contours of LPVs. (C) The number of LPVs that were positive for CHMP4B after the pulse and chase of LLOMe is shown. (D) A graph of the proportion of positive cells at the 0 time is shown. (E) The number of LPVs that were positive for CHMP2B after the pulse and chase of LLOMe is shown. (F) A graph of the proportion of CHMP2B-positive cells at the 0 time is shown. These graphs were compiled from two experiments, each with three coverslips for each point. Graphs were generated in GraphPad Prism*8 and statistical analysis was performed. A one-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons, followed by a post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test, was performed to determine statistical significance. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N. S, not significant. Illustration was generated with Biorender.

The phosphoinositide PI(3,4)P2 on LdLPVs may be the target for recruitment of ESCRT molecules

Several studies have shown that phosphoinositides are differentially displayed on endomembranes [55]. PI4P, for example, is preferentially found associated with the Golgi. Recent studies showed that the phosphoinositide PI(3,4)P2 binds to ESCRT II and initiates the recruitment of the ESCRT machinery, which is indispensable for cytokinesis in the eye [47,56]. Zhang and colleagues [52] had shown that, like phagosomes that harbor inert particles, including Zymosan particles or latex beads, and display PI4P on their phagosomal membrane, Leishmania LPVs display PI(3,4)P2 in addition to PI4P [52]. In the studies here, we sought to affirm that LdLPVs display the relevant phosphoinositides, including PI(3,4)P2. Specifically, PI4P was detected with the Sidm probe (pMRXIP-GFP-P4M-SidMx2); PI(3.4)P2 was detected with the PI(3,4)P2 biosensor NES-eGFP-cPHx3, and PI(3,4,5)P3 was detected with the PIP3 biosensor (NES-EGFP-PH-ARNO2G-I303Ex2). Representative images of infected cells are shown (Fig 4). As an affirmation of these observations, infected cells recovered after 72 hours of infection with L. donovani were processed for the detection of PI(4)P, PI(3,4)P2, or PI(3,4,5)P3 using antibodies specific to each of these phosphoinositides (S2 Fig).

Fig 4. PI(4)P and PI(3,4)P2 are displayed on LdLPVs.

Fig 4

RAW264.7 macrophages were transfected with pMRXIP-GFP-P4M-SidMx2 (PI4P biosensor), NES-eGFP-cPHx3 (PI(3,4)P2 biosensor), NES-EGFP-PH-ARNO2G-I303Ex2 (PI(3,4,5)P3 biosensor). Cells on coverslips were infected with L. donovani. Representative images of 48-hour-infected macrophages labeled for the detection of the biosensors and LAMP1 are shown. White arrows indicate the locations of the biosensor label. These images are representative of two experiments.

Systematic knock-down of early components of the ESCRT machinery in RAW264.7 macrophages

What is the functional role of the ESCRT molecules that are recruited to LdLPVs? Several studies have described both canonical and non-canonical mechanisms for activating the ESCRT machinery. In cytokinesis, for example, studies have shown that ESCRT activation follows parallel schemes that are dependent on either the recruitment of ALIX or the recruitment of TSG101 to Cep55, which is followed by the recruitment of ESCRT III components in both schemes [26]. Studies on the budding of HIV from infected cells, in contrast, have shown greater dependence on the availability of ALIX as compared to TSG101 [57]. Informed by such observations, we proceeded to implement an experimental scheme in which we knocked down TSG101, VPS28, or ALIX and then monitored several parameters, including the recruitment of CHMP4B to LdLPVs, the division of LdLPVs, and the parasite burden of infected cultures. Knockdowns (KDs) were achieved by transfecting siRNAs (VPS28) or shRNA plasmids (TSG101 or ALIX) into macrophages, followed by selection in puromycin and evaluation of the resulting oligoclonal lines by Western blotting. Fig 5A shows the experimental scheme, which includes the assessment of cell viability of the selected lines. Representative Western blots in which TSG101 or ALIX was detected in the lysates from shCTRL, TSG101KD, or ALIXKD in RAW264.7 cells are shown (Fig 5B). Oligoclonal lines of ALIXKD and TSG101KD with greater than 60% knockdown were selected. We also selected cells transfected with shRNA control plasmid (shCTRL). Knocking down these molecules was not found to affect macrophage viability as measured in an LDH cytotoxicity assay and an MTT proliferation assay (S3A and S3B Fig).

Fig 5. Generation of cells expressing limiting levels of ESCRT components.

Fig 5

(A). The scheme for generating stable lines with knocked-down levels of TSG101 or ALIX is shown. Alix shRNA plasmid, or TSG101 shRNA plasmid, was transfected into macrophages and then plated. Twenty-four hrs after plating, the selection of cells by growth in puromycin commenced. Oligoclonal cell lines were identified, and the testing scheme for these cell lines is presented. The control line was transfected with a control short hairpin RNA (shRNA) plasmid. (B). Oligoclonal lines were tested for the expression of TSG101 or ALIX by Western blotting. Representative blots and densitometric analysis of blots to test for the expression of TSG101 or ALIX are shown. Plots were generated from densitometry of blots from at least 2 experiments. Graphs were generated in GraphPad Prism*8, where unpaired student T test statistical analysis was performed. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N. S, not significant. Illustration was generated with Biorender.

The knockdown of ALIX, unlike the knockdown of TSG101 or VPS28 had more noticeable effects on the infection

The KD cell lines and control lines were transfected with the CHMP4B-mCherry plasmid and then infected with Ld parasites. The experimental scheme is shown in Fig 6A. Representative images from the CHMP4B-mCherry transfections in RAW264.7 KD cells are shown in Fig 6B. Enumeration of the number of LdLPVs that recruited CHMP4B in shCTRL, TSG101KDs, and ALIXKDs is shown in Fig 6C. CHMP4B-mCherry was recruited to LdLPVs in shCTRL cells to similar levels as in ‘wild type’ infected cells. A similar proportion of LdLPVs recruited CHMP4B-mCherry in infected TSG101KDs. In contrast, CHMP4B-mCherry remained diffusely expressed in infected ALIXKDs, with limited recruitment to LdLPVs (Fig 6B, Fig 6C). While approximately 33% of LdLPVs in shCTRL and in TSG101KDs were always CHMP4B-mCherry post-infection, less than 18% LdLPVs in ALIXKDs were positive for CHMP4B-mCherry. The number of LdLPVs in ALIXKD that were CHMP4b positive was significantly lower at 24, 48, and 72 hrs post-infection.

Fig 6. Knockdown of TSG101 or ALIX in RAW264.7 macrophages reveals the critical role of ALIX.

Fig 6

(A). Selected oligo-clonal lines of RAW264.7 ALIXKD, TSG101KD, and shCTRL cells were transfected with the pLNCX2-mCherry-CHMP4B. They were then infected with L. donovani parasites. Coverslips were recovered after 24, 48, or 72 h of infection and then processed to detect CHMP4B recruitment to LdLPVs. (B). Representative images from 48 hrs infected shCTRL, TSG101KD, or ALIXKD are shown. Contours of the LdLPV membrane were detected by LAMP1 labeling. The parasite and host cell nuclei were labeled with DAPI. ALIXKD clone 2 was not transfected with CHMP4B-mCherry. (C) CHMP4B recruitment to LdLPVs in KD cell lines was quantified as described in the Materials and Methods section. Colocalization of LAMP1 with CHMP4B was determined. At least 100 LdLPVs were measured per coverslip, per treatment, and time point. (D) The number of parasites per macrophage in infected KD cell lines was enumerated after 24, 48, or 72 hours of infection. At least 100 macrophages were counted per coverslip, treatment, and time point. (E) The LdLPV sizes in KD lines after 24, 48, and 72 hours of infection were measured and plotted. The diameter of LdLPVs was measured using the “Insert” scale tool of the BZ-X800 analyzer. At least 100 LdLPV sizes were measured per coverslip, time point, and treatment. Data was compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. One-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons followed by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test to determine statistical significance was performed. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N. S, not significant. Illustration was generated with Biorender.

A commonly used indicator of Leishmania viability in infected cells is the demonstration that the number of parasites per macrophage increases over time, reflecting the replication of viable parasites. In contrast to infection in shCTRL and TSG101KDs, where there was the expected increase in the number of parasites/macrophages at 48 and 72 hrs post-infection, there were significantly fewer parasites/macrophages in ALIXKDs (Fig 6D). We then estimated the sizes of LdLPVs (Fig 6E). The average size of LdLPVs in shCTRL cells was 3.5 microns. In TSG101KDs, LdLPVs were also 3.5 microns. In contrast, the average size of LdLPVs in ALIXKD was approximately 6.8 microns, which was significantly larger than that of LdLPVs in shCTRL and TSG101KDs. As the plots show, in ALIXKDs, there is an increase in the proportion of much larger LdLPVs. Representative images of large LdLPVs in ALIXKDs that harbor numerous parasites are shown in Fig 6B. We elected to show Images from 2 ALIXKD lines generated from different transfections. Such larger LdLPVs harbored more than 4–10 parasites (S4 Fig). These results, including the images, demonstrate that with reduced availability of ALIX, the LdLPV division is defective, resulting in an approximately 70% reduction in the parasite burden in infected cultures. VPS28 was also knocked down by transfecting siRNA into RAW264.7 macrophages. Using this strategy, it was estimated that lysates prepared from transfected cultures contained significantly less VPS28 than mock-transfected control cells (S5 Fig). Enumeration of parasites per 100 macrophages showed a comparable number of parasites in cells with VPS28 knocked down as in mock control cells (S5B Fig). Estimation of the LdLPV sizes in infected cells after VPS28 knockdown showed that LdLPV sizes were comparable to the sizes of LdLPVs in mock control cells (S5C Fig). Taken together, these results, including the analysis of infections in VPS28 and TSG101 knockdowns, affirm the conclusion that the engagement of ALIX, but not the TSG101 or VPS28 (members of the ESCRT I complex), is required for the scission of LdLPVs. Scission of LdLPVs is essential for parasite replication within macrophages.

ESCRT components are recruited to LdLPVs in infected THP-1 human cells

We elected to broaden the analysis of L. donovani replication in mammalian cells by performing experiments in THP-1 cells. The THP-1 cell line is a human peripheral blood-derived monocytic line that can be readily differentiated into macrophages. Differentiated THP1- cells do not proliferate, making them suitable for studies on replicating internalized Leishmania parasites. THP-1 cells are also amenable to genetic manipulation, including selection of new lines after the knockdown of genes of interest (GOI) and/or expression of tagged GOIs. To analyze the functions of the ESCRT machinery in THP-1 cells infected with L. donovani parasites, we tracked the distribution of representative ESCRT components in these infected cells. The recruitment of TSG101 (ESCRT complex I) and CHMP4B (ESCRT complex III) was monitored in infected cells by antibody detection in immunofluorescence assays. Representative images (Fig 7) are shown of TSG101 and CHMP4B-mCherry distribution in infected cells. Fig 7A shows a representative cell infected for 48 hrs labeled for detection of TSG101 (red label) or LAMP1 (green label). Individual parasites (blue label) in LAMP1-labeled LdLPVs are evident. We draw attention to two parasites in an LdLPV that are in the act of dividing (yellow arrow and inset). TSG101 is seen in the plane of scission that bridges the emerging daughter LdLPVs. Fig 7B shows the distribution of CHMP4B-mCherry in a 48-hour infected cell. An LdLPV that appears to be at an early stage of dividing is highlighted (yellow arrow and inset). Nucleation of CHMP4B is known to create membrane tension that precedes membrane scission [15,58]. In the figure, nucleated CHMP4B is at the center of an LdLPV between two parasites. Enumeration of LdLPVs that recruited TSG101 and CHMP4B-mCherry at the indicated times post-infection showed that approximately 40% of LdLPVs had recruited TSG101 or CHMP4B-mCherry (Fig 7C). This is consistent with observations in RAW264.7 macrophages reported above. Based in part on studies with VPS4A-E228Q, we concluded that ESCRT components are constitutively recruited to LdLPVs; however, levels of each ESCRT component may be below the detection threshold (Fig 1).

Fig 7. The ESCRT machinery is recruited to LdLPVs in THP-1 cells.

Fig 7

After the differentiation of THP-1 monocytes into macrophages, they were infected with metacyclic promastigote forms of L. donovani. At 24, 48, and 72 hrs post-infection, cells on coverslips were fixed and processed by immunofluorescence labeling for the detection of representative components of the ESCRT I complex (TSG101) and the ESCRT III complex (CHMP4B). A) shows a representative cell labeled for the detection of TSG101 (red label), LAMP1 (green label), and parasite and host nuclei detected by DAPI labeling (blue label). An LdLPV that is dividing (yellow arrow and inset) is shown. TSG101 is in the plane of scission that bridges the emerging daughter LdLPVs. B) shows a representative cell labeled for the detection of CHMP4B. An LdLPV is highlighted (yellow arrow and inset) wherein nucleated CHMP4B is at the center of an LdLPV between two parasites. C) The plot shows the proportion of LdLPVs with the recruitment of TSG101 and CHMP4B. Counts were performed in duplicate on coverslips for at least three independent experiments. Illustration was generated with Biorender.

Leishmania replication is impaired in THP-1 ALIXKD cells

We proceeded to generate THP-1 cells that stably expressed shRNA to either TSG101 or ALIX. Stable cell lines were selected and maintained by culturing them in puromycin, as described in the Materials and Methods section. Lysates from the TSG101KD or ALIXKD were analyzed in Western blots alongside lysates from cells transfected with the shCTRL plasmid (S6A Fig). The bar graphs plotted from a densitometric scan of the blots show that there was a greater than 70% reduction in expression of the TSG101 or the ALIXKD in KD cells.

CHMP4B and TSG101 recruitment to LdLPVs is significantly lower in the ALIXKD as compared to CHMP4B recruitment to LdLPVs in the shCTRL line or the TSG101KD cell line. A representative image of the distribution of CHMP4B-mCherry in shCTRL, TSG101KD, and ALIX KD is shown in S6B Fig. A plot of the proportion of LdLPVs with CHMP4B-mCherry recruitment is shown. There are significantly fewer LdLPVs in ALIXKD-infected cells. The size of LdLPVs in shCTRL, TSG101KD, and ALIXKD cells was measured. S6C Fig shows that LdLPVs in ALIXKD were significantly larger than LdLPVs in shCTRL and TSG101KD cells. It is expected that in Leishmania infections with viable parasites, there is a continuous increase of parasites per macrophage over time. S6D Fig shows that parasites increase in the shCTRL and TSG101KD cell lines over 72 hours. In contrast, there is a limited, if any, increase in the number of parasites per cell in the ALIXKD line. The expectation is that in Leishmania infections with viable parasites, there is a continuous increase of parasites per macrophage over time.

To address the possibility that parasites in the ALIXKD were less viable, their expression of A2 was ascertained. A2 expression has been shown to commence several hours after metacyclic promastigote parasites are internalized within cells, and its expression is sustained throughout the intracellular amastigote stage [10,59]. Although there are more parasites in the shCTRL and TSG101KD lines as compared to infections in the ALIXKD line, the proportion of parasites expressing A2 was comparable (S7 Fig). We interpreted this result to mean that although the parasites were metabolically active, their capacity to undergo replication was defective. For an additional assessment of parasite viability in knocked-down lines, parasites were recovered from knocked-down cells, and their capacity to reinfect wild-type cells was ascertained. The data plotted in S8 Fig shows that infection with an equivalent number of parasites recovered from shCTRL, TSG101KD, or ALIXKD lines infected THP-1 macrophages comparably after 24, 48, or 72 hours of infection.

BrdU incorporation into parasites revealed that Ld replication is impaired when LdLPV scission is inhibited

Amongst the reasons we elected to perform studies in the THP-1 cell line is that after differentiation into macrophages, THP-1 cells cease to proliferate. It is, therefore, feasible to perform analyses that monitor parasite replication with a reagent such as BrdU without contending with interfering signals from the nucleus of host cells that are actively multiplying, as is the situation with RAW264.7 mouse macrophages. Following the infection of macrophages by the infective metacyclic promastigote form of Leishmania, the parasites undergo amastigogenesis, characterized by changes in gene expression and metabolism that culminate in the initiation of replication approximately 24 hours later [9]. In L. donovani infections, daughter parasites segregate into separate LdLPVs. The studies above have shown that the host cell’s ESCRT machinery appears to play a crucial role in the scission of LdLPVs, which facilitates the division of the daughter cells. In ALIXKD cultures, there are significantly fewer parasites, suggesting that the parasites either died or failed to replicate in the absence of ALIX. To specifically monitor parasite replication, the incorporation of BrdU into intracellular parasites was assessed. The expectations for these studies are shown in Fig 8A. After a pulse of BrdU for up to 24 hrs post-infection, healthy parasites would be expected to incorporate BrdU. As the parasites replicate, they should lose BrdU upon subsequent division. In these studies, BrdU was added to the culture medium after 6 hours of infection. After 24 hours of infection, the medium was replaced, and infections continued until 72 hrs post-infection. The representative images (Fig 8B) show that most parasites incorporate BrdU after 24 hrs. By 72 hrs post-infection, few parasites in the shCTRL or TSG101KD cells retained BrdU. In contrast, parasites in ALIXKD cells remain BrdU positive. Enumeration of the proportions of BrdU-labeled parasites confirmed that by 48 hrs post-infection (Fig 8C), parasites in shCTRL and TSG101KD cells lose BrdU. In contrast, there are significant numbers of parasites that retain BrdU in the ALIXKD. LD replication is impaired in cells with reduced ALIX levels that have a defect in LDLPV scission and division.

Fig 8. BrdU incorporation into intracellular parasites shows that parasite replication is impaired in ALIXKD.

Fig 8

(A). The experimental scheme is shown. After 6 hrs of infection, BrdU is added to the culture medium. After 24 hrs of infection, the culture medium was washed out and replaced with BrdU-free medium. Parasites that initiate replication are expected to incorporate BrdU, which is lost upon successive rounds of replication. (B) Representative images of microscopic evaluation of BrdU incorporation (red label) at 24 and 72 hrs in shCTRL, TSG101KD, and ALIXKD are shown. White arrows in the images point to representative examples of labeled parasites. C) The percentage of parasites that were labeled positively for BrdU at the indicated times was plotted. At least 100 parasites were counted per coverslip, treatment, and time point. A one-way ANOVA was performed, and statistical significance was determined by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test. Data was compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N.S, not significant. Illustration was generated with Biorender.

Discussion

Leishmania donovani (Ld) is the causative agent of visceral leishmaniasis, which is fatal if not treated. In mammalian cells, Ld are housed individually within membrane-enclosed compartments that enigmatically divide to accommodate each daughter parasite after parasite replication. In this study, we showed for the first time that components of the ESCRT machinery are recruited constitutively to LdLPVs. There, the ESCRT machinery catalyzes the scission of LdLPVs, which is essential for completing Ld replication. Our studies revealed a chain of events that may commence with the display of the phosphoinositide, PI(3,4)P2, on LdLPVs, followed by the recruitment of ALIX to LdLPVs. Impairment of ALIX recruitment by limiting its availability results in bloated LdLPVs that house 3 or more parasites due to impaired LdLPV scission. Interestingly, although the initiation of parasite replication is not dependent on the dynamics of the ESCRT machinery, continuous replication of Ld in infected macrophages is inhibited when activation of the ESCRT machinery is defective. Together, these results show that ALIX plays a central role in recruiting the ESCRT machinery to LdLPVs where it catalyzes the scission of the LdLPV pseudo-organelle. That a non-canonical activation of the ESCRT machinery plays a role in the division of LdLPVs is a new function for the ESCRT machinery.

To gain more insight into the recruitment of ESCRT components to LdLPVs, we incubated infected cells in LLOMe. This compound is a potent lysosomotropic agent that disrupts the lysosomal membrane. Several studies have investigated the consequences of exposing cells to this compound [60,61]. We observed that a 30-minute incubation with LLOMe caused rapid damage to most lysosomes, as indicated by the recruitment of CHMP4B-mCherry and CHMP2B-mCherry to these compartments. Although most LdLPVs in treated cells became CHMP4B-mCherry positive in response to LLOMe treatment, many fewer LdLPVs were CHMP2B-mCherry positive. This difference in the recruitment of these two ESCRT III components contrasts with what we observed in studies on the recruitment of CHMP2B and CHMP4B to LdLPVs in infected cells (Fig 1). We interpreted these results to mean that ESCRT III recruitment to LdLPVs in infected cells is mechanistically different from the recruitment of ESCRT III molecules to damaged lysosomes or lysosome-like membranes. Additional discussions and insights into lysosome damage and repair mechanisms, gleaned from studies with LLOMe, are available [60,62].

Studies that assessed the incorporation of BrdU into intracellular parasites were illuminating. It is known that after internalization of the metacyclic promastigote form of Leishmania spp. they gradually transform into the aflagellate amastigote form [9]. Incorporation of BrdU after approximately 24 hrs post-infection is an accepted indicator of parasite replication [9]. We demonstrated that BrdU is incorporated to comparable levels in shCTRL cells, TSG101KD cells, and ALIXKD cells at 24 hours post-infection. While BrdU becomes increasingly less detectable in parasites within shCTRL and TSG101KD macrophages as the infection progresses, Ld in ALIXKD cells retains BrdU at 48 and 72 hrs post-infection. These studies were interpreted to mean that in ALIXKD cells, parasite replication is impaired. Notably, Ld parasites in the ALIXKD continuously expressed A2, a well-characterized antigen expressed by viable intracellular parasites, which argues against the likelihood that the failure to proliferate was due to parasites dying in infected cells.

There is still uncertainty on the range of conditions that trigger the recruitment of ESCRT components to membranes. Membrane damage caused by rupture of endomembranes, including the insertion of secretion apparatus into membranes by intracellular pathogens, is a reliable trigger for the recruitment of ESCRT components [38,42]. Current understanding of LdLPV biology has not revealed the existence of a secretion apparatus or a process that may cause damage to the LdLPV and, by so doing, activate the recruitment of ESCRT components. Instead, we previously showed that phosphoinositides, specifically PI(3,4)P2 are displayed on LPVs [52]. Informed by studies that have identified PI(3,4)P2 and other phosphoinositides as membrane anchors for the recruitment of ESCRT components [47,48] we affirmed that LdLPVs do indeed display PI(3,4)P2. Future studies will attempt to identify the specific ESCRT molecule(s), including ALIX, that are initially recruited to the LdLPV and the conditions that lead to non-canonical activation of the ESCRT machinery. This parasite likely generates additional signals that instruct the machinery to execute the fission and scission of LPVs, a phenomenon that does not occur with other pathogen-containing compartments.

The membrane anchor for ESCRT components is a crucial issue that has been considered in several pathogen-host interactions. In the budding of HIV, the Gag protein of the virus was shown to be the primary viral molecule that interacts with ESCRT [63,64]. Following such studies, small molecules that selectively block the HIV Gag – ALIX interaction have been proposed as potential viable inhibitors for the spread of HIV [65]. In Toxoplasma infections, proximity labeling studies revealed interactions between ALIX and so-called GRA proteins discharged from the parasites’ Rhoptry organelle that are displayed on the parasite vacuole [44]. Other studies had implicated the interactions of TSG101 in interactions with other GRA proteins that were necessary for nutrient acquisition into the parasitophorous vacuole [45]. Interactions between ESCRT components and parasitophorous vacuoles may satisfy different functions.

Based on our observations, we suggest that ESCRT components are recruited constitutively to LdLPVs and are anchored to phosphoinositides displayed on the LdLPV membrane. The parasite may play an essential role in the synthesis of phosphoinositide displayed on the LdLPV membrane. We determined that ALIX plays a critical role in the initial anchoring of the ESCRT machinery to LdLPVs. However, we do not exclude the possibility that other ESCRT components are recruited in conjunction with ALIX. The recruitment of CHMP4B and CHMP2B follows the recruitment of ALIX. Subsequent activation of the ESCRT machinery, characterized by the aggregation and/or nucleation of ESCRT III, occurs during parasite division. We observed CHMP4B, most prominently, at the bridge between two LdLPVs, presumably at the point of scission (Fig 1, Fig 7). In the graphical abstract (Fig 9), we highlight that when ALIX levels are limiting, LdLPVs are increasingly enlarged and can harbor greater than 3 parasites. There is a defect in the assembly of the ESCRT machinery, resulting in the inability to execute the scission of the LdLPV. Some outstanding questions include: What could be the signal(s) for LdLPV scission? Does LdLPV scission share mechanistic details with cytokinesis? Alternatively, LdLPV scission could share signal(s) with the initiation of viral budding, where the interactions of ALIX and the Gag protein are critical for the progress of that process. Future studies will likely address these questions.

Fig 9. Graphical summary: LdLPVs display phosphoinositides that are the membrane anchors for components of the ESCRT machinery.

Fig 9

ALIX is the critical component that is recruited. Members of the ESCRT I complex are recruited, but their recruitment is dispensable. Components of the ESCRT III complex and VPS4 are recruited subsequently to complete the activation of the ESCRT machinery. The scission of LdLPVs completes the replication of parasites and LdLPVs. When ALIX expression is limited, LdLPV fission is defective, and so too is parasite replication. This results in a reduction in the parasite burden. Illustration was generated with Biorender.

Materials and methods

Parasite culture

L. donovani (MHOM/S.D./62/1S-CL2D) was obtained from Dr. Nakhasi’s lab (FDA) and cultivated in M199 media (Sigma) containing 20% FBS, 0.1 mM Adenosine, 0.1 mg/mL folic acid, 2 mM glutamine, 25 mM HEPES, 100 units/mL penicillin/-100 µg/mL streptomycin 15,140,122 (Gibco), 1X BME vitamins (Sigma), and 1 mg/mL sodium bicarbonate with pH 6.8 at 26°C.

Mammalian cell culture

RAW264.7 macrophages were obtained from ATCC (TIB-71) and maintained in DMEM (Corning) supplemented with 10% FBS and 100 units/mL penicillin/-100 µg/mL streptomycin 15,140,122 (Gibco). Cells were kept in complete DMEM at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere incubator containing 5% CO2. THP-1 suspension monocytes were obtained from ATCC (TIB-202) and maintained in RPMI 1,640 (Corning) supplemented with 10% FBS and 100 units/mL penicillin/-100 µg/mL streptomycin 15,140,122 (Gibco) at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere incubator containing 5% CO2.

Macrophage infections

RAW264.7 macrophages were plated in culture dish containing sterile glass coverslips and incubated overnight at 37°C with 5% CO2. THP-1 suspension monocytes were differentiated into macrophages by culturing them in complete media culture dishes containing sterile glass coverslips supplemented with 10ng/mL of phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) J63916.MCR (ThermoFisher Scientific) for 24 hours at 37°C with 5% CO2. PMA was washed out with complete media before Ld infection. For infection, metacyclic promastigotes were selected from late stationary stage parasites using peanut agglutination (PNA) according to an established protocol [49]. Briefly, 4-day old cultures of L. donovani parasites were washed twice and resuspended in incomplete DMEM at a concentration of 2x108 parasites/mL. PNA was then added to the parasites at a final concentration of 50 µg/mL and incubated at room temperature for 15 mins. The parasites were then centrifuged at 200xg for 5 mins to pellet agglutinated parasites. The supernatant was then collected and the PNA- metacyclic parasites were washed twice, resuspended in complete DMEM, and counted for infection. Parasites were then added to macrophage dishes at a ratio of 5:1 MOI for THP-1 macrophages or 10:1 MOI for RAW264.7 macrophages (MOI = parasites to macrophages) then incubated at 37°C with 5% CO2. Infections were stopped at 24, 48, or 72 hours post-infection by placing coverslips in 4% paraformaldehyde for 20 min for fixation at room temperature. After fixation, cells were ready for the immunofluorescence assay. For experiments to evaluate the recruitment of proteins of interest to generic phagosomes, latex beads L0280 (SIGMA-ALDRICH) were incubated with macrophages at an MOI equal to parasite infections

Generation of transfectants and knockdowns in RAW264.7 cells and THP-1 cells

To develop cells that express fluorophore-tagged variants of ESCRT molecules, we acquired the following plasmids: pLNCX2-mCherry-CHMP2B was a gift from Sanford Simon (Addgene plasmid # 115,331), pLNCX2-mCherry-CHMP4B was a gift from Sanford Simon (Addgene plasmid # 116,923), pLNCX2-mCherry-VPS4A was a gift from Sanford Simon (Addgene plasmid # 115,334), pEGFP-VSP4-E228Q was a gift from Wesley Sundquist (Addgene plasmid # 80,351), pLNCX2-mEGFP-TSG10 was a gift from Sanford Simon (Addgene plasmid # 116,925). To develop cells expressing biosensors to detect PI4P, PI(3,4) P2, and PI(3,4,5)P3, we acquired the following plasmids: pMRXIP-GFP-P4M-SidMx2 PI4P sensor was a gift from Noboru Mizushima (Addgene plasmid # 221,747), NES-eGFP-cPHx3 PI(3,4)P2 sensor was a gift from Gerry Hammond (Addgene plasmid # 116,855), NES-EGFP-PH-ARNO2G-I303Ex2 PI(3,4,5)P3 sensor was a gift from Gerry Hammond (Addgene plasmid # 116,868).To approximately 1X107 RAW264.7 cells, 10ug plasmids were introduced by nucleofection using reagents from Mirus Bio (MIR 50,112) (AMAXA Nucleofector II). For the most part, cells were used in experiments after transient transfections. Twenty-four hours after nucleofection, cells were infected with L. donovani parasites or incubated with latex beads as described above. To develop stable knockdown cell lines, the following plasmids were obtained: TSG101 shRNA Plasmid sc-36753-SH (Santa Cruz), Alix shRNA Plasmid sc-60150-SH (Santa Cruz), and Control shRNA Plasmid sc-108060-SH (Santa Cruz). After nucleofection (AMAXA Nucleofector II), cells were seeded in 24 well plates for selection of oligoclonal lines. After 24 hours, the culture medium was replaced with medium containing 6ug/mL of puromycin (it was predetermined that the RAW264.7 wild type cells were killed by 4ug/mL puromycin). Colonies were selected from the 24-well plates and expanded into 6-well plates. Oligoclonal lines in 6-well plates were expanded for downstream application and experimentation. For VPS28 knockdown RAW264.7 experimentation, we generated a transient knockdown using VPS28 siRNA sc-41101 (Santa Cruz) and used a mock RAW264.7 transfection without plasmid as a control. For THP-1 suspension monocytes, cells were treated as described above for the generation of targeted protein knockdown cell lines, with a puromycin concentration of 1ug/mL determined to be optimal for selection. THP-1 monocytes were cultured in complete media supplemented with selection antibiotic for 4 weeks until reaching confluency. Complete media with the selection antibiotic was periodically changed. Knock down of specific proteins was validated by Western Blotting.

LDH cytotoxicity and MTT proliferation assays on protein-knockdown cells

To test if cells that were ALIX or TSG101 knocked down in both RAW264.7 and THP1 macrophages were viable, we performed an LDH (Lactate dehydrogenase) cytotoxicity assay with the CK12 (DOJINDO) cytotoxicity kit. 5,000 cells were seeded in 96 well plates in 4 wells per cell line, and 96 well plates were for each time point. Then, the assessment of LDH release was followed per kit instructions, and cytotoxicity was determined using LDH release from cells that were transfected with the control plasmid as a reference. For the MTT proliferation assay, 2000 cells were seeded in 96-well plates in 4 wells per cell line, and 96-well plates were separated for each time point. Proliferation was assessed using the MTT cell proliferation kit AR1156 (BOSTER), and the kit protocol was followed for each collected time point.

Immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and fluorescence microscopy

Glass coverslips with infected macrophages were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) at the indicated times post-infection. PFA was washed out after 20 min of incubation and then washed with 1xPBS twice. Coverslips were left in 1XPBS until all timepoints of infection were collected for downstream application. Coverslips were then processed in immunofluorescence assays (IFAs) to visualize the distribution of LAMP1 to delineate parasite vacuoles, PI(3,4)P2 for phosphoinositides. Anti-LAMP1 1D4B (DSBH) was used for RAW264.7 mouse-derived macrophages, and anti-LAMP1 G1/139/5 (DSBH) or W18263B (BioLegend) was used for THP-1 human-derived macrophages. Anti PI4P Z-P004 (Echelon Biosciences), anti PI(3,4)P2 Z-P034 (Echelon Biosciences), anti PI(3,4,5)P3 Z-P345 (Echelon Biosciences), anti-TSG101 ZE4325959 (Invitrogen), anti-CHMP4B SAB2105901 (SIGMA), anti-Leishmania A2 AB150344 (abcam) and anti-BrdU 14-5071-82 (Invitrogen) primary antibodies were diluted at a 1:50 concentration for anti-LAMP1 antibodies and a 1:200 concentration for every other antibody. Chicken anti-rat IgG AF594 conjugated A21471 (Invitrogen), goat anti-rat IgG AF488 conjugated A11006 (Invitrogen), goat anti-rabbit IgG AF594 A32740 (Invitrogen), rabbit anti-mouse IgG AF594 conjugated A11062 (Invitrogen) and chicken anti-mouse IgG FITC conjugated NB120−6,810 (NOVUS) secondary antibodies were diluted in 1xPBS at a 1:200 concentration. Cells were permeabilized in 0.5% Triton-X-100 in 1XPBS for 15 min and blocked in 5% bovine serum albumin (BSA). In the case of phosphoinositide lipid staining, 0.5% saponin was used for permeabilization, as recommended by the manufacturer, for 15 min. Incubation in primary antibodies diluted in 1XPBS with 1% BSA was performed for 1 hour at room temperature. After washing in 1XPBS, coverslips were incubated in AlexaFluor/FITC conjugated secondary antibodies for 30 min at room temperature. Coverslips were washed and then mounted on glass slides using the ProQ diamond mounting agent supplemented with 4′,6-diamidino-phenylindole (DAPI) stain. Coverslips were visualized and captured using BZ-X810 (Keyence, Osaka, Japan) All-in-One Fluorescence Microscope at 100x oil immersion objective magnification or Zeiss Axio Observer Z1/7; 63 × water immersion objective magnification. Images were captured with an Axiocam 503 controlled by Zen Acquisition software. Scored LdLPVs were delimited by Lamp1 reactivity that contained at least one parasite nucleus. The percentage of infected macrophages and the average number of parasites were determined by counting at least 100 macrophages per coverslip for LdLPVs or latex bead phagosomes. Counts were done in duplicate coverslips for at least 3 independent experiments.

BrdU labeling

After 6 hrs of infection, cultures were incubated in culture medium supplemented with 50uM 5-Bromo-2′-Deoxyuridine (BrdU) B23151 (Invitrogen). After 24 hrs infection, the BrdU containing media was replaced with complete media without BrdU. At indicated times, coverslips were recovered and fixed in PFA. Thereafter, they were washed in 1XPBS, then incubated for 10 min in 50mM ammonium chloride to quench the remaining PFA. They were then incubated with 2 N HCl for 40 min to denature the nucleic acids to expose the incorporated BrdU. Coverslips were then washed with 1XPBS for 20 min to remove HCl after which we proceeded to typical cell permeabilization.

Extraction of amastigotes for parasite viability assessment

Macrophages were infected with Ld as described above. Recovery of parasites for viability analysis was performed according to published protocols [66]. Seventy-two hours after infection, amastigotes were extracted by removing the supernatant from infected plates and adding serum free RPMI media with 0.05% SDS and shaken for 30 seconds. After lysis of macrophages, amastigotes were quickly recovered by centrifuging the supernatant at 2,500 RPM for 10 min. Amastigotes extracted from KD and control macrophages were counted, and an equal number of amastigotes was used to infect wild-type THP-1 macrophages. Coverslips were recovered at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-infection to assess the viability of parasites.

Image analysis

Images were analyzed using the BZ-X800 analyzer for pictures taken in the BZ-X810 fluorescent microscope, or Zen Blue 2.6 for images taken in the Zeiss Axio observer Z1/7. Z-stack projections were used for specific image analysis of colocalizing proteins. Using Fiji/ImageJ, a mask was created around parasite vacuoles or latex bead phagosomes, determined to be regions of interest (ROI). The DAPI signal of the parasites, as well as the blue fluorescence of the latex beads was used to determine the ROI. The purpose of creating an ROI mask around the phagosome of a parasite or bead is to exclude cytosolic or other compartmental protein signals from the colocalization analysis. Then, the BIOP JAcOP colocalization of signals plug-in was used to determine if the signals of proteins of interest colocalized in the ROI previously selected using the masking option. LAMP1 reactivity was used to delineate the vacuole of the parasite or the latex bead phagosome; colocalization of LAMP1 with ESCRT proteins of interest was performed. If Pearson’s correlation coefficient, as yielded by JACoP, met a specific threshold of 0.4 or higher for the masked region, it was considered positive. At least 100 parasite vacuoles or latex bead phagosomes were counted per coverslip, per treatment, and time point. This analysis was applied to each experimental scheme.

LLOMe pulse/chase assay

To determine the impact of L-Leucyl-L-Leucine methyl ester (LLOMe) hydrobromide HY-129905A (MedChemExpress) on parasite vacuoles, we prepared a stock solution of 100 mM using dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) as the solvent. LLOMe was diluted with complete DMEM at 5mM and 1mM concentrations and added to infected macrophages 48 hours post-infection. Infected cells were stimulated for 30 min with each LLOMe concentration, and an equal amount of DMSO was added to complete the DMEM for the vehicle control, which was added simultaneously in separate vessels. After 30-minute exposure, LLOMe was washed out twice with complete DMEM, and coverslips were collected post LLOMe stimuli at 0 min, 10 min, 30 min and 60 min after treatment.

Parasite vacuole measurement, parasites per vacuole and parasites per macrophage counts

Z-Stack images of infected cells on coverslips were acquired as described above. Z-Stack heights were selected to cover the entire host cell nucleus and any PVs being measured to ensure that the widest point of the host cell nucleus and PV was captured. Using the “Insert” scale tool of the BZ-X800 or ZEN ZEISS analyzer, the diameter of parasite vacuoles was measured. At least 100 parasite vacuole sizes were measured per coverslip, per treatment, and time point. For parasite counts per macrophage, at least 100 macrophages were counted per coverslip, per treatment, and time point. Parasites per vacuole were counted using DAPI parasite nuclei, and Lamp1 reactivity for parasite vacuole reference.

Western blotting

Cells were lysed in RIPA buffer #89,900 (Thermo Scientific) and protein concentration was measured by BCA assay #23,225 (Thermo Scientific). Aliquots with equal protein (ug) amounts were suspended in SDS PAGE loading buffer and run at 140V for 1hr. Protein was transferred onto a nitrocellulose membrane 10,600,006 (GE Healthcare) or polyvinylidene difluoride membrane IPVH15150 (Immobilon) with 20V for 10hr in 4°C. Primary antibodies included anti-Alix sc-53540 (Santa Cruz), anti-TSG101 PA5–81,094 (Invitrogen), VPS28 sc-166537 (Santa Cruz), and anti-Beta Actin sc-47778 (Santa Cruz). Secondary HRP conjugated antibodies included Goat anti-mouse IgG 31,430 (Invitrogen) and Chicken anti-Rabbit IgG A15993 (Invitrogen). Antibody dilutions were prepared in 1X TBST (Tris buffered saline Tween 20) with 5% BSA for primary antibodies, and 5% non-fat milk for secondary antibodies. Primary antibodies were diluted at a 1:1000 concentration, and secondary antibodies at a 1:2000 concentration. Membranes were blocked with 5% non-fat milk for 1hr then incubated with primary antibody overnight at 4°C in constant rocking. After washing with TBST 3 times for 10 min each, secondary antibody incubation was performed for 1 hour. Proteins of interest were then visualized using chemiluminescence on the Invitrogen iBright imaging system (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Protein quantification was performed using FIJI/imageJ’s densitometric analysis tool.

Statistical analysis of data

After data acquisition and data collected by colocalization of proteins of interest, parasite vacuole sizes, parasite infectivity, parasites per vacuole and parasites per macrophage were graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. Data was first imported, then a one-way ANOVA or unpaired Student T Test was performed, and statistical significance was determined by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test in the case of ANOVA. Similarly, densitometry data for western blot quantification of protein levels was acquired from FIJI/ImageJ as described above, then GraphPad Prism 8 was used to generate bar graphs and perform unpaired student T Test. Significance was determined by a p-values of *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001

Supporting information

S1 Fig. ESCRT components are not recruited to phagosomes that harbor inert particles.

Recruitment of ESCRT components to generic phagosomes was determined by incubating transfected cells with latex beads. A representative image of a cell transfected with CHMP2B and a phagocytosed latex beads is shown. The proportion of phagosomes that displayed CHMP2B or CHMP4B is shown in the associated graphs. LAMP1 reactivity was used to delineate the vacuole of the LPV or latex bead phagosome. White arrow points to a latex bead.

(TIF)

ppat.1013513.s001.tif (312.5KB, tif)
S2 Fig. PI(4)P and PI(3,4)P2 are displayed on LdLPVs.

THP-1 cells on coverslips were infected with L. donovani. After 48 hours coverslips were fixed and processed for immunofluorescence detection of phosphoinositides with antibodies to each phosphoinositide. Representative images of THP-1 cells infected for 48 hours are shown. These images are representative of two experiments.

(TIF)

ppat.1013513.s002.tif (707.3KB, tif)
S3 Fig. Neither TSG101KD nor ALIXKD is cytotoxic to RAW264.7 cells.

(A). Cytotoxicity was determined by monitoring LDH release from oligoclonal KD cells and from shCTRL. For the MTT proliferation assay, cells were seeded in 96-well plates, with 4 wells per cell line, and separate 96-well plates were used for each time point. (B) Proliferation was assessed using the MTT cell proliferation kit AR1156 (BOSTER). The results are from 2 experiments.

(TIF)

ppat.1013513.s003.tif (126.8KB, tif)
S4 Fig. Increased number of parasites per vacuole in ALIXKD cells.

Infected cells on coverslips were fixed after 24, 48, and 72 hours of infection. Immunofluorescence labeling of LAMP-1 permitted detection of the contours of LPVs. Parasite nuclei were detected with DAPI. The number of parasites per LPV was counted at 24, 48, and 72 hours after infection. At least 100 LdLPVs were measured from each coverslip. Data was compiled from at least 3 experiments and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8.

(TIF)

ppat.1013513.s004.tif (126.6KB, tif)
S5 Fig. Knockdown of VPS28 does not affect L. donovani infection of RAW264.7 macrophages.

RAW264.7 cells were transfected with siRNA to VPS28 and plated in dishes with or without coverslips. Control cells were mock-transfected. Lysates were prepared from dishes without coverslips. Lysates were analyzed by Western blotting for VPS28 expression (A). Plot from the densitometric analysis is shown. B) Cover slips were infected with L. donovani parasites for 24, 48 or 72hs. Immunofluorescence labeling was performed to evaluate the infection. The number of parasites per macrophage in infected VPS28 KD cultures, as compared to infections in mock controls, was enumerated and plotted. Data was compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. C) LAMP1 labeling was performed to confirm LdLPVs. The LdLPV sizes in KD lines after 24, 48 and 72 hrs infection were measured and plotted. At least 100 LdLPV sizes were measured per coverslip. A one-way ANOVA was performed, and statistical significance was determined by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test. For western blotting validation, an unpaired student T test was performed for statistical analysis. Data were compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N.S, not significant.

(TIF)

ppat.1013513.s005.tif (130.7KB, tif)
S6 Fig. Knockdown of ALIX or TSG101 in THP-1 cells and evaluation of L. donovani infections.

The TSG101 shRNA plasmid, Alix shRNA plasmid, and Control shRNA plasmid were transfected into THP-1 monocytes. Stably transfected cells were selected by growth in media supplemented with puromycin. Lysates from stable lines were analyzed in Western blots. A) Representative blots were probed for TSG101 or ALIX, and densitometric analysis of blots was plotted. B) The recruitment of CHPMP4B to LdLPVs in these cell lines was evaluated. Representative images of infected cells, labeled with CHMP4B (red), LAMP1 (green), and DAPI (blue), are shown. Also shown are the proportions of LdLPVs shCTRL, TSG101KD and ALIXKD that recruited CHMP4B. At least 100 LdLPVs were measured per coverslip, per time point, and treatment. C) The sizes of LdLPVs in shCTRL, TSG101KD, and ALIXKD were measured and plotted. At least 100 LdLPV sizes were measured per coverslip, per time point, and treatment. D) The number of parasites in infected shCTRL, TSG101KD, and ALIXKD were enumerated. At least 100 macrophages were counted per coverslip, treatment, and time point. A one-way ANOVA was performed, and statistical significance was determined by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test. For western blotting validation, an unpaired student T test was performed for statistical analysis. Data were compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N.S, not significant.

(TIF)

ppat.1013513.s006.tif (619KB, tif)
S7 Fig. A2 expression is sustained in shCTRL, TSG10KD and ALIXKD THP-1 cell lines.

After the differentiation of THP-1 monocytes into macrophages, they were infected with infective metacyclic promastigote forms of L. donovani. At 24, 48, and 72 hrs post-infection, cells on coverslips were fixed and processed by immunofluorescence labeling for the detection of A2. At least 100 parasites were counted per coverslip, treatment, and time point. The percentage of parasites expressing A2 was compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. A one-way ANOVA was performed, and statistical significance was determined by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test. Data was compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N.S, not significant.

(TIF)

ppat.1013513.s007.tif (185.1KB, tif)
S8 Fig. Parasites recovered from infection retain their infectivity.

L. donovani amastigotes were recovered from shCTRL TSG101KD and ALIXKD THP-1 cell lines after 72 hours of infection. The parasites were counted and then added to THP-1 macrophages on coverslips in 6-well plates at a 5:1 parasite-to-macrophage infection ratio. Infections were scored at 24, 48, and 72 hours of infection. At least 100 macrophages were counted per coverslip in cells infected with recovered parasites. A one-way ANOVA was performed, and statistical significance was determined by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test. Data was compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8 *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N.S, not significant.

(TIF)

ppat.1013513.s008.tif (178.7KB, tif)
S1 Data. Supplemental data.

Raw data used to generate figures in the manuscript.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013513.s009.xlsx (22.7KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Ansari Z, Chaurasia A, Neha N, Kalani A, Bachheti RK, Gupta PC. Comprehensive insights into leishmaniasis: From etiopathogenesis to a novel therapeutic approach. Microb Pathog. 2025;204:107535. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2025.107535 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.McGwire BS, Satoskar AR. Leishmaniasis: clinical syndromes and treatment. QJM. 2014;107(1):7–14. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hct116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Karagiannis K, Gannavaram S, Verma C, Pacheco-Fernandez T, Bhattacharya P, Nakhasi HL, et al. Dual-scRNA-seq analysis reveals rare and uncommon parasitized cell populations in chronic L. donovani infection. Cell Reports. 2023;42(9):113097. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Alexander J, Satoskar AR, Russell DG. Leishmania species: models of intracellular parasitism. J Cell Sci. 1999;112 Pt 18:2993–3002. doi: 10.1242/jcs.112.18.2993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Canton J, Kima PE. Interactions of pathogen-containing compartments with the secretory pathway. Cell Microbiol. 2012;14(11):1676–86. doi: 10.1111/cmi.12000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ndjamen B, Kang B-H, Hatsuzawa K, Kima PE. Leishmania parasitophorous vacuoles interact continuously with the host cell’s endoplasmic reticulum; parasitophorous vacuoles are hybrid compartments. Cell Microbiol. 2010;12(10):1480–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2010.01483.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Desjardins M, Descoteaux A. Inhibition of phagolysosomal biogenesis by the Leishmania lipophosphoglycan. J Exp Med. 1997;185(12):2061–8. doi: 10.1084/jem.185.12.2061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Antoine JC, Prina E, Lang T, Courret N. The biogenesis and properties of the parasitophorous vacuoles that harbour Leishmania in murine macrophages. Trends Microbiol. 1998;6(10):392–401. doi: 10.1016/s0966-842x(98)01324-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mandell MA, Beatty WL, Beverley SM. Quantitative single-cell analysis of Leishmania major amastigote differentiation demonstrates variably extended expression of the lipophosphoglycan (LPG) virulence factor in different host cell types. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2022;16(10):e0010893. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010893 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tsigankov P, Gherardini PF, Helmer-Citterich M, Späth GF, Myler PJ, Zilberstein D. Regulation dynamics of Leishmania differentiation: deconvoluting signals and identifying phosphorylation trends. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2014;13(7):1787–99. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M114.037705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lewis SC, Uchiyama LF, Nunnari J. ER-mitochondria contacts couple mtDNA synthesis with mitochondrial division in human cells. Science. 2016;353(6296):aaf5549. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf5549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ziviani E, Scorrano L. Cell biology: The organelle replication connection. Nature. 2016;538(7625):326–7. doi: 10.1038/538326b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mannemuddhu SS, Xu H, Bleck CKE, Tjandra N, Carter C, Bhaduri-McIntosh S. Prazoles Targeting Tsg101 Inhibit Release of Epstein-Barr Virus following Reactivation from Latency. J Virol. 2021;95(13):e0246620. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02466-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.von Schwedler UK, Stuchell M, Müller B, Ward DM, Chung H-Y, Morita E, et al. The Protein Network of HIV Budding. Cell. 2003;114(6):701–13. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00714-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Elia N, Sougrat R, Spurlin TA, Hurley JH, Lippincott-Schwartz J. Dynamics of endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT) machinery during cytokinesis and its role in abscission. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(12):4846–51. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102714108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Stoten CL, Carlton JG. ESCRT-dependent control of membrane remodelling during cell division. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2018;74:50–65. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.08.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bache KG, Raiborg C, Mehlum A, Stenmark H. STAM and Hrs are subunits of a multivalent ubiquitin-binding complex on early endosomes. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(14):12513–21. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M210843200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hurley JH. The ESCRT complexes. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2010;45(6):463–87. doi: 10.3109/10409238.2010.502516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hierro A, Sun J, Rusnak AS, Kim J, Prag G, Emr SD, et al. Structure of the ESCRT-II endosomal trafficking complex. Nature. 2004;431(7005):221–5. doi: 10.1038/nature02914 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lata S, Schoehn G, Solomons J, Pires R, Göttlinger HG, Weissenhorn W. Structure and function of ESCRT-III. Biochemical Society Transactions. 2009;37(1):156–60. doi: 10.1042/bst0370156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Larios J, Mercier V, Roux A, Gruenberg J. ALIX- and ESCRT-III-dependent sorting of tetraspanins to exosomes. J Cell Biol. 2020;219(3):e201904113. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201904113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mierzwa BE, Chiaruttini N, Redondo-Morata L, von Filseck JM, König J, Larios J, et al. Dynamic subunit turnover in ESCRT-III assemblies is regulated by Vps4 to mediate membrane remodelling during cytokinesis. Nat Cell Biol. 2017;19(7):787–98. doi: 10.1038/ncb3559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Babst M, Katzmann DJ, Snyder WB, Wendland B, Emr SD. Endosome-associated complex, ESCRT-II, recruits transport machinery for protein sorting at the multivesicular body. Dev Cell. 2002;3(2):283–9. doi: 10.1016/s1534-5807(02)00219-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Katzmann DJ, Babst M, Emr SD. Ubiquitin-dependent sorting into the multivesicular body pathway requires the function of a conserved endosomal protein sorting complex, ESCRT-I. Cell. 2001;106(2):145–55. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(01)00434-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Campsteijn C, Vietri M, Stenmark H. Novel ESCRT functions in cell biology: spiraling out of control?. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2016;41:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2016.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Christ L, Wenzel EM, Liestøl K, Raiborg C, Campsteijn C, Stenmark H. ALIX and ESCRT-I/II function as parallel ESCRT-III recruiters in cytokinetic abscission. J Cell Biol. 2016;212(5):499–513. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201507009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Carlton JG, Agromayor M, Martin-Serrano J. Differential requirements for Alix and ESCRT-III in cytokinesis and HIV-1 release. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(30):10541–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802008105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lee HH, Elia N, Ghirlando R, Lippincott-Schwartz J, Hurley JH. Midbody Targeting of the ESCRT Machinery by a Noncanonical Coiled Coil in CEP55. Science. 2008;322(5901):576–80. doi: 10.1126/science.1162042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Malerød L, Le Borgne R, Lie-Jensen A, Eikenes ÅH, Brech A, Liestøl K, et al. Centrosomal ALIX regulates mitotic spindle orientation by modulating astral microtubule dynamics. EMBO J. 2018;37(13):e97741. doi: 10.15252/embj.201797741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Jimenez AJ, Maiuri P, Lafaurie-Janvore J, Divoux S, Piel M, Perez F. ESCRT machinery is required for plasma membrane repair. Science. 2014;343(6174):1247136. doi: 10.1126/science.1247136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Clippinger AK, Naismith TV, Yoo W, Jansen S, Kast DJ, Hanson PI. IST1 regulates select recycling pathways. Traffic. 2024;25(1):e12921. doi: 10.1111/tra.12921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Knyazeva A, Li S, Corkery DP, Shankar K, Herzog LK, Zhang X, et al. A chemical inhibitor of IST1-CHMP1B interaction impairs endosomal recycling and induces noncanonical LC3 lipidation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024;121(17):e2317680121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2317680121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Keeley O, Coyne AN. Nuclear and degradative functions of the ESCRT-III pathway: implications for neurodegenerative disease. Nucleus. 2024;15(1):2349085. doi: 10.1080/19491034.2024.2349085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rivera-Cuevas Y, Carruthers VB. The multifaceted interactions between pathogens and host ESCRT machinery. PLoS Pathog. 2023;19(5):e1011344. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1011344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Olmos Y. The ESCRT Machinery: Remodeling, Repairing, and Sealing Membranes. Membranes (Basel). 2022;12(6):633. doi: 10.3390/membranes12060633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Vietri M, Radulovic M, Stenmark H. The many functions of ESCRTs. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2019;21(1):25–42. doi: 10.1038/s41580-019-0177-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Manzanillo PS, Shiloh MU, Portnoy DA, Cox JS. Mycobacterium tuberculosis activates the DNA-dependent cytosolic surveillance pathway within macrophages. Cell Host Microbe. 2012;11(5):469–80. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2012.03.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mittal E, Skowyra ML, Uwase G, Tinaztepe E, Mehra A, Köster S, et al. Mycobacterium tuberculosis Type VII Secretion System Effectors Differentially Impact the ESCRT Endomembrane Damage Response. mBio. 2018;9(6):e01765-18. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01765-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jia J, Claude-Taupin A, Gu Y, Choi SW, Peters R, Bissa B, et al. Galectin-3 Coordinates a Cellular System for Lysosomal Repair and Removal. Dev Cell. 2020;52(1):69-87.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2019.10.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.López-Jiménez AT, Cardenal-Muñoz E, Leuba F, Gerstenmaier L, Barisch C, Hagedorn M, et al. The ESCRT and autophagy machineries cooperate to repair ESX-1-dependent damage at the Mycobacterium-containing vacuole but have opposite impact on containing the infection. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(12):e1007501. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Raykov L, Mottet M, Nitschke J, Soldati T. A TRAF-like E3 ubiquitin ligase TrafE coordinates ESCRT and autophagy in endolysosomal damage response and cell-autonomous immunity to Mycobacterium marinum. Elife. 2023;12:e85727. doi: 10.7554/eLife.85727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Göser V, Kehl A, Röder J, Hensel M. Role of the ESCRT-III complex in controlling integrity of the Salmonella-containing vacuole. Cell Microbiol. 2020;22(6):e13176. doi: 10.1111/cmi.13176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Radulovic M, Schink KO, Wenzel EM, Nähse V, Bongiovanni A, Lafont F, et al. ESCRT ‐mediated lysosome repair precedes lysophagy and promotes cell survival. The EMBO Journal. 2018;37(21). doi: 10.15252/embj.201899753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cygan AM, Jean Beltran PM, Mendoza AG, Branon TC, Ting AY, Carr SA, et al. Proximity-Labeling Reveals Novel Host and Parasite Proteins at the Toxoplasma Parasitophorous Vacuole Membrane. mBio. 2021;12(6):e0026021. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00260-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Rivera-Cuevas Y, Mayoral J, Di Cristina M, Lawrence A-LE, Olafsson EB, Patel RK, et al. Toxoplasma gondii exploits the host ESCRT machinery for parasite uptake of host cytosolic proteins. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(12):e1010138. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gulluni F, Martini M, Hirsch E. Cytokinetic Abscission: Phosphoinositides and ESCRTs Direct the Final Cut. J Cell Biochem. 2017;118(11):3561–8. doi: 10.1002/jcb.26066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gulluni F, Prever L, Li H, Krafcikova P, Corrado I, Lo W-T, et al. PI(3,4)P2-mediated cytokinetic abscission prevents early senescence and cataract formation. Science. 2021;374(6573):eabk0410. doi: 10.1126/science.abk0410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Luo Z, Liang Y, Tian M, Ruan Z, Su R, Shereen MA, et al. Inhibition of PIKFYVE kinase interferes ESCRT pathway to suppress RNA virus replication. Journal of Medical Virology. 2023;95(2). doi: 10.1002/jmv.28527 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gioseffi A, Hamerly T, Van K, Zhang N, Dinglasan RR, Yates PA, et al. Leishmania-infected macrophages release extracellular vesicles that can promote lesion development. Life Sci Alliance. 2020;3(12):e202000742. doi: 10.26508/lsa.202000742 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Bishop N, Woodman P. ATPase-defective mammalian VPS4 localizes to aberrant endosomes and impairs cholesterol trafficking. Mol Biol Cell. 2000;11(1):227–39. doi: 10.1091/mbc.11.1.227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Desjardins M, Griffiths G. Phagocytosis: latex leads the way. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2003;15(4):498–503. doi: 10.1016/s0955-0674(03)00083-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zhang N, Prasad S, Huyghues Despointes C-E, Young J, Kima PE. Leishmania parasitophorous vacuole membranes display phosphoinositides that create conditions for continuous Akt activation and a target for miltefosine in Leishmania infections. Cell Microbiol. 2018;20(11):e12889. doi: 10.1111/cmi.12889 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Votteler J, Ogohara C, Yi S, Hsia Y, Nattermann U, Belnap DM, et al. Designed proteins induce the formation of nanocage-containing extracellular vesicles. Nature. 2016;540(7632):292–5. doi: 10.1038/nature20607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Maejima I, Takahashi A, Omori H, Kimura T, Takabatake Y, Saitoh T, et al. Autophagy sequesters damaged lysosomes to control lysosomal biogenesis and kidney injury. EMBO J. 2013;32(17):2336–47. doi: 10.1038/emboj.2013.171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Posor Y, Jang W, Haucke V. Phosphoinositides as membrane organizers. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2022;23(12):797–816. doi: 10.1038/s41580-022-00490-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tasnin MN, Ito K, Katsuta H, Takuma T, Sharmin T, Ushimaru T. The PI3 Kinase Complex II-PI3P-Vps27 Axis on Vacuolar Membranes is Critical for Microautophagy Induction and Nutrient Stress Adaptation. J Mol Biol. 2022;434(2):167360. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2021.167360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Martin-Serrano J, Marsh M. ALIX Catches HIV. Cell Host & Microbe. 2007;1(1):5–7. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2007.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Lee I-H, Kai H, Carlson L-A, Groves JT, Hurley JH. Negative membrane curvature catalyzes nucleation of endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT)-III assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(52):15892–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1518765113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Zhang WW, Charest H, Ghedin E, Matlashewski G. Identification and overexpression of the A2 amastigote-specific protein in Leishmania donovani. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1996;78(1–2):79–90. doi: 10.1016/s0166-6851(96)02612-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Eriksson I, Wäster P, Öllinger K. Restoration of lysosomal function after damage is accompanied by recycling of lysosomal membrane proteins. Cell Death Dis. 2020;11(5):370. doi: 10.1038/s41419-020-2527-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Thiele DL, Lipsky PE. Mechanism of L-leucyl-L-leucine methyl ester-mediated killing of cytotoxic lymphocytes: dependence on a lysosomal thiol protease, dipeptidyl peptidase I, that is enriched in these cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1990;87(1):83–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.1.83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Jia J, Claude-Taupin A, Gu Y, Choi SW, Peters R, Bissa B, et al. MERIT, a cellular system coordinating lysosomal repair, removal and replacement. Autophagy. 2020;16(8):1539–41. doi: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1779451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Del Vecchio C, Celestino M, Celegato M, Palù G, Parolin C, Bouamr F, et al. Alix-Mediated Rescue of Feline Immunodeficiency Virus Budding Differs from That Observed with Human Immunodeficiency Virus. J Virol. 2020;94(11):e02019-19. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02019-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Ma J, Zhang X, Feng Y, Zhang H, Wang X, Zheng Y, et al. Structural and Functional Study of Apoptosis-linked Gene-2·Heme-binding Protein 2 Interactions in HIV-1 Production. J Biol Chem. 2016;291(52):26670–85. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M116.752444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Usami Y, Popov S, Popova E, Inoue M, Weissenhorn W, G Göttlinger H. The ESCRT pathway and HIV-1 budding. Biochem Soc Trans. 2009;37(Pt 1):181–4. doi: 10.1042/BST0370181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Jain SK, Sahu R, Walker LA, Tekwani BL. A parasite rescue and transformation assay for antileishmanial screening against intracellular Leishmania donovani amastigotes in THP1 human acute monocytic leukemia cell line. J Vis Exp. 2012;(70):4054. doi: 10.3791/4054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tracey J Lamb

29 Apr 2025

A non-canonical activation of the host’s ESCRT machinery is required for the scission of parasitophorous vacuoles and the replication of Leishmaniadonovani

PLOS Pathogens

Dear Dr. Kima,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Pathogens. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Pathogens'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 Jun 28 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 plospathogens@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/ppathogens/ 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,

Tracey J. Lamb

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Tracey Lamb

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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: Javier E Rosero, and Peter E Kima. 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/plospathogens/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/plospathogens/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/plospathogens/s/figures

4) We notice that your supplementary Figures are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type '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, 1E, 2A, 4A, 4D, 5A, 5B, 7A, and Graphical Abstract. 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) We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files." Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data: 

1) The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

2) The values used to build graphs;

3) The points extracted from images for analysis..

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

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

8) Your current Financial Disclosure states, "University of Florida Research fund." However, your funding information on the submission form indicates no funds. Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: Rosero and Kima report on the role of the ESCRT machinery in the scission of parasitophorous vacuoles containing the parasite Leishmania donovani (LdLPVs) as well as in the replication of the parasite. They found that ESCRT components are constitutively recruited to LdLPVs, in a PI(3,4)P2-dependent manner. Knockdown of ALIX led to a significant reduction in parasite burden and replication and to an increase in LdLPV size. Overall, this is an interesting study which addresses an important question in the cell biology of intracellular infection, namely how do individual vacuoles replicate at the same time than the pathogen they harbor. However, a number of issues need to be addressed to strenghthen the conclusions of this study.

Reviewer #2: Rosero and Kima provide insight into the role of ESCRT in Leishmania biogenesis. The authors have observed and quantified the recruitment of several of the ESCRT components and then used shRNAs and dominant negative overexpression to manipulate the ESCRT pathway to demonstrate the role of ESCRT in parasite replication. The KD of ALIX prevents the scission of LdLPVs and multiple parasites buildup into the compartment with the absence of LdLPV division.

Reviewer #3: The provided manuscript evaluated the role of ESCRT machinery in Leishmania donovani- infected macrophages. L. donovani invade macrophages, and another immune cells, as host cells, where they occupy a parasitophorous vacuole (PV) to differentiate and replicate. Bacteria that invade host cells have developed secretion system to introduce their proteins into the host cell, but no such system has been found in Leishmania spps. During replication within the host cell, the entire PV is split as well. The authors suggested that the host ESCRT machinery is involved in this process. They evaluated the role of ESCRT I protein TSG101, and ESCRT I accessory protein ALIX, seeing that ALIX was necessary for proper division of the PV after parasite replication. KD of ALIX resulted in PV containing multiple parasites. ESCRT III protein CHMP2B and CHMP4B were implicated in the division, and their recruitment to PV was used as a measure of typical ESCRT pathway function. When CHMP4B recruitment was reduced (because of the ALIX KD), this followed by a reduction in vacuole size, division, and parasite infectivity. I agree with the authors on their conclusions about the non-conical activation of these ESCRT proteins based on the data shown. The authors also implicate PI(3,4)P2 as being the phosphoinositide to play a role in recruiting ESCRT machinery. I don’t think this specific PI, or any PI, can be implicated from this data as presented.

I recommend this paper to be accepted with minor revisions. Clarification of the methodology behind the experiments included in Figure 3 is required to evaluate the conclusions made about PI(3,4)P2. Clarification in the formatting of the figures/images, and the corresponding text will make the conclusions regarding the localization of ESCRT proteins and the role of ALIX clearer to readers. Overall the data and methodology are sound, but some of the descriptions of the images are a bit difficult to follow.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: 1- An issue that remains to be addressed is why L. donovani fails to replicate in larger vacuoles observed in ALIX knockdown (KD) cells. In addition to affecting vacuole scission, it is possible that ALIX KD alters trafficking to and from the vacuole. It could be that ALIX is required for the acquisition of host factors essential for parasite growth. This issue may be addressed using L. mexicana complex parasites which thrive in spacious vacuoles. The authors should include these parasites to determine whether their replication is affected in ALIX KD cells.

2- Figure 1F, the authors show that overexpression of both CHMP4B and VPS4Adn in RAW cells significantly increased their recruitment to LdLPVs. It would be of interest to compare the growth of L. donovani in control RAW cells and in the CHMP4B/VPS4Adn RAW cells overexpressors.

Reviewer #2: The authors make too strong of an argument for PI(3,4)P2 based on their immunostaining. The antibody (Z-P034) used does have a high enough specificity to rule out PI(4)P for example. Further the authors report in the Materials and Methods section the use of 0.5% Triton X-100 where the manufacture’s protocol warns against exceeding 0.2% Triton X-100 to prevent extraction of lipid populations. While the signal is likely PI(3,4)P2 it could be validated with PI binding proteins fused to GFP which have been well characterized. Further some to the real signal me be extracted with the high Triton X-100 concentration. Please consider mentioning the limitations or directly address the shortcomings with additional experiments.

The work would strongly benefit from electron micrographs (or even super resolution imaging may suffice) of the ALIX-KD to better document the alterations of the parasites and the LdLPVs, however this is not required for publication.

The viability and parasitic health is not well established in the paper; if possible/practical please demonstrate the viability and infectivity of the parasitic progeny from the KD, DN and drug treated conditions.

Reviewer #3: Major Issues:

“The phosphoinositide PI(3,4)P2 on LdLPVs may be the target for recruitment of ESCRT molecules”

I’m confused about the conclusion being drawn here. The title for this section says that PI(3,4)P2 may be the target for ESCRT protein recruitment. PI(3,4)P2 is present on both the vacuoles that surround the latex beads and the Leishmania parasites, meaning it could just always be associated with phagocytosed particles, and not specific to Ld. The authors state they wanted to confirm that PI(3,4)P2 is present on the LdLPV because it has been shown to recruit ESCRT II. Images of infected cells stained with an antibody for PI(3,4)P2, show that it is recruited to LdLPV, and that recruitment is diminished when cells are treated with a general inhibitor of phosphoinositide synthesis (LY294002). They measure decreases CHMP4B. The conclusions is that PI(3,4)P2 is a target of ESCRT, and later in the discussion mention ALIX as the following step in recruitment. I think this is an overstatement, I don’t think this data definitively shows that PI(3,4)P2 is responsible for recruitment of subsequent ESCRT proteins. 1) The reduction in CHMP4B recruitment is not statistically significant (or it’s not stated to be, there is no p value listed so I assume it is not significant, but may have been a mistake). I don’t think the conclusion that PI(3,4)P2 is involved in ESCRT recruitment is supported if that reduction is not significant. 2) The authors haven’t shown that other phosphoinositides aren’t playing a role. The inhibitor used is a broad inhibitor, and there could be may downstream trafficking effects, which is stated in the discussion (long term treatment will kill the parasites by blocking one of their mechanism of evading macrophage activation). Evidence that other phosphoinositidies are not recruited/disrupted, and evidence that the antibody that they’re using is truly specific to PI(3,4)P2 and no other phosphoinositide is needed to draw this conclusion. If all phosphoinositides are disrupted, then even in the absence of PI(3,4)P2, if others are also absent, then they could be responsible for the phenotype. 3) To connect this phosphoinositide to ALIX in the discussion is a stretch, as only CHMP4B recruitment is measured. While I agree that it’s a reasonable hypothesis, there isn’t data presented here to support that conclusion.

There is a more nuanced discussion on this in the discussion, so I believe the authors understand the complexities of these interactions, but I think that nuance isn’t translated in the explanation of the results, or the following sentence from the discussion:

“Our studies revealed a chain of events that commences with the display of the phosphoinositide, PI(3,4)P2 on LdLPVs, followed by the recruitment of ALIX to LdLPVs.”

To summarize, I think the statistical significance of 3B needs to be clarified. Experiments showing that this chemical blocker only effect PI(3,4)P2 recruitment and not any other PI are required, or the language could be modified to not overstate the role of PI(3,4)P2

PI The inhibitor you used can inhibit the synthesis of other phosphoinositides, and therefore other forms in other organelles could be playing a role in ESCRT recruitment. I think this sentence, as written, suggests you had data that showed that ALIX is recruited in response to PI(3,4)P2, however you measured only CHMP4B (ESCRT II) recruitment. While I agree with your later points that ALIX plays a more essential role than TSG101 on the ESCRT I front, and KD of ALIX led to less CHMP4B recruitment, so it’s a reasonable hypothesis, but I think it’s overstating to say that PI(3,4)P2 is followed by ALIX from the data present in this paper.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: 3- Figure 4 and Figure 6 are very similar. Whereas data shown in Fig 4 were obtained with RAW cells, data shown in Fig 6 were obtained with THP-1 cells. Figure 6 may be moved to the Supplemental data section.

4- Bottom of page 8, the authors state that "there was some increase in the frequency of LdLPVs that harbored more than 2 parasites (not shown)". Authors must show the data or remove this sentence.

5- Figure 4D and 4G, the authors state in the text (page 9) that "such larger LdLPVs harbored more that 4-10 parasites". The authors must quantify the number of parasites in the larger vacuoles in ALIX KD cells.

6- The authors must indicate at which time points post-infection were taken the images shown in Figures 1B, D, F, 4D, 5A, 6B.

7- On several figures, font size must be increased to improve legibility.

Reviewer #2: The paper is well written and moves the field forward.

Reviewer #3: Figure formatting: In the way this was submitted, all of the figures were not formatted clearly.

Figure 1 is split across 3 pages in it’s current form.

Stretched/Squished text that is difficult to read: Figure 2 graphs C-F, Figure 4 graphs E-G

Diagrams with small text/stretched that make it difficult to read: Figure 1A and E, Figure 2A, 4 A and D, Figure 5 A and B, and Figure 7A

Also, some of the graphs have titles and some don’t. Where there are titles, I think they’re a little confusing (ex, Fig 2 C-F). Can they be simplified or removed?

The text in Figure 6 seems consistent in sizing and is clear to read, not blurry, and straight. Can be used an example.

For all images: Need scale bars. Each individual fluorophore should be showed in white, and color only used in the merge, especially because the colors switch for LAMP1 depending on the fluorophore of each ESCRT protein. Also, the colors can be changed so they are consistent in merge (LAMP1 can be made red in all of the merges, whether you “collected” it as red or not, as long as all fluorophores are listed)

Introduction

“Leishmania donovani is the causative agent of visceral leishmaniasis that has an estimated 50,000 to 90,000 new cases per year, 95% of which are fatal if left untreated (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/leishmaniasis).”

Direct links to webpages should not be cited, the original source material should be cited

“Interestingly, LPVs that harbor L. donovani (LdLPVs) acquire late endosomal characteristics slowly, as evidenced by their prolonged retention of Rab5 among other early endosomal molecules [6]. “

The citation of retention of Rab5 is incorrect, cited paper doesn’t reference Rab5 at all. Also this sentence starts with saying LdLPVs acquire late endosomal characteristics, but then you mention Rab5, an early endosomal marker. So I’m assuming the authors mean to say acquire early endosomal characteristics?

Figure 1

The figure 1A does not match what is said in the text. Also, LAMP1 is written as all uppercase in the text, but all lowercase in the figures, this should be made consistent across the entire paper.

At least 1 outline/zoom in of the LdLPV would be helpful for each image, with arrows pointing to relevant features, (like what is seen in Figure 5). It’s hard to understand is being calling boundaries and periphery. Additionally, the explanation of CHMP2B and 4B forming a “neck” of the horn while the rim (LAMP1) is wider is not clear to me from these images. Looking at the merged picture for CHMP4B infected, in the LPV on the bottom right corner, CHMP4B and LAMP1 seem to have complete overlap of each other where they label together, while in the LPV directly to the left/slightly above the nucleus looks to have CHMP4B in more localized spots compared to LAMP1. I think an outline and arrows would be helpful to more clearly explain your point here, or a diagram, similar to Figure 5. I will say the image from supplemental 1 is much clearer than the image included in figure 1. To me, it seems there is a lot of similar colocalization of LAMP1 and CHMP4B, 2B, and Vps4A even in the uninfected cells, so the latex bead experiment is a great response to that for CHMP2B and 4B. Was this same experiment repeated for TSG101 or Vps4A? If so, the data should be included or mentioned.

The Vps4A data in 1b and 1c is not mentioned at all in the text, and that also looks like the colocalization is the same in infected vs uninfected. The overexpression experiment is clear and the conclusion makes sense, but I think the previous data needs to be mentioned/explained.

For 1F, the text states that a dual transfection of the Vps4 mutant and CHMP2B was used, and then the image and following sentences mention CHMP4B, so I assume 2B is a typo.

For 1g, it is not mentioned in the text. Is this measuring recruitment of both CHMP4B and VPS4? Or some kind of ratio (given that the titles is “CHMP4B/VPS4Adn”)? The figure legend only mentions VPS4.

See notes for “Figure Formatting.” Can the individual points for 1D and 1G be added as in 1C?

Figure 2

Overall this experiment is clear, as is the data. It seems that the CHMP4B is more localized within the LPV, rather than on the periphery as detailed in Figure 1b. How is LLOMe-mediated damage repaired? Does the ESCRT machinery associate and pinch off the damaged membrane to be sent to the plasma membrane? In which case, you’d expect to see CHMP4B on the outside of the PV, not inside. Do you have any explanation for what CHMP4B could be doing, and how it is getting inside the PV? Perhaps more appropriate for the discussion section, but a more detailed of how LLOMe-damage is typically repaired would strengthen the conclusions.

For the figure legend in 1, you list as A) description. B) description. In the figure legend here, you list description (A), description (B). Pick one format and be consistent. Can each individual point be added to 2D and F as seen in Fig 1C?

See notes for “Figure Formatting.”

Figure 3

Why are two different time points used in this experiment (48 hours in no drug versus 24+8 in the treated)? The method section says 48 hours of infection and then 8 hours of treatment, which is not what the figure legend says. If you have images of the vehicle control, this would be a more appropriate comparison.

Most points were already mentioned in “major revisions” but another point to make is the change in PV morphology. It seems that PI is on the leishmania, but doesn’t associate with the entire PV? Or the PV is smaller? If we compare to previous figures looking at how LAMP1 outlined the PV, the PV looks to be a different shape here? An explanation/interpretation of this staining difference would be helpful

On the figure, for Latex beads, no drug, DAPI staining, a star is used, but there isn’t an explanation for what it denotes in the figure legend, nor is there an explanation for the arrows. Two of the labels for “PI(3,4)P2” are missing the comma.

See notes for “Figure Formatting.” Can each individual point be added to 3B as seen in Fig 1C?

Figure 4

The labeling in the text says the western blots for the KD of TSG101 and ALIX are 4B, and selected lines are shown in 2C? But that is not consistent with the actual figure numbering. Overall, these experiments are clear and the data supports the conclusion.

See notes for “Figure Formatting.” Can each individual point be added to 4B-G as seen in Fig 1C?

Figure 5

The images used here, with the arrows and cut outs showing the zoom ins, and the text description, are extremely effective, and this same approach should be taken with earlier images as well to point out the key features, especially in figure 1. But with the colors changed to white for the individual channels and colors only in merge (as stated in the “Figure Formatting” note). This explanation of the results and conclusions in this section are very clear. The diagrams are stretched, and the text is too small to read, but they are effective, so corrected formatting would fix. If diagrams like this could be added to figure 1 and 2, that would really improve the readers ability to follow along.

Can the statistical analysis on part C be added to the figure legend? Also each individual point, as seen in Fig 1C.

Figure 6

It is stated that the number of LdLPVs is fewer in ALIXKD cells, but there is no quantification/measurement presented. I recognize that may be difficult, given the disruption of LAMP1 signal. It seems that the disruption of LAMP1 distribution is more extreme in the THP-1 cells than the RAW macrophages used in Figure 4. Can you comment on that? Otherwise, this data is clear, the conclusions are well supported.

See notes in the “Figure Formatting” Section. Can each individual point be added to each graph as seen in Fig 1C?

Figure 7

Need to add the mention of Fig 7C into the text of the paper (the experiment is mentioned, but not the words “Figure 7C”). This experiment is key to showing the survival of the parasite but lack of PV division, nice experiment.

See notes in the “Figure Formatting” Section.

Discussion

“Together, these results show that ALIX plays a central role in recruiting the ESCRT machinery to LdLPVs where it catalyzes the scission of this of the LdLPV pseudo-organelle. That a non-canonical activation of the ESCRT machinery plays a role in the division of LdLPVs is a new function for the ESCRT machinery.”

I think this conclusion is well supported by the data presented, but there are a few grammatical errors. The additional “of this” in the first sentence. The second sentence is incomplete. Potentially rephrase to “This non-canonical activation of the ESCRT machinery playing a role in the division of LdLPVs is a new function for the ESCRT machinery.”

To repeat my earlier point from figure 3, which perhaps could be included in the discussion rather than the results, how is LLOMe-mediated damage repaired? Does the ESCRT machinery associate and pinch off the damaged membrane to be sent to the plasma membrane? In which case, you’d expect to see CHMP4B on the outside of the PV, not inside. Do you have any explanation for what CHMP4B could be doing, and how it is getting inside the PV?

“Based on our observations, we suggest that ESCRT components are recruited constitutively to LdLPVs and are anchored to phosphoinositides displayed on the LdLPV membrane.”

I agree with this point, and the following explanation in this paragraph. It is a more nuanced explanation of this data than the initial conclusion stated at the start of the discussion. However, I don’t understand this statement:

“The parasite plays a role in synthesizing the phosphoinositide displayed on the LdLPV membrane.”

Which role do you mean? I interpret this to mean that the parasite itself is synthesizing phosphoinositides that are transferred to the PV membrane? Or that parasite kinases are phosphorylating the PIs on the PV membrane? Which hasn’t been addressed in any data in this paper. Please clarify.

You state that the graphical abstract is “highlighting that when ALIX levels are limiting, LdLPVs are large and can harbor 3- 10 parasites”, I don’t think that’s clear in the diagram. Are you using the text size to indicate the amount of ALIX? Maybe you could use [ALIX] or a small up or down arrow?

It’s interesting that the prevention of the PV separation prevents the eventual dispersal of the parasite to new cells. Given that L. amazonensis has a communal PV for multiple parasites, can you elaborate on how you suspect these pathways would be used in L. amazonensis? Would they still require ESCRT machinery? If the parasites still drive expression of ALIX, it could suggest other roles for ALIX, or ESCRT machinery generally, outside of PV division.

**********

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: Yes:  Sara Fresard

[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:

?>

Decision Letter 1

Tracey J Lamb

21 Aug 2025

PPATHOGENS-D-25-00079R1

A non-canonical activation of the host’s ESCRT machinery is required for the scission of parasitophorous vacuoles and the replication of Leishmania donovani

PLOS Pathogens

Dear Dr. Kima,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Pathogens. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Pathogens'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 30 days Oct 20 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 plospathogens@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/ppathogens/ 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,

Tracey J. Lamb

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Tracey Lamb

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Additional Editor Comments:

Please address all comments from reviewer 3, particularly with respect to adding additional supplemental figure on how the image analysis was performed and the images scored.

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

1) We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.". Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data: 

1) The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

2) The values used to build graphs;

3) The points extracted from images for analysis..

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: The authors have properly addressed my concerns.

Reviewer #2: The authors have a very nice manuscript, and the work moves the field forward. The authors need to be much more specific as to how they score a LdLPV. How is this assessed (see below)? Some of the quantification seems to be from subjective calls of association. There is not a clear description of how you are doing your image analysis. If it is scored by hand and not an automated analysis the parameters being used as criteria for the assessment needs to be very well described.

Reviewer #3: This study evaluates the recruitment of the host cell ESCRT machinery to the Leishmania donovani parasitophorous vacuole. When Ld divide, the parasitophorous vacuole must divide as well, and this study shows compelling evidence of he role of ESCRT machinery, specifically ALIX, playing a role in this division.This study explores an interesting question of ESCRT recruitment, and they mention the implications of this work in other intracellular pathogens. The response of the authors to the reviewers was convincing, and the revised manuscript has simplified the experiments to provide a more streamlined story. The figures are more clear and effective than the first draft. There still remains a few typos that result from the shuffling of figures (ie. the data of 1D is referred to as 1C in a few spots), but overall this paper should be accepted.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Fig 1B Pearson's correlation coefficients should be reported for colocalization with LAMP1

Fig 1C The Axis should be labeled as LAMP1 since not every structure is parasitophorous vacuole. In all figures the axis label should be more definitive. It is not clear how you define structures.

Fig 1D In this example cell there is only a single phagosome. In the Leishmania vacuoles (not shown here) there are more units per cell than the latex beads, is this considered in the quantification? Are you using all of the LAMP1 signal as your denominator? Basically, there is not enough clarity on the scoring metrics used. It would only be fair to quantify the LAMP1 signal within a certain distance of the bead or Leishmania, and then to score the CHMP2B/4B on that compartment.

Fig1F Again Pearson’s CC should be done and on both infected and non-infected.

Collectively there is an issue with parsing out what is a vacuole verses a late endosome / lysosome. Please note that late endosomes and lysosomes have LAMP1 signal. Using the Leishmania DAPI signal the compartments can be scored. It would be ideal if in a supplemental figure a detailed analysis pipeline can be outlined with sample images highlighted to show the reader what is being scored. Is LAMP1 being scored as an LdLPV or do you require the DAPI signal within and LAMP1 compartment?

There is not very much said about the reticular morphology of the LAMP1 signal. Please add some notes on this in the early section of the results and comment on this morphology shift in the discussion. Is the LdLPV essentially the same as the Salmonella containing compartment you mention in the introduction? Please add a comment on this in the discussion.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Fig 6B If you look closely at the LAMP1 (green) in the CHMP4B in shCTRL there is a very scant red signal. Is this an artifact of image prep or was the image color separated in Photoshop? Please make sure the green is all green. You will have to zoom in and look carefully, but there is red there.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Sara Fresard

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

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

Decision Letter 2

Tracey J Lamb

2 Sep 2025

Dear Dr. Kima,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'A non-canonical activation of the host’s ESCRT machinery is required for the scission of parasitophorous vacuoles and the replication of Leishmania donovani' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

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 Pathogens.

Best regards,

Tracey J. Lamb

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Tracey Lamb

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

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

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Acceptance letter

Tracey J Lamb

Dear Dr. Kima,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "A non-canonical activation of the host’s ESCRT machinery is required for the scission of parasitophorous vacuoles and the replication of Leishmania donovani," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-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 (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, 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, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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

Best regards,

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. ESCRT components are not recruited to phagosomes that harbor inert particles.

    Recruitment of ESCRT components to generic phagosomes was determined by incubating transfected cells with latex beads. A representative image of a cell transfected with CHMP2B and a phagocytosed latex beads is shown. The proportion of phagosomes that displayed CHMP2B or CHMP4B is shown in the associated graphs. LAMP1 reactivity was used to delineate the vacuole of the LPV or latex bead phagosome. White arrow points to a latex bead.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013513.s001.tif (312.5KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. PI(4)P and PI(3,4)P2 are displayed on LdLPVs.

    THP-1 cells on coverslips were infected with L. donovani. After 48 hours coverslips were fixed and processed for immunofluorescence detection of phosphoinositides with antibodies to each phosphoinositide. Representative images of THP-1 cells infected for 48 hours are shown. These images are representative of two experiments.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013513.s002.tif (707.3KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Neither TSG101KD nor ALIXKD is cytotoxic to RAW264.7 cells.

    (A). Cytotoxicity was determined by monitoring LDH release from oligoclonal KD cells and from shCTRL. For the MTT proliferation assay, cells were seeded in 96-well plates, with 4 wells per cell line, and separate 96-well plates were used for each time point. (B) Proliferation was assessed using the MTT cell proliferation kit AR1156 (BOSTER). The results are from 2 experiments.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013513.s003.tif (126.8KB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Increased number of parasites per vacuole in ALIXKD cells.

    Infected cells on coverslips were fixed after 24, 48, and 72 hours of infection. Immunofluorescence labeling of LAMP-1 permitted detection of the contours of LPVs. Parasite nuclei were detected with DAPI. The number of parasites per LPV was counted at 24, 48, and 72 hours after infection. At least 100 LdLPVs were measured from each coverslip. Data was compiled from at least 3 experiments and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013513.s004.tif (126.6KB, tif)
    S5 Fig. Knockdown of VPS28 does not affect L. donovani infection of RAW264.7 macrophages.

    RAW264.7 cells were transfected with siRNA to VPS28 and plated in dishes with or without coverslips. Control cells were mock-transfected. Lysates were prepared from dishes without coverslips. Lysates were analyzed by Western blotting for VPS28 expression (A). Plot from the densitometric analysis is shown. B) Cover slips were infected with L. donovani parasites for 24, 48 or 72hs. Immunofluorescence labeling was performed to evaluate the infection. The number of parasites per macrophage in infected VPS28 KD cultures, as compared to infections in mock controls, was enumerated and plotted. Data was compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. C) LAMP1 labeling was performed to confirm LdLPVs. The LdLPV sizes in KD lines after 24, 48 and 72 hrs infection were measured and plotted. At least 100 LdLPV sizes were measured per coverslip. A one-way ANOVA was performed, and statistical significance was determined by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test. For western blotting validation, an unpaired student T test was performed for statistical analysis. Data were compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N.S, not significant.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013513.s005.tif (130.7KB, tif)
    S6 Fig. Knockdown of ALIX or TSG101 in THP-1 cells and evaluation of L. donovani infections.

    The TSG101 shRNA plasmid, Alix shRNA plasmid, and Control shRNA plasmid were transfected into THP-1 monocytes. Stably transfected cells were selected by growth in media supplemented with puromycin. Lysates from stable lines were analyzed in Western blots. A) Representative blots were probed for TSG101 or ALIX, and densitometric analysis of blots was plotted. B) The recruitment of CHPMP4B to LdLPVs in these cell lines was evaluated. Representative images of infected cells, labeled with CHMP4B (red), LAMP1 (green), and DAPI (blue), are shown. Also shown are the proportions of LdLPVs shCTRL, TSG101KD and ALIXKD that recruited CHMP4B. At least 100 LdLPVs were measured per coverslip, per time point, and treatment. C) The sizes of LdLPVs in shCTRL, TSG101KD, and ALIXKD were measured and plotted. At least 100 LdLPV sizes were measured per coverslip, per time point, and treatment. D) The number of parasites in infected shCTRL, TSG101KD, and ALIXKD were enumerated. At least 100 macrophages were counted per coverslip, treatment, and time point. A one-way ANOVA was performed, and statistical significance was determined by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test. For western blotting validation, an unpaired student T test was performed for statistical analysis. Data were compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N.S, not significant.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013513.s006.tif (619KB, tif)
    S7 Fig. A2 expression is sustained in shCTRL, TSG10KD and ALIXKD THP-1 cell lines.

    After the differentiation of THP-1 monocytes into macrophages, they were infected with infective metacyclic promastigote forms of L. donovani. At 24, 48, and 72 hrs post-infection, cells on coverslips were fixed and processed by immunofluorescence labeling for the detection of A2. At least 100 parasites were counted per coverslip, treatment, and time point. The percentage of parasites expressing A2 was compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. A one-way ANOVA was performed, and statistical significance was determined by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test. Data was compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N.S, not significant.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013513.s007.tif (185.1KB, tif)
    S8 Fig. Parasites recovered from infection retain their infectivity.

    L. donovani amastigotes were recovered from shCTRL TSG101KD and ALIXKD THP-1 cell lines after 72 hours of infection. The parasites were counted and then added to THP-1 macrophages on coverslips in 6-well plates at a 5:1 parasite-to-macrophage infection ratio. Infections were scored at 24, 48, and 72 hours of infection. At least 100 macrophages were counted per coverslip in cells infected with recovered parasites. A one-way ANOVA was performed, and statistical significance was determined by post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test. Data was compiled and graphed using GraphPad Prism 8 *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. N.S, not significant.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013513.s008.tif (178.7KB, tif)
    S1 Data. Supplemental data.

    Raw data used to generate figures in the manuscript.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1013513.s009.xlsx (22.7KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers for plos pathogens paper.doc

    ppat.1013513.s011.doc (804KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Respnose to Reviewers _ 2.docx

    ppat.1013513.s012.docx (54.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES