Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Nov 18;20(11):e0334754. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334754

In silico design of a multi-epitope vaccine against Cryptosporidium parvum using structural and immunoinformatics approaches

Guneswar Sethi 1, Avinash Kant Lakra 2, Kirti Nirmal 3, Jeong Ho Hwang 4,*
Editor: Rajesh Kumar Pathak5
PMCID: PMC12626319  PMID: 41252394

Abstract

Background

Cryptosporidium parvum is a waterborne protozoan parasite responsible for diarrheal illness in humans and animals. The lack of effective vaccines and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance underscore the urgent need for novel prophylactic strategies.

Methods

A structure-based immunoinformatics approach was used to design a multi-epitope subunit vaccine (MESV) targeting immunogenic regions of C. parvum. Three proteins, Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2, were selected based on antigenicity, non-allergenicity, non-homology with host proteins, and absence of transmembrane domains. B-cell, CD4+, CD8+, and IFN-γ-inducing epitopes were identified and screened for high antigenicity, non-allergenicity, and non-toxicity. To enhance immune recognition, the lipoprotein LprA, a TLR2 agonist, was fused at the N-terminus using an EAAAK linker, and a PADRE sequence was added to improve helper T-cell responses. Linkers were applied to ensure proper epitope separation and processing. Population coverage was analyzed to evaluate the distribution of HLA-restricted epitopes across global populations. Structural modeling and flexibility analysis (CABS-flex) were performed to assess construct stability. Interactions with TLR2 and TLR4 were examined via molecular docking and 100-ns molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, with MM-GBSA used to estimate binding free energies. Immune simulations predicted host immune responses, while codon optimization, in silico cloning, and mRNA secondary structure prediction assessed expression and transcript stability.

Results

The MESV showed strong binding to TLR2 (−1328.4 kcal/mol) and TLR4 (−1133.3 kcal/mol), with MD simulations confirming stable complexes. Immune simulations indicated robust antibody production, T-cell activation, cytokine release, and dendritic cell recruitment. The vaccine demonstrated global HLA population coverage of 95.92%, with favorable expression and mRNA folding profiles.

Conclusion

The MESV construct demonstrated strong immunogenicity, structural stability, and broad population coverage, underscoring its potential as a promising vaccine candidate against C. parvum. Furthermore, experimental validation is warranted to confirm its safety and efficacy.

1. Introduction

Cryptosporidium parvum is a protozoan parasite that causes cryptosporidiosis, a gastrointestinal disease characterized by acute diarrhea in both humans and animals [1]. The infection is particularly severe in immunocompromised individuals, such as those with HIV/AIDS, and in neonates, where it can lead to life-threatening dehydration and malnutrition [24]. In livestock, particularly neonatal calves, lambs, and goat kids, it causes significant economic losses due to high morbidity, mortality, and reduced growth performance [5]. Cryptosporidiosis is primarily transmitted through the fecal-oral route via the ingestion of oocysts from infected hosts. Contaminated water and food are common sources of infection [6]. Once ingested, oocysts release invasive sporozoites that attach to and invade the epithelial lining of the gastrointestinal tract. These sporozoites are enveloped in an actin-rich membrane that shields them from host immune defenses. The parasite completes its complex life cycle within the host, alternating between asexual and sexual replication, ultimately generating two forms of oocysts. Thick-walled oocysts are shed through feces and play a key role in spreading infection via the environment, whereas thin-walled oocysts remain inside the host and are responsible for self-infection, contributing to the chronic nature of the disease [6,7].

Cryptosporidium comprises over 44 species and 120 genotypes, with C. hominis and C. parvum being most commonly associated with human infections [8,9]. Beyond its impact on human health, Cryptosporidiosis is particularly common in cattle, with prevalence estimates ranging from 11.7% to 78%, especially in pre-weaned calves [1013]. In humans, prevalence differs across regions, reported at 14.1% in high-income countries and up to 31.5% in low-income regions [14,15]. The Global Enteric Multicenter Study (GEMS) underscored the severity of the disease, estimating nearly 202,000 child deaths annually in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia [16,17]. In the United States, outbreaks recorded between 2009 and 2017 were largely linked to contact with infected cattle and childcare facilities [18]. Moreover, from 2010 to 2020, C. parvum was responsible for over 96% of foodborne morbidity cases, highlighting its significance as both a public health challenge and an economic burden [19].

At present, management of cryptosporidiosis primarily involves supportive measures such as fluid and electrolyte replacement, together with the antiparasitic agent nitazoxanide. Although nitazoxanide remains the only FDA-approved therapy, its effectiveness is limited, showing only partial benefit in immunocompetent patients and little to no activity in immunocompromised individuals, including those with HIV/AIDS [20]. Other agents, such as paromomycin, azithromycin, and clofazimine, have been tested as potential alternatives, but their outcomes have been inconsistent and often inadequate [21]. Furthermore, nitazoxanide is limited by adverse effects such as gastrointestinal disturbances and headache, reducing tolerability and adherence [22]. Despite its global impact, there is currently no licensed vaccine available for the prevention of cryptosporidiosis in humans. These therapeutic limitations underscore the urgent need for preventive strategies, with vaccines representing the most promising approach. Given the mucosal nature of Cryptosporidium infection, an ideal vaccine should stimulate both mucosal and systemic immune responses. Although live attenuated vaccines can elicit robust immunity, their use is restricted due to safety concerns, especially in immunosuppressed individuals [23]. Consequently, subunit and epitope-based vaccines derived from immunodominant antigens are considered safer and more targeted. These approaches have gained attention because of their ability to elicit strong, specific immune responses while minimizing adverse effects [24,25].

However, vaccine development for protozoan parasites such as Cryptosporidium remains challenging due to their complex life cycles, antigenic variation, and ability to evade host immune responses. While several approaches have shown promise, no subunit or epitope-based vaccine has yet progressed to licensed formulations, underscoring the need for continued refinement and innovation. In response to these challenges, researchers have explored epitope-based vaccine designs specifically targeting C. parvum. Alvaro et al. have highlighted the immunodominance of the CpP2 antigen, suggesting its potential as a promising vaccine candidate [26]. Experimental studies have shown that Cp15 and Cp23 surface antigens induce strong humoral and mucosal immune responses, with Cp15-based DNA vaccination providing passive protection in neonatal animals [27,28]. Additionally, three novel vaccine candidates, Cp15, profilin, and Cryptosporidium apyrase, were identified by Manque et al. using a reverse vaccinology approach, leveraging genomic data from C. hominis and C. parvum to select antigens capable of eliciting strong immune responses [29]. Complementing these findings, Dhal et al. developed a multi-epitope based vaccine (MEV) by selecting two signal peptides and five hypothetical proteins from C. parvum, demonstrating the potential of subunit vaccine strategies [30]. Recently, in silico studies have proposed a combination of multiple epitopes from sporozoite surface proteins to design vaccines capable of eliciting cellular and humoral immunity.

Building on these insights and addressing the gaps in previous approaches, we employed a comprehensive immunoinformatics approach to design a novel MESV targeting C. parvum. B and T-cell epitopes were predicted from Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2 antigens and rigorously assessed for antigenicity, allergenicity, and physicochemical properties. We aimed to construct a vaccine capable of inducing strong cell-mediated, humoral, and innate immune responses while minimizing the risks associated with live or whole-parasite vaccines. This strategy provides a promising foundation for developing safe and effective vaccines against cryptosporidiosis.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sequence retrieval

The protein sequences of C. parvum Iowa II strain were retrieved in FASTA format from the UniProt database [31]. Three proteins, Cp15 (UniProt ID: Q23728), Cp23 (UniProt ID: Q8ITU5), and CpP2 (UniProt ID: Q9U553), were selected based on their immunogenicity, lack of allergenicity, and absence of transmembrane helices. The antigenicity of the proteins was assessed using VaxiJen v.2.0, with the threshold set to 0.5 [32]. The AllerCatPro 2.0 online tool was used to predict allergenicity based on structural and sequence similarity to known allergens [33]. To reduce the potential for inducing autoimmune reactions, the selected proteins were analyzed against the human proteome using BLASTp with default settings [34]. Additionally, the presence of transmembrane helices in the protein sequences was predicted using TMHMM 2.0 [35]. An overview of the MESV construction strategy is illustrated in Fig 1, and S1 Table details all databases, tools, and web servers used in the study.

Fig 1. Outline of the computational pipeline used for designing a multi-epitope vaccine against Cryptosporidium parvum.

Fig 1

2.2. Screening of potential epitopes

B-cell epitopes were predicted using ABCpred [36] and BepiPred-3.0 [37] servers. ABCpred applies machine learning based on non-repetitive epitopes from the Bcipep database and non-epitopes from Swiss-Prot, with a threshold of 0.85 and an accuracy of 65.93%. BepiPred-3.0 uses language model embeddings to improve prediction, with a default window length of 16 for better precision. HTL epitopes were predicted using the IEDB MHC II binding tool with the NetMHCIIpan 4.1 EL algorithm, which is known for its reliable performance [38,39]. The prediction was performed using an HLA allele panel covering 99% of the global population (S2 Table), prioritizing peptides with the lowest binding percentile ranks. We used IFNepitope [40] and IL4Pred servers [41] to assess immune activation to predict IFN-γ and interleukin (IL)-4 induction. These tools helped identify epitopes that are likely to trigger a strong immune response, which is crucial for vaccine development. CTL epitopes were predicted using the IEDB MHC-I server with the NETMHCpan 4.1 EL method and a representative panel of HLA alleles [42]. The selected epitopes were subsequently analyzed for their antigenic potential, allergenic properties, and toxicity using VaxiJen v.2.0, AllerCatPro 2.0 [33], and ToxinPred [43], respectively.

2.3. Vaccine construction and physicochemical properties

The MESV was designed by assembling carefully selected B-cell, CTL, and HTL epitopes, connected through appropriate linkers to support structural flexibility and functional independence. The selected epitopes demonstrated favorable properties, including strong antigenicity, immunogenicity, non-allergenicity, and non-toxicity. The lipoprotein LprA, a TLR2 agonist composed of 244 amino acids, was fused at the N-terminus via an EAAAK linker to boost immune recognition and enhance vaccine efficacy [44]. For optimal processing, CTL, HTL, and B-cell epitopes were joined using AAY, GPGPG, and KK linkers, respectively. These linkers were employed to preserve the epitope-specific activity, improve solubility, and promote proper folding of the vaccine construct. Additionally, the PADRE sequence and 6x His-tag were included to aid in protein expression and purification. The physicochemical properties of the MESV were analyzed using ProtParam [45]. Antigenicity was predicted using VaxiJen v.2.0, and allergenicity was assessed using AllerTop v.2.0. An additional antigenicity evaluation was performed using ANTIGENPro [42], and protein solubility was analyzed using the Protein-Sol server and SOLpro tool [46].

2.4. Structural analysis of vaccine

PSIPRED v4.0 [44] and GOR IV [45] servers were employed to analyze the secondary structure of the vaccine construct, both of which leverage neural network algorithms and information theory-based models. Tertiary structure modeling was performed using trRosetta, a deep learning-based tool built on the Rosetta framework, known for its accuracy in predicting complex protein conformations [47]. The model was refined using the GalaxyRefine2 web server to improve quality [48]. The quality of the final model was validated using a Ramachandran plot generated using PROCHECK, and further assessed using ProSA-web [49,50]. UCSF Chimera version 1.17.1 was employed to visualize the 3D structure and analyze the structural features of the vaccine [51].

2.5. CABS-flex analysis

CABS-flex 2.0 was used to perform coarse-grained simulations and analyze the structural flexibility of the peptide vaccine. The analysis was conducted over 50 cycles with 8335 RNG seeds. The analysis employed a temperature range of 1.40, 1.0 for the global side chain restraint, and 1.0 for the global C-alpha restraint. The AGGRESCAN 3D server v2.0 was used as a preliminary step in this investigation to identify aggregation-prone regions in the vaccine sequence [52,53].

2.6. Conformational prediction of B-cell epitopes

The ElliPro server was used to predict B-cell epitopes from the refined 3D vaccine structure [54]. It assigns an average Protrusion Index to each epitope, with a threshold of 0.9 for residues within 90% of the ellipsoid of the protein. The accuracy of ElliPro’s structure-based epitope prediction was supported by an area under the curve value of 0.732, highlighting its reliability.

2.7. Population coverage and conservancy analysis

Considering the variability of HLA alleles among different populations, it is essential to design a vaccine that ensures broad immunological coverage. The IEDB population coverage tool [55], operated with default parameters, was used to evaluate the global reach of the predicted CTL and HTL epitopes by analyzing their interaction with prevalent HLA genotypes across regions. To assess epitope conservation, protein sequences from various pathogenic strains were aligned using MEGA version 7.0 with default parameters [56]. Conserved regions within the predicted epitopes were visualized using WebLogo v3.7.9 [57], which generated sequence logos illustrating amino acid conservation and frequency patterns. WebLogo was operated using the default settings.

2.8. Molecular docking study

To evaluate binding affinity, molecular docking between the vaccine and human TLRs was performed. Interactions between TLR2 (PDB ID: 5D3I) and TLR4 (PDB ID: 4G8A) were analyzed using the ClusPro 2.0 web server [58]. The resulting 3D vaccine complexes with TLR2 and TLR4 were analyzed and visualized using UCSF Chimera 1.17.1 [51]. Furthermore, PDBsum was used to identify key binding residues and analyze the interaction patterns between the vaccine and receptors [59].

2.9. Molecular dynamics simulation and principal component analysis

After molecular docking, the top-ranked complex was subjected to molecular dynamics simulation (MDS) to refine and analyze the interaction between the vaccine candidate and receptor proteins. This step assessed structural stability, flexibility, and compactness of the docked complexes in a dynamic environment. GROMACS 2023 was used to perform the simulations, running for 100 ns in an aqueous medium to observe molecular behavior over time [60]. The GROMOS96a force field was used to generate the required parameters for both complexes, which were then solvated in an SPC water box with a 2 Å padding to ensure proper solvation. Energy minimization was performed using the steepest descent algorithm for 100 ps to remove steric clashes. Subsequently, equilibration was conducted in two phases: first under NVT, followed by NPT, each for 100 ps at 300 K and a pressure of 1 bar. The long-range electrostatic and van der Waals forces were computed using the Particle-Mesh Ewald approach with a cutoff distance of 1 nm. Constraints were applied to maintain bond lengths and water geometry, ensuring system stability. The system temperature and pressure were controlled by applying the Berendsen thermal coupling method and the Parrinello-Rahman pressure regulation algorithm, respectively [61]. The simulation was performed under periodic boundary conditions along XYZ coordinates to prevent artifacts from interfering with the results. Post-simulation analyses were performed using the GROMACS modules [60], with structural changes and fluctuations visualized through plots and graphs generated using Xmgrace. PCA was performed using the gmx covar tool in GROMACS to examine the collective motion of the protein complexes. PCA helps identify dominant motion trends by analyzing eigenvectors and eigenvalues. The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2), which represented the most significant and independent movements, were selected for further evaluation of both simulated systems. The MM/GBSA method was applied to estimate the binding affinities using the HawkDock server [62]. This approach allowed for quantitative evaluation of the interaction strength and stability between the vaccine construct and receptor proteins, thereby supporting the outcomes of the docking and simulation studies.

2.10. Host-immune system simulation

The immunogenic potential of the designed vaccine construct was computationally evaluated using the C-ImmSim server [63], which simulates mammalian immune responses by integrating machine learning techniques with position-specific scoring matrices and agent-based modeling. While most parameters were kept at the default settings, modifications were made in Steps 1, 84, and 170 to optimize the analysis. Three doses were given at four-week intervals to mimic real-world vaccine administration protocols and ensure an optimal immune response according to standard vaccination guidelines. After simulation, the Simpson Index (D) was calculated to assess immune diversity and evaluate the strength of the vaccine-induced response.

2.11. Codon adaptation and in silico cloning

To enhance the expression of the vaccine construct in the prokaryotic host system, codon adaptation was performed by optimizing the DNA sequence to align it with the codon usage of Escherichia coli strain K12. The Java Codon Adaptation Tool (JCat) was used to analyze codon optimization and assess the correlation between codon usage and gene expression [64,65]. The Codon Adaptation Index (CAI) and GC content were calculated to ensure that the GC content remained within the optimal range of 30–70% for efficient expression. XhoI and BamHI restriction sites were incorporated at the optimized sequence’s 5’ and 3’ ends to facilitate cloning. The modified nucleotide sequence was inserted into the E. coli expression vector pET-28a (+) using the SnapGene restriction cloning module.

2.12. mRNA structure prediction

RNA secondary structure prediction for the MESV was performed using the RNAfold web server [66], which estimates the most thermodynamically stable configuration by computing base-pairing probabilities and the corresponding minimum free energy (ΔG). The prediction process is grounded in the Zuker-Stiegler dynamic programming algorithm, a widely accepted method for accurate minimum free energy (MFE)-based RNA folding simulations.

3. Results

3.1. Protein sequence retrieval

Cryptosporidium parvum Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2 protein sequences were obtained from the UniProt database in FASTA format. Antigenicity analysis using VaxiJen v2.0 indicated that all three proteins had scores above the 0.5 threshold, suggesting a strong potential to elicit an immune response, with Cp23 displaying the highest antigenic score (Table 1). Allergenicity evaluation via AllerCatPro 2.0 predicted all selected proteins to be non-allergenic. Furthermore, BLASTp comparison with the human proteome revealed no significant sequence similarity, minimizing the likelihood of autoimmune reactions. Using TMHMM 2.0, the analysis showed that absence of transmembrane helices in all prioritized proteins (S1 Fig). Collectively, these characteristics supported the selection of these proteins as suitable candidates for subsequent MESV development.

Table 1. Characterization of the three prioritized proteins based on antigenicity, non-homology, molecular weight, and number of transmembrane helices.

Si. No. Protein name UniProt ID TM helices Antigenicity Allergenicity Non-homologous
1 Cp15 Q23728 0 0.5817 Non-allergen
2 Cp23 Q8ITU5 0 0.7562 Non-allergen
3 CpP2 Q9U553 0 0.5207 Non-allergen

3.2. Epitope prediction

B-cell receptors are vital for vaccine efficacy because they initiate antibody production upon recognizing immunogenic epitopes. This triggers B-cell differentiation into plasma cells, which produce antibodies during primary responses, and memory cells, which respond rapidly during subsequent infections [67]. B-cell epitopes were predicted using ABCpred and BepiPred 3.0 servers, with one high-scoring epitope selected from each protein. The predicted antigenic regions are shown in S2 Fig. Table 2 shows the selected epitopes along with their amino acid sequences, positions, and lengths.

Table 2. B-cell epitopes prediction for the input Cryptosporidium parvum protein sequences using the ABCpred server.

Si. No Protein name Sequence Start position Score Antigenicity Allergenicity Toxicity
1 CP15 PVAVRTHLRNMVILPE 51 0.88 1.02 Non-allergen Non-toxic
2 CP23 QKPEEPKKSEPASNNP 50 0.89 1.04 Non-allergen Non-toxic
3 CpP2 AVSGGAAAASGAAQDS 73 0.88 1.53 Non-allergen Non-toxic

HTL epitopes were predicted for each of the three selected proteins using the IEDB MHC II binding prediction tool. To support the MESV construction, the top three epitopes per protein were selected based on their low percentile scores, indicating robust binding affinities to MHC class II alleles. Epitopes with the lowest consensus values were prioritized as leading candidates (Table 3). Upon presentation by antigen-presenting cells, naïve CD4+ T cells differentiate into Th1 or Th2 subsets, which orchestrate cellular and humoral immunity, respectively. Th1 differentiation is associated with the secretion of IFN-γ, a cytokine critical for the clearance of intracellular pathogens through macrophage activation. All identified HTL epitopes were predicted to elicit IFN-γ responses, implying their potential to drive effective cell-mediated immunity. Furthermore, using the IL4Pred tool, these epitopes were classified as IL-4 inducers, suggesting an additional capacity to enhance Th2-type humoral responses [68].

Table 3. Selected HTL epitopes from Cryptosporidium parvum proteins, with predictions for toxicity, antigenicity, allergenicity, IFN-γ and IL-4 production stimulation.

Si. No Allele Epitope Percentile rank Antigenicity Allergenicity Toxicity IFN-γ inducer IL-4
inducer
1 HLA-DPA1*01:03/DPB1*02:01 AGVYNGKTYVTVEIK 0.04 1.08 Non-allergen Non-toxic Positive Positive
2 HLA-DRB1*11:01 KAQLAKAVKNPAPIS 0.60 0.61 Non-allergen Non-toxic Positive Positive
3 HLA-DRB3*02:02 DVLISNMSGKLSHEV 2 1/02 Non-allergen Non-toxic Positive Positive

CTLs recognize antigens present on MHC class I molecules and eliminate the infected cells by releasing perforin, granulysin, and granzymes, thereby providing protection against pathogens [69]. Nine CTL epitopes were selected based on their highest prediction scores, three each from Cp15 (KPVAVRTHL, TAAFIAKLR, and SVAGVYNGK), Cp23 (APQDKPAEA, APAAQAPPA, and NPAPISNQA), and CpP2 (EEGDLGFSLF, AAQDSAPAEK, and AVSGGAAAA) (Table 4). Additionally, all predicted epitopes, including three B-cells, three HTL, and nine CTL candidates, were assessed for potential toxicity using the ToxinPred tool. All epitopes were predicted to be non-toxic, supporting their suitability for inclusion in the MESV.

Table 4. Prediction of CTL epitopes from input Cryptosporidium parvum protein sequences using NetCTL-1.2, alongside antigenicity, allergenicity, and toxicity assessments.

Protein name Epitope HLA class I supertypes Antigenicity Allergenicity Toxicity
CP15 KPVAVRTHL HLA-B*07:02, HLA-B*08:01, HLA-B*53:01, HLA-B*51:01, HLA-B*35:01 1.02 Non-allergen Non-toxic
TAAFIAKLR HLA-A*68:01, HLA-A*33:01, HLA-A*11:01, HLA-A*26:01, HLA-A*68:02 0.66 Non-allergen Non-toxic
SVAGVYNGK HLA-A*68:01, HLA-A*11:01, HLA-A*03:01, HLA-A*30:01, HLA-A*31:01 0.87 Non-allergen Non-toxic
CP23 APQDKPAEA HLA-B*07:02, HLA-B*08:01, HLA-B*51:01, HLA-B*35:01, HLA-B*53:01 0.86 Non-allergen Non-toxic
APAAQAPPA HLA-B*07:02, HLA-B*35:01, HLA-B*51:01, HLA-B*08:01, HLA-B*53:01 0.81 Non-allergen Non-toxic
NPAPISNQA HLA-B*35:01, HLA-B*07:02, HLA-A*68:02, HLA-B*53:01, HLA-B*08:01 0.57 Non-allergen Non-toxic
CpP2 EEGDLGFSLF HLA-B*44:03, HLA-B*44:02, HLA-B*40:01, HLA-A*01:01, HLA-B*15:01 0.92 Non-allergen Non-toxic
AAQDSAPAEK HLA-A*11:01, HLA-A*30:01, HLA-A*03:01, HLA-A*68:01, HLA-A*01:01 0.74 Non-allergen Non-toxic
AVSGGAAAA HLA-A*02:03, HLA-A*02:06, HLA-A*68:02, HLA-A*30:01, HLA-B*07:02 1.21 Non-allergen Non-toxic

3.3. Subunit vaccine construction and validation

To construct the MESV, KK, AAY, and GPGPG linkers were used to link the identified B-cell (3), CTL (9), and HTL (3) epitopes, respectively. These linkers enhance structural flexibility and ensure the appropriate separation of functional domains for proper folding and immune processing. An EAAK linker was used to incorporate the adjuvant lipoprotein LprA, a known TLR2 agonist, at the N-terminus of the construct with the aim of enhancing the immunogenicity of the vaccine. A 6 × His-tag was appended to the C-terminus to facilitate downstream purification via affinity chromatography. The final vaccine construct comprised 450 amino acids, including the adjuvant, epitope, linker, and His-tag (Fig 2A).

Fig 2. Design and solubility assessment of the vaccine construct.

Fig 2

(A) Schematic illustration showing the key elements incorporated into the final vaccine sequence. (B) Graph displaying variation from population norms across 35 parameters, including regional charge and amino acid folding tendencies. (C) Solubility analysis of the vaccine candidate using the Protein-Sol server, benchmarked against average values from reference datasets.

The physicochemical properties were computed using the ProtParam server. The estimated molecular weight of the vaccine was 46.94 kDa, and the estimated half-life was 30h, > 20h, and> 10h in mammalian reticulocytes (in vitro), yeast (in vivo), and E. coli (in vivo), respectively. The produced vaccine had a theoretical pI of 9.42, indicating the basic nature of the protein. The high aliphatic index of 76.73 and instability index of 39.71 of the vaccine verified its thermal and conformational stability, respectively. The calculated GRAVY value of −0.106 indicates that the produced vaccine is hydrophilic (Table 5). Additionally, solubility scores of 0.512 and 0.804 were obtained for the vaccine construct using Protein-Sol and SOLpro servers, respectively (Fig 2B, 2C).

Table 5. The physicochemical properties of the vaccine construct are predicted using the ExPASy Protparam tool.

Physicochemical properties of vaccine Values Comment
Number of amino acids 450 Appropriate
Molecular weight 46.94 kDa Appropriate
Theoretical pI 9.42 Basic
Total number of negatively charged residues (Asp + Glu) 49
Total number of positively charged residues (Arg + Lys) 62
Total number of atoms 6629
Instability index 39.71 Stable
Aliphatic Index 76.73 Thermostable
Grand Average of Hydropathicity (GRAVY) −0.106 Hydrophilic
Antigenicity (VaxiJen) 0.6617 Antigenic
Antigenicity (ANTIGENpro) 0.8551 Antigenic
Allergenicity (AllerTOP) Non-allergen Non-allergenic
Solubility (Protein_Sol) 0.607 Soluble
Solubility (SOLPro) 0.8049 Soluble

3.4. Structure, CABS-flex, and discontinuous antibody prediction

Secondary structure analysis using the GOR IV server revealed that the vaccine construct was comprised of 64.67% alpha-helices (291 residues), 32% random coils (144 residues), and 3.33% extended strands (15 residues). Graphical representations of the predicted secondary structures generated by both the PSIPRED and GOR IV servers are shown in Fig 3A, 3B. The initial 3D structure of the MESV construct was predicted using the trRosetta server (Fig 3C). Structural refinement was performed to improve model quality, and validation was conducted using Ramachandran plot analysis. Fig 3D and 3E illustrate the structural validation results before and after refinement, respectively. Post-refinement analysis showed that 93.8% of the amino acid residues were positioned within the most favorable regions of the Ramachandran plot, indicating a reliable and stereochemically stable model. Additionally, the ProSA-web tool assessed the overall model quality, with the Z-score improving from −8.83 in the initial structure to −7.05 after refinement, suggesting enhanced structural accuracy (Fig 3F, 3G).

Fig 3. Predicted structure and validation of the vaccine construct.

Fig 3

(A) Secondary structure prediction generated using the PSIPRED server. (B) Secondary structure prediction from the GOR IV server. (C) Predicted three-dimensional structure of the multi-epitope subunit vaccine. (D) and (E) Ramachandran plots illustrating the distribution of amino acid residues in favored, allowed, and disallowed regions before and after refinement. (F) and (G) Z-score analysis of vaccine models before and after refinement.

CABS-flex and AGGRESCAN analyses were performed to assess the flexibility and aggregation-prone regions. The CABS-flex simulation generated ten structural models, highlighting the dynamic behavior of the vaccine protein (S3A Fig). AGGRESCAN analysis identified aggregation-prone regions within the construct, where residues with positive scores were considered prone to aggregation, whereas those with scores below zero were predicted to be soluble (S3B Fig). Among the CABS-flex models, residue 315 exhibited the highest root mean square fluctuation (RMSF) of 4.762 Å, indicating high flexibility. In contrast, residue 77 had the lowest RMSF of 1.0140 Å, reflecting structural stability in that region (S3C Fig). Furthermore, B-cell epitope prediction using the ElliPro server revealed eight linear and nine conformational epitopes, indicating surface-exposed regions of the MESV construct with the potential for antibody recognition (Fig 4 and S3 and S4 Tables).

Fig 4. Predicted conformational B-cell epitopes of the final vaccine model by the ElliPro tool. (A–H) The ElliPro tool identified nine conformational (discontinuous) antibody epitopes highlighted in yellow within the 3D structure.

Fig 4

3.5. Global population coverage and epitope conservation

Due to the high degree of polymorphism of MHC molecules, the distribution of HLA alleles varies across ethnic groups. This diversity limits the proportion of individuals in a population that can respond to specific T cell epitopes. Consequently, a peptide that acts as an epitope in one population may not be effective in another. To address this, the study aimed to identify T cell epitopes capable of binding to multiple HLA supertypes to ensure broader population coverage. The population coverage analysis, summarized in S5 Table, included 16 global regions. Europe had the highest coverage (98.91%), whereas Central Africa had the lowest coverage (70.09%) (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Global population coverage based on the selected CTL and HTL epitopes.

Fig 5

The x-axis indicates the overall population coverage, incorporating both HLA class I and II alleles, while the y-axis lists the corresponding countries.

Conservation analysis was performed on epitopes from CP15, CP23, and CpP2 proteins using MEGA v7.0. In CP15, all epitopes (B-cell, HTL, CTL2, and CTL3) were fully conserved, except for CTL1 (KPVAVRTHL), which showed 97.22% conservation. For CP23, the B-cell, HTL, and CTL3 epitopes were 100% conserved, whereas CTL1 (APQDKPAEA) and CTL2 (APAAQAPPA) were 94.44% conserved. All CpP2 epitopes were fully conserved, except for the B-cell epitope (AVSGGAAAASGAAQDS), which showed 97.92% conservation. Sequence logos confirmed the high conservation of most epitopes across strains (S4 Fig). These findings highlight the predominance of highly conserved epitopes, supporting their selection for inclusion in the MESV construct and underscoring their potential for broad-spectrum immune-protection.

3.6. Docking, dynamics simulation, and PCA analysis

Molecular docking was performed to evaluate the interaction between MESV and the immune receptors TLR2 and TLR4, both of which play critical roles in recognizing C. parvum and initiating innate immune responses. For each receptor, 16 docked models were generated, and the complex with the lowest energy score was selected for further analysis. The docking results showed that the vaccine had a stronger binding affinity with TLR2 (−1328.4 kcal/mol) compared with TLR4 (−1133.3 kcal/mol), suggesting a more energetically stable interaction with TLR2. However, interaction profiling revealed that the TLR4-vaccine complex formed more stabilizing contacts, including 36 hydrogen bonds and seven salt bridges, along with 270 non-bonded interactions. In contrast, the TLR2-vaccine complex displayed 13 hydrogen bonds and 168 non-bonded contacts without any salt bridges. These findings indicate that while the TLR2 complex is energetically more favorable, the TLR4 complex may benefit from a higher number of stabilizing interactions, underscoring the vaccine’s ability to effectively engage both immune receptors (Fig 6A, 6B).

Fig 6. Molecular docking analysis of the vaccine construct with immune receptors TLR2 and TLR4.

Fig 6

(A) Visualization of the docked vaccine-TLR2 complex in cartoon format, with interaction details between TLR2 (chain A) and the vaccine (chain B) generated using LigPlot. (B) Structural representation of the vaccine-TLR4 complex created in UCSF Chimera, highlighting the bonding interactions between TLR4 (chain A) and the vaccine construct (chain B).

To assess the structural stability and dynamic behavior of the MESV-receptor complexes, 100 ns MDS was performed for both the vaccine-TLR2 and vaccine-TLR4 systems. For the vaccine-TLR2 complex, the RMSD trajectory began with a deviation of 0.2 nm and gradually increased until 65 ns, after which it stabilized, with fluctuations remaining within a 1.5 nm range. These limited deviations indicated that the complex achieved a stable conformation during the simulation, with persistent receptor–ligand interactions (Fig 7A). The RMSF analysis revealed moderate fluctuations among the receptor residues (0.23–0.5 nm) and higher flexibility in the vaccine component (0.48–0.85 nm), suggesting dynamic regions in the antigenic structure (Fig 7B). Rg analysis showed an average value of ~4.05 nm2, indicating the compactness and structural integrity of the complex over time (Fig 7C). On average, the vaccine-TLR2 complex maintained approximately 10 hydrogen bonds throughout the simulation (S5B Fig). The vaccine-TLR4 complex exhibited an initial RMSD of 0.25 nm, which rose steadily until 30 ns and stabilized thereafter at approximately 0.75 nm for the remainder of the 100 ns simulation, reflecting structural equilibrium (Fig 7D). RMSF revealed minor fluctuations (0.2–0.25 nm) and higher flexibility in MESV (0.55–0.8 nm) (Fig 7E). The mean Rg was ~ 3.40 nm2, indicating a tightly packed and stable structure (Fig 7F). Similarly, ~ 10 hydrogen bonds were sustained on average (S5D Fig). Solvent-accessible surface area (SASA) analysis indicated an initial decrease in both complexes, suggesting hydrophilic residue burial followed by stabilization. The TLR2 complex showed an average SASA of 460 nm2, whereas the TLR4 complex averaged a slightly higher SASA at 475 nm2 (S5A, S5C Fig), reflecting consistent solvent interactions throughout the simulation.

Fig 7. Molecular dynamics simulation analysis of vaccine–receptor complexes.

Fig 7

(A) RMSD plot showing structural stability of the docked complex with TLR2. (B) RMSF plot depicting residue-level flexibility within the same complex. (C) The radius of gyration (Rg) plot represents the compactness of the construct and TLR2 during the simulation. (D) RMSD plot assessing the stability of the complex with TLR4. (E) RMSF analysis highlighting residue fluctuations in the TLR4-bound system. (F) Rg plot illustrating the structural compactness of the vaccine and TLR4 throughout the simulation.

PCA was performed to examine the dominant collective motion within MESV-receptor complexes. The eigenvalue (elbow) plot (Fig 8A) shows that the first two principal components capture the most significant dynamic behavior. The projection of MD trajectories onto PC1 and PC2 (Fig 8B) revealed distinct motion patterns. The TLR2-bound complex (black points) formed a compact cluster, indicating limited conformational variability, whereas the TLR4-bound complex (red points) appeared to be more dispersed, reflecting increased structural flexibility.

Fig 8. Principal component analysis and binding energy decomposition of TLR2 and TLR4 complexes. (A) Displacement of Cα atoms along the first two principal components, illustrating dominant motions in the complex systems.

Fig 8

(B) A 2D projection of conformational space along eigenvectors 1 and 2 shows dynamic fluctuations for TLR2 and TLR4 interactions. (C) MM/GBSA per-residue energy decomposition for the TLR2 complex, identifying key contributors to binding affinity. (D) Binding energy profile for the TLR4 complex, highlighting residue-level contributions. Key interacting residues are marked in blue.

The binding free energy calculations using the MM/GBSA method supported these observations. The MESV-TLR2 complex exhibited a more favorable binding energy of –150.56 kcal/mol, compared with –143.39 kcal/mol for the MESV-TLR4 complex, suggesting stronger and more stable interactions with TLR2. Per-residue energy decomposition further identified key stabilizing residues contributing to binding in both complexes (Fig 8C, 8D), highlighting the molecular basis of receptor engagement and reinforcing the findings of the dynamic and energetic analyses.

3.7. Immune simulation

The simulation results illustrated the potent activation of both humoral and cellular immune responses following vaccine administration (Fig 9). The primary response begins with a characteristic increase in IgM antibody levels shortly after antigen exposure, indicating the activation of naïve B-cells. This was followed by a robust secondary response, marked by elevated concentrations of IgG1, IgM, and combined IgM + IgG and IgG1 + IgG2 antibodies, indicating effective class switching and memory B-cell activation (Fig 9A, 9B). Continuous stimulation leads to enhanced B-cell proliferation, a hallmark of a long-term adaptive immune response. In parallel, a notable increase in CTLs and HTLs was observed (Fig 9C, 9D), suggesting that the capability of the vaccines to stimulate cellular immunity is essential for targeting intracellular pathogens such as C. parvum. The vaccine also induced a strong cytokine response, especially increased secretion of IFN-γ, TGF-β, IL-2, IL-10, and IL-12, which are crucial for activating macrophages and sustaining T-cell proliferation (Fig 9E). Clonal diversity analysis based on the Simpson Index (D) reflected a broad and specific immune repertoire, confirming efficient antigen presentation and T/B-cell clonal expansion. Dendritic cells (DCs) play a pivotal role in initiating immune cascades. Following immunization, resting DC counts increased from baseline (~150 cells/mm3) to approximately 200 cells/mm3, alongside a moderate rise in antigen-presenting DC subsets (Fig 9F), suggesting effective antigen uptake and presentation. Collectively, these findings indicate that the designed vaccine construct elicited a strong and sustained immune response against C. parvum, engaging both innate and adaptive immune components essential for protective immunity.

Fig 9. Immune response simulation of the designed vaccine using the C-ImmSim server.

Fig 9

(A) Simulated immunoglobulin levels following antigen exposure, with distinct peaks representing various antibody isotypes. (B) Activation and proliferation of B-cell populations post-immunization. (C) Induction of cytotoxic T lymphocytes in response to the vaccine construct. (D) Expansion of helper T-cell populations throughout the simulation. (E) Cytokine release profile, highlighting IL-2 levels, accompanied by the Simpson Index [D] to assess immune diversity. (F) Dynamics of dendritic cell populations across different maturation states.

3.8. In silico cloning

To ensure efficient expression in E. coli K12, the MESV sequence was codon optimized, yielding a GC content of 53.11% and CAI of 0.972, both indicating strong expression potential. XhoI and BamHI restriction sites were added at the 5′ and 3′ ends of the optimized sequence to facilitate directional cloning. The gene was inserted into the pET-28a (+) vector, which enabled high-level expression via the T7 promoter and simplifies purification through a 6 × His tag. The final recombinant plasmid measured 6,685 bp, including a 1,350 bp MESV insert. SnapGene simulations confirmed successful gene integration and plasmid integrity (Fig 10).

Fig 10. In silico integration of the vaccine construct into the pET-28a (+) expression system.

Fig 10

The designed vaccine sequence (highlighted in red) was computationally inserted between the XhoI and BamHI restriction sites of the pET-28a (+) vector (black) to facilitate expression in a prokaryotic host.

3.9. MESV mRNA structure prediction

Prediction of the mRNA secondary structure based on the codon-optimized vaccine sequence yielded two representative conformations, the MFE structure and the centroid structure. The MFE structure demonstrated a highly stable configuration with a free energy value of −430.30 kcal/mol (Fig 11A), while the centroid structure exhibited a slightly higher free energy of −312.42 kcal/mol (Fig 11B). Lower energy values indicate greater thermodynamic stability, which is critical for protecting the mRNA from enzymatic degradation and maintaining its structural integrity within the host.

Fig 11. mRNA secondary structure prediction of the designed vaccine using RNAfold.

Fig 11

(A) Optimal secondary structure corresponding to the minimum free energy. (B) Centroid structure representing the most probable base-pairing configuration.

4. Discussion

Cryptosporidiosis, which is primarily caused by C. parvum, remains a major public health concern, particularly among immunocompromised individuals and children in developing regions. The clinical manifestations of infection include acute and chronic diarrhea, with downstream effects such as malnutrition, impaired growth, and cognitive deficits [23]. Despite decades of research, no licensed vaccine is currently available for human use, and existing pharmacological treatments, such as nitazoxanide, exhibit limited efficacy in immunocompromised hosts [22,70]. These challenges underscore the need for novel, durable, broad-spectrum prophylactic strategies. Additionally, the emergence of drug resistance and the lack of cross-protective immunity against diverse Cryptosporidium strains further highlight the necessity of vaccine-based interventions. Immunoinformatic approaches have already been applied in MESV development against various parasitic pathogens such as Plasmodium falciparum [71,72], Leishmania donovani [73,74], Fasciolopsis buski [75], and Toxoplasma gondii [76], demonstrating promising preclinical outcomes and reinforcing the rationale for this strategy.

In this study, we designed a MESV against C. parvum using a comprehensive immunoinformatics pipeline. Candidate epitopes were selected based on antigenicity, immunogenicity, and conservancy, focusing on experimentally validated antigens such as Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2, which play essential roles in parasite invasion and host immune recognition [2628]. To ensure effective antigen presentation, CTL, HTL, and B-cell epitopes were connected using chosen linkers. The AAY linker enhances CTL epitope processing through proteasomal cleavage, GPGPG promotes HTL responses while minimizing junctional immunogenicity, and KK facilitates B-cell epitope presentation and MHC-II processing [7779]. These design strategies collectively aim to maximize proper protein folding, epitope accessibility, and overall immunogenicity. The vaccine construct was predicted to induce IFN-γ, a key cytokine mediating Th1 responses critical for controlling intracellular C. parvum infection, supporting both cellular and humoral immunity [80]. Additionally, lipoprotein LprA from Mycobacterium tuberculosis was incorporated as an adjuvant at the N-terminus using an EAAAK linker, which provides a rigid α-helical separation between the adjuvant and epitopes, improving structural stability and functional domain presentation [81]. LprA enhances TLR2 signaling, dendritic cell maturation, and Th1-type immune responses [82], further promoting IFN-γ-driven control of the parasite [83]. Incorporation of these elements aimed to balance humoral and cellular immunity, a crucial factor for durable protection. Computational analyses confirmed that the MESV was antigenic, non-allergenic, non-toxic, and structurally stable. Aggrescan and CABS-flex analyses identified regions prone to aggregation, providing insights for solubility optimization [84]. Structural validation using Ramachandran plots supported stereochemical correctness, while docking studies showed strong binding affinities of MESV with TLR2 and TLR4, suggesting effective engagement of innate immune receptors [8587]. MD simulations over 100 ns further demonstrated conformational stability, consistent with experimental findings that TLR2 and TLR4 are upregulated during C. parvum infection to initiate protective NF-κB–mediated immune responses [88,89]. Together, these results strengthen the likelihood of efficient receptor recognition and downstream signaling.

A key strength of this study is its methodological advancement over the MESV design reported by Dhal et al., which relied primarily on signal and hypothetical proteins and lacked rigorous structural and energetic validations. This was achieved by incorporating experimentally verified antigens and performing PCA and MM-GBSA analyses to capture dynamic stability and binding energetics. Moreover, we employed a comprehensive global population coverage analysis across 16 regions, enhancing the potential applicability of our design. The MESV construct demonstrated a potential global population coverage of 95.92%, thus highlighting its broad applicability and relevance across ethnic and geographical groups. Moreover, the prediction of the mRNA secondary structure of the MESV constructs offers an important perspective on their translational efficiency and stability, which is essential for practical vaccine development. Collectively, these analyses provide not only structural validation but also translational relevance, informing potential downstream vaccine development strategies. The in silico immune simulation predicted robust primary and secondary immune responses, with sustained levels of B cells, memory T cells, and elevated cytokine titers, particularly IFN-γ, TGF-β, IL-2, IL-10, and IL-12. These results suggest that the vaccine can induce both humoral and cell-mediated immunity, which is essential for protection against cryptosporidiosis. Codon optimization for expression in E. coli K12 demonstrated high CAI and optimal GC content, suggesting efficient transcriptional and translational expression in bacterial systems. This supports the feasibility of large-scale production of recombinant vaccines. Although experimental validation has not yet been performed, in silico cloning serves as a preliminary assessment of recombinant expression feasibility, facilitating downstream laboratory production and reducing trial-and-error during the early stages of vaccine development.

The present findings support the rationale for multi-epitope vaccine strategies against parasitic infections, highlighting their potential translational value. Despite these encouraging results, several limitations remain. In silico approaches enable rapid epitope identification, reduce dependence on pathogen cultivation, and lower early-phase development costs [90]. However, they cannot fully replicate host–pathogen complexity, predict post-translational modifications, or capture in vivo immunogenicity and potential off-target effects [91]. Thus, the in silico findings must be interpreted cautiously and complemented with in vitro and in vivo studies to confirm protective efficacy and safety. Furthermore, the antigenic diversity of C. parvum across different regions necessitates evaluation of cross-protection. Finally, exploring alternative adjuvants and delivery platforms may further enhance the immunogenicity and stability of the construct.

5. Conclusion

Cryptosporidiosis continues to pose a serious threat to global health, particularly in vulnerable populations, where treatment options remain limited. To address this, we employed a robust immunoinformatic framework to design MESV against C. parvum using epitopes derived from key surfaces and invasion-associated antigens (Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2). The inclusion of the TLR2-targeting adjuvant LprA was aimed at enhancing dendritic cell activation and promoting Th1-mediated responses, which are crucial for intracellular pathogen clearance. The MESV construct demonstrated favorable antigenicity, stability, and non-allergenicity, making it a viable candidate for further exploration.

Docking, MDS, and PCA confirmed stable interactions with the innate immune receptors, TLR2 and TLR4, supporting the potential of the vaccine to initiate robust receptor-mediated immune responses. Additionally, in silico immune simulations predicted a balanced Th1/Th2 response characterized by elevated IFN-γ and IL-4 levels. Codon optimization also supported efficient expression in E. coli, thereby enhancing its feasibility for large-scale production. Although these computational findings are encouraging, empirical validation using in vitro and in vivo studies is essential to confirm their immunogenicity and protective efficacy. Overall, this study provides a strong foundation for the development of an effective MESV against C. parvum and supports its progression toward experimental evaluation.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Predicted transmembrane helices of the targeted proteins, determined using the TMHMM v2.0.

(A) Cp15, (B) Cp23, and (C) CpP2. The x-axis represents the amino acid position in the sequence, and the y-axis indicates the probability of a transmembrane helix at that position.

(JPG)

pone.0334754.s001.jpg (112.7KB, jpg)
S2 Fig. Predicted B-cell epitopes of the selected Cryptosporidium parvum proteins, identified using the BepiPred 3.0 server.

(A) Cp15, (B) Cp23, and (C) CpP2. The Y-axis indicates the epitope prediction score, and the X-axis represents the amino acid position within each protein. Regions above the threshold line represent predicted linear B-cell epitopes.

(TIF)

pone.0334754.s002.tif (989.4KB, tif)
S3 Fig

(A) Predicted structural models generated through CABS-flex analysis. (B) AGGRESCAN output showing residues with scores greater than zero, indicating their propensity for aggregation. (C) Flexibility profile from CABS-flex, where residue fluctuations are represented as RMSF values.

(TIF)

pone.0334754.s003.tif (838.5KB, tif)
S4 Fig. Epitope conservation analysis.

Sequence logo visualization of predicted epitopes from (A) Cp15, (B) Cp23, and (C) CpP2 proteins. The x-axis denotes the position of amino acids within the epitope sequences, while the y-axis shows the relative frequency of each residue at those positions. The overall height of each letter stack indicates the degree of conservation, with taller stacks representing higher conservation across aligned sequences.

(TIF)

pone.0334754.s004.tif (704.6KB, tif)
S5 Fig. Solvent-accessible surface area (SASA) and hydrogen bond (Hb) analyses of vaccine–receptor complexes.

(A) SASA plot of the vaccine–TLR2 complex (black); (B) Hb plot of the vaccine–TLR2 complex (black); (C) SASA plot of the vaccine–TLR4 complex (black); (D) Hb plot of the vaccine–TLR4 complex (purple).

(TIF)

pone.0334754.s005.tif (660.9KB, tif)
S1 Table. Overview of databases and web-based tools employed in the design of a multi-epitope subunit vaccine against C. parvum.

(DOCX)

pone.0334754.s006.docx (18.7KB, docx)
S2 Table. Selected HLA allele reference set of MHC-II using the IEDB server.

(DOCX)

pone.0334754.s007.docx (14.6KB, docx)
S3 Table. Prediction of linear (continuous) antibody epitopes using the ElliPro server.

(DOCX)

pone.0334754.s008.docx (15.4KB, docx)
S4 Table. ElliPro-based prediction of conformational (discontinuous) antibody epitopes.

(DOCX)

pone.0334754.s009.docx (15.7KB, docx)
S5 Table. Worldwide population coverage assessment of the chosen HTL and CTL epitopes.

(DOCX)

pone.0334754.s010.docx (15.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Korea Institute of Toxicology (KIT) for providing essential research facilities and support.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST) (Grant Number: CRC21022) and the Ministry of Science and ICT (Project Number: 2710008770; KK-2513-01). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Innes EA, Chalmers RM, Wells B, Pawlowic MC. A One Health Approach to Tackle Cryptosporidiosis. Trends Parasitol. 2020;36(3):290–303. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2019.12.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Desai NT, Sarkar R, Kang G. Cryptosporidiosis: An under-recognized public health problem. Trop Parasitol. 2012;2(2):91–8. doi: 10.4103/2229-5070.105173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wang R-J, Li J-Q, Chen Y-C, Zhang L-X, Xiao L-H. Widespread occurrence of Cryptosporidium infections in patients with HIV/AIDS: Epidemiology, clinical feature, diagnosis, and therapy. Acta Trop. 2018;187:257–63. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2018.08.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ahmadpour E, Safarpour H, Xiao L, Zarean M, Hatam-Nahavandi K, Barac A, et al. Cryptosporidiosis in HIV-positive patients and related risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Parasite. 2020;27:27. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2020025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Noordeen F, Rajapakse RPVJ, Horadagoda NU, Abdul-Careem MF, Arulkanthan A. Cryptosporidium, an important enteric pathogen in goats – A review. Small Ruminant Res. 2012;106(2–3):77–82. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2012.03.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gerace E, Lo Presti VDM, Biondo C. Cryptosporidium Infection: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Differential Diagnosis. Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp). 2019;9(4):119–23. doi: 10.1556/1886.2019.00019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rossle NF, Latif B. Cryptosporidiosis as threatening health problem: A review. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2013;3(11):916–24. doi: 10.1016/s2221-1691(13)60179-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ryan UM, Feng Y, Fayer R, Xiao L. Taxonomy and molecular epidemiology of Cryptosporidium and Giardia – a 50 year perspective (1971–2021). Int J Parasitol. 2021;51:1099–119. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2021.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mahdavi F, Maleki F, Mohammadi MR, Asghari A, Mohammadi-Ghalehbin B. Global epidemiology and species/genotype distribution of Cryptosporidium in camels: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2024;36:e00235. doi: 10.1016/j.fawpar.2024.e00235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Saleh FER, Abdullah HHAM, Aboelsoued D. Coprological and molecular prevalence of Cryptosporidium and Giardia in cattle and irrigation water from Beni-Suef Governorate, Egypt. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):26983. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-10552-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Amer S, Zidan S, Adamu H, Ye J, Roellig D, Xiao L, et al. Prevalence and characterization of Cryptosporidium spp. in dairy cattle in Nile River delta provinces, Egypt. Exp Parasitol. 2013;135(3):518–23. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2013.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Thomson S, Hamilton CA, Hope JC, Katzer F, Mabbott NA, Morrison LJ, et al. Bovine cryptosporidiosis: impact, host-parasite interaction and control strategies. Vet Res. 2017;48(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s13567-017-0447-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Khan SM, Witola WH. Past, current, and potential treatments for cryptosporidiosis in humans and farm animals: A comprehensive review. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1115522. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1115522 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liu A, Gong B, Liu X, Shen Y, Wu Y, Zhang W, et al. A retrospective epidemiological analysis of human Cryptosporidium infection in China during the past three decades (1987-2018). PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(3):e0008146. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dong S, Yang Y, Wang Y, Yang D, Yang Y, Shi Y, et al. Prevalence of Cryptosporidium Infection in the Global Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Acta Parasitol. 2020;65(4):882–9. doi: 10.2478/s11686-020-00230-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Muhsen K, Cohen D. A perspective on the 2021 GBD study of diarrhoeal diseases. Lancet Infect Dis. 2025;25(5):474–6. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00799-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kotloff KL, Blackwelder WC, Nasrin D, Nataro JP, Farag TH, van Eijk A, et al. The Global Enteric Multicenter Study (GEMS) of diarrheal disease in infants and young children in developing countries: epidemiologic and clinical methods of the case/control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):S232-45. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gharpure R, Perez A, Miller AD, Wikswo ME, Silver R, Hlavsa MC. Cryptosporidiosis outbreaks — United States, 2009–2017. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(9):2650–4. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ali M, Ji Y, Xu C, Hina Q, Javed U, Li K. Food and Waterborne Cryptosporidiosis from a One Health Perspective: A Comprehensive Review. Animals (Basel). 2024;14(22):3287. doi: 10.3390/ani14223287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Caravedo MA, White AC Jr. Treatment of cryptosporidiosis: nitazoxanide yes, but we can do better. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2023;21(2):167–73. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2023.2160704 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ali M, Xu C, Wang J, Kulyar MF-E-A, Li K. Emerging therapeutic avenues against Cryptosporidium: A comprehensive review. Vet Parasitol. 2024;331:110279. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2024.110279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Diptyanusa A, Sari IP. Treatment of human intestinal cryptosporidiosis: A review of published clinical trials. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2021;17:128–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2021.09.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ali M, Xu C, Ji Y, Li K. Host immune response to Cryptosporidium spp.: Insights and perspectives for vaccine development. Anim Zoonoses. 2025;1(2):203–15. doi: 10.1016/j.azn.2025.01.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sethi G, Kim YK, Han S-C, Hwang JH. Designing a broad-spectrum multi-epitope subunit vaccine against leptospirosis using immunoinformatics and structural approaches. Front Immunol. 2025;15. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1503853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sethi G, Varghese RP, Lakra AK, Nayak SS, Krishna R, Hwang JH. Immunoinformatics and structural aided approach to develop multi-epitope based subunit vaccine against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):15923. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66858-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Benitez A, Priest JW, Ehigiator HN, McNair N, Mead JR. Evaluation of DNA encoding acidic ribosomal protein P2 of Cryptosporidium parvum as a potential vaccine candidate for cryptosporidiosis. Vaccine. 2011;29(49):9239–45. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.09.094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sagodira S, Buzoni-Gatel D, Iochmann S, Naciri M, Bout D. Protection of kids against Cryptosporidium parvum infection after immunization of dams with CP15-DNA. Vaccine. 1999;17(19):2346–55. doi: 10.1016/s0264-410x(99)00041-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Liu K, Zai D, Zhang D, Wei Q, Han G, Gao H, et al. Divalent Cp15-23 vaccine enhances immune responses and protection against Cryptosporidium parvum infection. Parasite Immunol. 2010;32(5):335–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3024.2009.01191.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Manque PA, Tenjo F, Woehlbier U, Lara AM, Serrano MG, Xu P, et al. Identification and immunological characterization of three potential vaccinogens against Cryptosporidium species. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011;18(11):1796–802. doi: 10.1128/CVI.05197-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dhal AK, Pani A, Mahapatra RK, Yun S-I. An immunoinformatics approach for design and validation of multi-subunit vaccine against Cryptosporidium parvum. Immunobiology. 2019;224(6):747–57. doi: 10.1016/j.imbio.2019.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.UniProt Consortium. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(D1):D480–9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Doytchinova IA, Flower DR. VaxiJen: a server for prediction of protective antigens, tumour antigens and subunit vaccines. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nguyen MN, Krutz NL, Limviphuvadh V, Lopata AL, Gerberick GF, Maurer-Stroh S. AllerCatPro 2.0: a web server for predicting protein allergenicity potential. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022;50(W1):W36–43. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac446 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403–10. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Krogh A, Larsson B, von Heijne G, Sonnhammer EL. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden Markov model: application to complete genomes. J Mol Biol. 2001;305(3):567–80. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Saha S, Raghava GPS. Prediction of continuous B-cell epitopes in an antigen using recurrent neural network. Proteins. 2006;65(1):40–8. doi: 10.1002/prot.21078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Clifford JN, Høie MH, Deleuran S, Peters B, Nielsen M, Marcatili P. BepiPred-3.0: Improved B-cell epitope prediction using protein language models. Protein Sci. 2022;31(12):e4497. doi: 10.1002/pro.4497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wang P, Sidney J, Kim Y, Sette A, Lund O, Nielsen M, et al. Peptide binding predictions for HLA DR, DP and DQ molecules. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:568. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-568 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wang P, Sidney J, Dow C, Mothé B, Sette A, Peters B. A systematic assessment of MHC class II peptide binding predictions and evaluation of a consensus approach. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008;4(4):e1000048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dhanda SK, Vir P, Raghava GPS. Designing of interferon-gamma inducing MHC class-II binders. Biol Direct. 2013;8:30. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-8-30 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dhanda SK, Gupta S, Vir P, Raghava GPS. Prediction of IL4 inducing peptides. Clin Dev Immunol. 2013;2013:263952. doi: 10.1155/2013/263952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Larsen MV, Lundegaard C, Lamberth K, Buus S, Lund O, Nielsen M. Large-scale validation of methods for cytotoxic T-lymphocyte epitope prediction. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007;8:424. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gupta S, Kapoor P, Chaudhary K, Gautam A, Kumar R, Open Source Drug Discovery Consortium, et al. In silico approach for predicting toxicity of peptides and proteins. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e73957. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073957 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hasan M, Mia M. Exploratory Algorithm of a Multi-epitope-based Subunit Vaccine Candidate Against Cryptosporidium hominis: Reverse Vaccinology-Based Immunoinformatic Approach. Int J Pept Res Ther. 2022;28(5):134. doi: 10.1007/s10989-022-10438-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gasteiger E, Gattiker A, Hoogland C, Ivanyi I, Appel RD, Bairoch A. ExPASy: The proteomics server for in-depth protein knowledge and analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31(13):3784–8. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hebditch M, Carballo-Amador MA, Charonis S, Curtis R, Warwicker J. Protein-Sol: a web tool for predicting protein solubility from sequence. Bioinformatics. 2017;33(19):3098–100. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Du Z, Su H, Wang W, Ye L, Wei H, Peng Z, et al. The trRosetta server for fast and accurate protein structure prediction. Nat Protoc. 2021;16(12):5634–51. doi: 10.1038/s41596-021-00628-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lee GR, Won J, Heo L, Seok C. GalaxyRefine2: simultaneous refinement of inaccurate local regions and overall protein structure. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(W1):W451–5. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lovell SC, Davis IW, Arendall WB 3rd, de Bakker PIW, Word JM, Prisant MG, et al. Structure validation by Calpha geometry: phi,psi and Cbeta deviation. Proteins. 2003;50(3):437–50. doi: 10.1002/prot.10286 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wiederstein M, Sippl MJ. ProSA-web: interactive web service for the recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(Web Server issue):W407-10. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, Couch GS, Greenblatt DM, Meng EC, et al. UCSF Chimera--a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem. 2004;25(13):1605–12. doi: 10.1002/jcc.20084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Kuriata A, Gierut AM, Oleniecki T, Ciemny MP, Kolinski A, Kurcinski M, et al. CABS-flex 2.0: a web server for fast simulations of flexibility of protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(W1):W338–43. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kuriata A, Iglesias V, Pujols J, Kurcinski M, Kmiecik S, Ventura S. Aggrescan3D (A3D) 2.0: prediction and engineering of protein solubility. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(W1):W300–7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ponomarenko J, Bui H-H, Li W, Fusseder N, Bourne PE, Sette A, et al. ElliPro: a new structure-based tool for the prediction of antibody epitopes. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9:514. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Bui H-H, Sidney J, Dinh K, Southwood S, Newman MJ, Sette A. Predicting population coverage of T-cell epitope-based diagnostics and vaccines. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7:153. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-7-153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. Mol Biol Evol. 2016;33(7):1870–4. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Crooks GE, Hon G, Chandonia J-M, Brenner SE. WebLogo: a sequence logo generator. Genome Res. 2004;14(6):1188–90. doi: 10.1101/gr.849004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kozakov D, Hall DR, Xia B, Porter KA, Padhorny D, Yueh C, et al. The ClusPro web server for protein-protein docking. Nat Protoc. 2017;12(2):255–78. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2016.169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Laskowski RA, Jabłońska J, Pravda L, Vařeková RS, Thornton JM. PDBsum: Structural summaries of PDB entries. Protein Sci. 2018;27(1):129–34. doi: 10.1002/pro.3289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R, Páll S, Smith JC, Hess B, et al. GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX. 2015;1–2:19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Parrinello M, Rahman A. Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: A new molecular dynamics method. J Appl Phys. 1981;52(12):7182–90. doi: 10.1063/1.328693 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Weng G, Wang E, Wang Z, Liu H, Zhu F, Li D, et al. HawkDock: a web server to predict and analyze the protein-protein complex based on computational docking and MM/GBSA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(W1):W322–30. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Rapin N, Lund O, Bernaschi M, Castiglione F. Computational immunology meets bioinformatics: the use of prediction tools for molecular binding in the simulation of the immune system. PLoS One. 2010;5(4):e9862. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009862 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Carbone A, Zinovyev A, Képès F. Codon adaptation index as a measure of dominating codon bias. Bioinformatics. 2003;19(16):2005–15. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Grote A, Hiller K, Scheer M, Münch R, Nörtemann B, Hempel DC, et al. JCat: a novel tool to adapt codon usage of a target gene to its potential expression host. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(Web Server issue):W526–31. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Gruber AR, Lorenz R, Bernhart SH, Neuböck R, Hofacker IL. The Vienna RNA websuite. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36(Web Server issue):W70-4. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Akkaya M, Kwak K, Pierce SK. B cell memory: building two walls of protection against pathogens. Nat Rev Immunol. 2020;20(4):229–38. doi: 10.1038/s41577-019-0244-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Zhu J, Paul WE. CD4 T cells: fates, functions, and faults. Blood. 2008;112(5):1557–69. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-05-078154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Farhood B, Najafi M, Mortezaee K. CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes in cancer immunotherapy: A review. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234(6):8509–21. doi: 10.1002/jcp.27782 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Khan SM, Witola WH. Past, current, and potential treatments for cryptosporidiosis in humans and farm animals: A comprehensive review. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1115522. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1115522 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Mandal S, Khushi, Chanu WP, Srivastava R, Patgiri SJ, Natarajaseenivasan K. Development of a multi-epitope vaccine candidate targeting blood-stage of malaria through immunoinformatics approach. Hum Immunol. 2025;86(4):111346. doi: 10.1016/j.humimm.2025.111346 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Chick JA, Abongdia NN, Shey RA, Apinjoh TO. Computational design, expression, and characterization of a Plasmodium falciparum multi-epitope, multi-stage vaccine candidate (PfCTMAG). Heliyon. 2025;11(2):e42014. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Dikhit MR, Pranav A, Kumar A, Sen A. Designing a Multi-Epitope Vaccine Candidate for Visceral Leishmaniasis Targeting Leishmania and Sand Fly Vector Antigens: An In Silico Approach. Acta Trop. 2025;264:107600. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2025.107600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Güvendi M, Can H, Yavuz İ, Özbilgin A, Değirmenci Döşkaya A, Karakavuk M, et al. In silico identification of Leishmania GP63 protein epitopes to generate a new vaccine antigen against leishmaniasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2025;19(6):e0013137. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Konhar R, Das KC, Nongrum A, Samal RR, Sarangi SK, Biswal DK. In silico design of an epitope-based vaccine ensemble for fasliolopsiasis. Front Genet. 2025;15. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2024.1451853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Onile OS, Ojo GJ, Oyeyemi BF, Agbowuro GO, Fadahunsi AI. Development of multiepitope subunit protein vaccines against Toxoplasma gondii using an immunoinformatics approach. NAR Genomics Bioinforma. 2020;2:lqaa048. doi: 10.1093/nargab/lqaa048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Yang Y, Sun W, Guo J, Zhao G, Sun S, Yu H, et al. In silico design of a DNA-based HIV-1 multi-epitope vaccine for Chinese populations. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11(3):795–805. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1012017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Livingston B, Crimi C, Newman M, Higashimoto Y, Appella E, Sidney J, et al. A rational strategy to design multiepitope immunogens based on multiple Th lymphocyte epitopes. J Immunol. 2002;168(11):5499–506. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.11.5499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Yano A, Onozuka A, Asahi-Ozaki Y, Imai S, Hanada N, Miwa Y, et al. An ingenious design for peptide vaccines. Vaccine. 2005;23(17–18):2322–6. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.01.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Ali M, Xu C, Ji Y, Li K. Host immune response to Cryptosporidium spp.: Insights and perspectives for vaccine development. Anim Zoonoses. 2025;1(2):203–15. doi: 10.1016/j.azn.2025.01.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Arai R, Ueda H, Kitayama A, Kamiya N, Nagamune T. Design of the linkers which effectively separate domains of a bifunctional fusion protein. Protein Eng. 2001;14(8):529–32. doi: 10.1093/protein/14.8.529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Pecora ND, Gehring AJ, Canaday DH, Boom WH, Harding CV. Mycobacterium tuberculosis LprA is a lipoprotein agonist of TLR2 that regulates innate immunity and APC function. J Immunol. 2006;177(1):422–9. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.177.1.422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Mead JR. Early immune and host cell responses to Cryptosporidium infection. Front Parasitol. 2023;2:1113950. doi: 10.3389/fpara.2023.1113950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Alhassan HH. Advanced vaccinomic, immunoinformatic, and molecular modeling strategies for designing Multi- epitope vaccines against the Enterobacter cloacae complex. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1454394. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1454394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Shen K-Y, Song Y-C, Chen I-H, Leng C-H, Chen H-W, Li H-J, et al. Molecular mechanisms of TLR2-mediated antigen cross-presentation in dendritic cells. J Immunol. 2014;192(9):4233–41. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1302850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Pecora ND, Gehring AJ, Canaday DH, Boom WH, Harding CV. Mycobacterium tuberculosis LprA is a lipoprotein agonist of TLR2 that regulates innate immunity and APC function. J Immunol. 2006;177(1):422–9. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.177.1.422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Xu QM, Fang F, Wu SH, Shi ZQ, Liu Z, Zhoa YJ, et al. Dendritic cell TLR4 induces Th1-type immune response against Cryptosporidium parvum infection. Trop Biomed. 2021;38(1):172–9. doi: 10.47665/tb.38.1.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Yang Z, Fu Y, Gong P, Zheng J, Liu L, Yu Y, et al. Bovine TLR2 and TLR4 mediate Cryptosporidium parvum recognition in bovine intestinal epithelial cells. Microb Pathog. 2015;85:29–34. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2015.05.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Chen X-M, O’Hara SP, Nelson JB, Splinter PL, Small AJ, Tietz PS, et al. Multiple TLRs are expressed in human cholangiocytes and mediate host epithelial defense responses to Cryptosporidium parvum via activation of NF-kappaB. J Immunol. 2005;175(11):7447–56. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.175.11.7447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Deepthi V, Sasikumar A, Mohanakumar KP, Rajamma U. Computationally designed multi-epitope vaccine construct targeting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein elicits robust immune responses in silico. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):9562. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-92956-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Shah M, Rafiq S, Woo HG. Challenges and considerations in multi-epitope vaccine design surrounding toll-like receptors. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2024;45(12):1104–18. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2024.10.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rajesh Pathak

12 Aug 2025

Dear Dr. Hwang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 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 plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

4. 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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript has been reviewed and is found to be of interest; however, several shortcomings were identified during the review process. Please address the reviewers’ comments, expanding the introduction with current treatment strategies and their limitations, and clearly highlighting the novelty of your approach compared to similar studies. Strengthen methodological justifications, enhance the discussion with critical analysis and relevant literature, and improve figure quality, especially by removing the black background from figure 4 to enhance the overall quality and readability of the manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors present an in-silico design of a multi-epitope vaccine targeting Cryptosporidium parvum proteins Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2. While the study follows standard immunoinformatics pipelines, there are several concerns regarding the scientific novelty, rationale, and overall presentation.

Comments:

1. The target antigens should be explicitly mentioned in the abstract for clarity and completeness.

2. The Introduction section lacks a comprehensive overview of the currently available therapeutic and prophylactic strategies against C. parvum. A critical discussion of their strengths and limitations would help position the current study within the broader research context.

3. References 19–22 indicate that similar in-silico vaccine designs have already been reported. The authors should clearly articulate the novelty of their approach and justify how this work adds to the existing literature.

4. The same proteins Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2 have been previously used in related studies. Without additional experimental validation or innovative methodological contributions, the manuscript lacks sufficient novelty.

5. A dedicated discussion on the advantages and limitations of in-silico vaccine design, supported by recent literature, is essential to provide a balanced perspective.

6. The manuscript does not reference any studies that demonstrate the efficacy of multi-epitope vaccines specifically against parasitic infections. Including such references would strengthen the rationale for the approach.

7. The strain of C. parvum from which the protein sequences were retrieved is not specified. This information is critical for reproducibility and comparative evaluation.

8. The use of the LprA adjuvant (244 amino acids) in a final construct of 450 amino acids suggests a disproportionately low contribution from B-cell, CTL, and HTL epitopes. This raises concerns about the immunogenic balance of the construct and whether observed immune responses would be attributable to the adjuvant or the selected epitopes.

9. The rationale for performing in-silico cloning is unclear in the absence of downstream experimental validation. This section appears tangential and may be omitted or better justified.

10. The Discussion section largely reiterates the results without offering critical analysis or biological interpretation. It requires substantial revision to provide meaningful insights and contextual relevance.

11. Figure quality is very poor.

Overall assessment:

The manuscript, in its current form, lacks scientific rigor, novelty, and clarity in presentation. Substantial revisions are required to improve the methodological justification, contextual framing, and discussion of results. Without additional innovation or validation, the study's contribution to the field remains limited.

Reviewer #2: Major Comments

1.The author drafted the manuscript clearly.

2. I encourage the authors to provide more details about how serious the problem is. Including statistics on the mortality rate, if available, would help show the importance of this study.

3. Please provide an overview of the current treatment options available for Cryptosporidium parvum infections, including their associated side effects. Additionally, explain the significance of your study in addressing the limitations of these treatments and advancing vaccine development.

4. What is the worldwide impact or burden of this problem?

5. The presented 3.5. Global population coverage and epitope conservation explores how effectively the predicted epitopes can elicit immune responses across diverse human populations based on HLA diversity.

6. The images appear to be unclear and may require improved quality for better visibility.

7. Can the authors explain why they did not use the newer software tools available for this analysis? The tools they used are popular, but using the latest ones might add more interest.

8.I encourage the authors to approach their research from a unique perspective and clearly emphasize the novelty of their study.

9. It would be helpful to clearly highlight the key differences and novel contributions of your study in comparison to this existing work (An immunoinformatics approach for design and validation of multi-subunit vaccine against Cryptosporidium parvum) see this paper mostly like your study.

Reviewer #3: Review report

The manuscript titled “In silico design of a multi-epitope vaccine against Cryptosporidium parvum using a structural and immunoinformatics approach” presents a comprehensive computational strategy for developing a multi-epitope subunit vaccine (MESV) targeting Cryptosporidium parvum. The study integrates several advanced immunoinformatics techniques, including antigenicity prediction, molecular docking, immune simulation, and codon optimization. The work is timely, methodologically robust, and represents a valuable contribution to the field of rational vaccine design. However, minor revisions are recommended to enhance clarity and scientific rigor prior to publication.

Comments & Questions:

1. What specific thresholds were applied for antigenicity, allergenicity, and toxicity during epitope screening?

2. Why was LprA specifically selected as the TLR2 agonist over other known adjuvants?

3. Nitazoxanide is mentioned as ineffective in immunocompromised patients. Are there any other drugs under investigation that should be noted?

4. The authors mention safety concerns with live attenuated vaccines. Could you briefly comment on any documented adverse events in immunocompromised individuals?

5. Did the authors consider targeting HLA population coverage in endemic regions (e.g., Africa or Asia) during epitope selection?

6. You mention lack of transmembrane helices — was any signal peptide prediction also performed (e.g., using SignalP)? This is relevant for identifying secretory/extracellular proteins.

7. You mention PADREE. Did you mean the PADRE sequence (universal helper T-cell epitope)? Please correct spelling to avoid confusion.

8. Why was trRosetta selected over AlphaFold2 or ColabFold? These offer superior modeling and are freely accessible.

9. What criteria were used to interpret the flexibility plots? Did high flexibility regions overlap with epitope regions?

10. AGGRESCAN 3D was mentioned — were any aggregation-prone regions found? Were adjustments made accordingly?

11. If linear B-cell epitopes were already predicted in section 2.2, what was the rationale for also using conformational prediction here? Were both types used in MESV, or only one?

Reviewer #4: The manuscript entitled “In silico design of a multi-epitope vaccine against Cryptosporidium parvum using a structural and immunoinformatics approach” presents a relevant and timely contribution to the field of computational vaccine design. The study employs a variety of immunoinformatics tools to develop a multi-epitope subunit vaccine (MESV) targeting C. parvum, a pathogen of significant public health concern. The integration of antigenicity prediction, structural modeling, immune simulation, and codon optimization reflects a commendable effort toward a comprehensive in silico vaccine design pipeline.

However, in its current form, the manuscript would benefit from major revisions to improve clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor. While the methodology is broadly appropriate, several sections would benefit from clearer explanation, more detailed descriptions, and stronger justification of key design choices (e.g., antigen selection, docking protocol, and structural refinement). Additionally, the inclusion of comparative analyses or benchmarking with existing approaches would strengthen the overall impact of the study.

To enhance the reproducibility and interpretability of the findings, I recommend addressing the points outlined in the detailed review, including clarification of computational workflows, improved rationale for methodological decisions, and more thorough discussion of the biological relevance and potential limitations of the proposed vaccine construct.

Specific comments:

1. Explain how the transmission of Cryptosporidium parvum contributes to its persistence in both human and animal populations.

2. What role do thick-walled and thin-walled oocysts play in the life cycle of C. parvum, and how does this relate to disease chronicity?

3. Justify the choice of Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2 as candidate antigens in the MESV design.

4. Describe how the use of signal peptide and transmembrane helix predictions contributes to antigen selection.

5. Why was it necessary to perform allergenicity and human similarity screening for selected protein sequences? What structural refinement criteria have been selected while designing the vaccine?

6. What are the advantages of using multiple servers (e.g., ABCpred and BepiPred-3.0) for B-cell epitope prediction?

7. Explain the significance of using linkers such as AAY, GPGPG, and KK in the final MESV construct.

8. Discuss the rationale for including the PADRE sequence and a His-tag in the vaccine design.

9. What is the significance of docking in this study?

10. What is the importance of predicting both linear and conformational B-cell epitopes in vaccine design?

Reviewer #5: The manuscript entitled “In silico design of a multi-epitope vaccine against Cryptosporidium parvum

using a structural and immunoinformatics approach” offers a comprehensive computational

framework for the rational development of a multi-epitope subunit vaccine targeting C. parvum. The topic

is highly pertinent given the global health relevance of cryptosporidiosis, and the study reflects a solid

application of contemporary approaches in vaccinology and immunoinformatics. The methodology is

coherent and appropriately selected, demonstrating the potential of in silico techniques in accelerating

vaccine design.

The authors have effectively utilized various immunoinformatics tools to identify potential antigens and

epitopes, construct a chimeric vaccine sequence, and evaluate its structural and immunological properties

through docking, immune simulation, and codon optimization. The manuscript is generally clear and

flows logically from one section to the next.

A minor revision would enhance the overall clarity and impact of the work. Specifically, some

methodological descriptions could benefit from additional detail to improve reproducibility. Additionally,

a brief discussion on the potential limitations of the approach (e.g., reliance on predictive models without

experimental validation) would provide a more balanced perspective.

Comments:

1. Describe the impact of cryptosporidiosis on global health and livestock economics.

2. What challenges are associated with current treatment options for cryptosporidiosis, particularly in

immunocompromised individuals?

3. Explain the role of in silico tools in the initial screening and refinement of epitopes for vaccine design.

4. Why was LprA chosen as an adjuvant, and what is its expected immunological role in the MESV

construct?

5. What are the key physicochemical features considered essential for a successful vaccine construct, and

how were these evaluated?

6. How does the use of trRosetta and GalaxyRefine2 contribute to the structural validity of the vaccine

candidate?

7. Briefly explain the significance of the molecular docking study involving TLR2 and TLR4.

8. What is the purpose of using GROMACS and PCA in the vaccine evaluation pipeline?

**********

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:  RUPAL OJHA

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-36025_Dipti_review_comments.docx

pone.0334754.s011.docx (15.2KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report_PONE-D-25-36025.docx

pone.0334754.s012.docx (14.1KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_1264f.docx

pone.0334754.s013.docx (15.9KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: comment.pdf

pone.0334754.s014.pdf (84.8KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 Nov 18;20(11):e0334754. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334754.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Sep 2025

Response to Reviewers

We sincerely thank all the reviewers for their valuable time and insightful comments. Their constructive feedback has greatly helped us to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to each comment. The changes have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript, and line numbers have been provided wherever applicable for ease of reference.

Reviewer 1

Comments:

Comment 1. The target antigens should be explicitly mentioned in the abstract for clarity and completeness.

Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We have revised the abstract to include the specific proteins used, Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2, as the target antigens (Line no. 28-29).

Comment 2. The Introduction section lacks a comprehensive overview of the currently available therapeutic and prophylactic strategies against C. parvum. A critical discussion of their strengths and limitations would help position the current study within the broader research context.

Response: We have substantially revised the introduction to include a detailed overview of current therapies (e.g., Nitazoxanide) and their limitations, as well as the lack of effective vaccines. This provides a stronger rationale for our immunoinformatics approach (line no. 78-90).

3. References 19–22 indicate that similar in-silico vaccine designs have already been reported. The authors should clearly articulate the novelty of their approach and justify how this work adds to the existing literature.

Response: Thank you for the comment. While References 19–22 report wet-lab studies involving Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2, they focus on individual or fusion protein-based vaccines and do not employ a multi-epitope subunit vaccine design. Our study is novel in integrating these experimentally validated antigens into a structure-based MESV using immunoinformatics tools, incorporating CTL, HTL, B-cell, and IFN-γ epitopes, and validating the construct through docking, immune simulation, and population coverage analysis. This approach offers a new direction for C. parvum vaccine development.

Comment 4. The same proteins Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2 have been previously used in related studies. Without additional experimental validation or innovative methodological contributions, the manuscript lacks sufficient novelty.

Response: Thank you for the comment. While Cp15, Cp23, and CpP2 have been individually validated in wet-lab studies such as Cp15-DNA vaccination in goats [1], Cp15–23 fusion protein in mice [2], and CpP2-DNA immunization in IL-12 KO mice [3], they have not been explored collectively in a multi-epitope subunit vaccine design. Our study is novel in integrating these experimentally validated antigens using a structure-based immunoinformatics approach, incorporating CTL, HTL, B-cell, and IFN-γ–inducing epitopes, and performing molecular docking, immune simulation, and population coverage analysis. This computational MESV design represents a new and rational step toward vaccine development against C. parvum.

References:

1. Sagodira, Serge, et al. "Protection of kids against Cryptosporidium parvum infection after immunization of dams with CP15-DNA." Vaccine 17.19 (1999): 2346-2355.

2. Liu, K., et al. "Divalent Cp15–23 vaccine enhances immune responses and protection against Cryptosporidium parvum infection." Parasite immunology 32.5 (2010): 335-344.

3. Benitez, Alvaro, et al. "Evaluation of DNA encoding acidic ribosomal protein P2 of Cryptosporidium parvum as a potential vaccine candidate for cryptosporidiosis." Vaccine 29.49 (2011): 9239-9245.

Comment 5. A dedicated discussion on the advantages and limitations of in-silico vaccine design, supported by recent literature, is essential to provide a balanced perspective.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have now included a dedicated section in the Discussion that outlines both the advantages and limitations of in-silico vaccine design, supported by recent literature (Line no. 568-577).

6. The manuscript does not reference any studies that demonstrate the efficacy of multi-epitope vaccines specifically against parasitic infections. Including such references would strengthen the rationale for the approach.

Response: Relevant references on multi-epitope vaccines for parasites such as Plasmodium falciparum, Leishmania donovani, Fasciolopsis buski, and Toxoplasma gondii have been added to the discussion to support the relevance of our strategy (Line no. 516-519).

7. The strain of C. parvum from which the protein sequences were retrieved is not specified. This information is critical for reproducibility and comparative evaluation.

Response: The protein sequences used in this study were retrieved from UniProt, with the following identifiers: Cp15 (Q23728), Cp23 (Q8ITU5), and CpP2 (Q9U553). According to UniProt, all three sequences correspond to the Cryptosporidium parvum Iowa II strain, which is commonly used in experimental studies and sequence repositories. We have now included this information in the Methods section to ensure reproducibility and facilitate comparative evaluation (Line no. 121).

8. The use of the LprA adjuvant (244 amino acids) in a final construct of 450 amino acids suggests a disproportionately low contribution from B-cell, CTL, and HTL epitopes. This raises concerns about the immunogenic balance of the construct and whether observed immune responses would be attributable to the adjuvant or the selected epitopes.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding the proportion of the LprA adjuvant relative to the total length of the MESV construct. While LprA constitutes approximately half of the 450-amino-acid vaccine, its role is to enhance antigen presentation and stimulate TLR2-mediated innate immune signaling rather than to directly provide specific B-cell or T-cell epitopes. The selected CTL, HTL, and B-cell epitopes, though shorter in length, are highly immunogenic and were carefully chosen based on antigenicity, conservancy, and predicted binding affinity to human HLA molecules. Importantly, in silico immune simulations indicated robust humoral and cellular responses, including elevated levels of B cells, memory T cells, and cytokines (IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-10, IL-12), suggesting that both the adjuvant and the epitopes contribute synergistically to the overall immune response.

9. The rationale for performing in-silico cloning is unclear in the absence of downstream experimental validation. This section appears tangential and may be omitted or better justified.

Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. The in silico cloning and codon optimization analyses were included to evaluate the feasibility of recombinant expression in E. coli and to anticipate potential challenges in protein production. While downstream experimental validation is pending, these analyses provide a preliminary assessment of translational efficiency and guide future experimental planning. We have clarified this rationale in the Discussion section (Line no. 564-567).

10. The Discussion section largely reiterates the results without offering critical analysis or biological interpretation. It requires substantial revision to provide meaningful insights and contextual relevance.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the Discussion section. We have revised the Discussion to move beyond mere repetition of results and to provide a more critical analysis of the findings. In the revised version, we contextualize the computational outcomes within the broader biological and immunological framework of C. parvum infection, highlighting the relevance of selected epitopes, linkers, and adjuvants in eliciting both humoral and cellular immunity. We also discuss the translational implications of population coverage, mRNA secondary structure predictions, and immune simulation results, as well as the limitations of in silico approaches and the need for subsequent in vitro and in vivo validation. These revisions aim to provide meaningful insights and interpretative depth, addressing the reviewer’s concern regarding biological significance.

11. Figure quality is very poor.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We would like to clarify that high-resolution images were uploaded during the submission process. However, due to the system's formatting, the images may appear compressed within the main PDF file. To view the figures in their original quality, kindly use the “Click here to access/download: Figure” links provided in the submission system under each figure (e.g., Figure; Fig.). We appreciate your understanding.

Reviewer 2

Major Comments

1.The author drafted the manuscript clearly.

2. I encourage the authors to provide more details about how serious the problem is. Including statistics on the mortality rate, if available, would help show the importance of this study.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. To better emphasize the global significance of cryptosporidiosis, we have revised the introduction to include specific prevalence data in both livestock and humans. This includes infection rates ranging from 11.7% to 78% in pre-weaned calves, and human prevalence rates of up to 31.5% in low-income regions. We have also referenced the Global Enteric Multicenter Study (GEMS), which estimates nearly 202,000 child deaths annually in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Additionally, we noted that C. parvum accounted for over 96% of foodborne morbidity cases between 2010 and 2020, further underlining its public health and economic impact. These additions underscore the urgency for effective vaccine development. The revised text has been highlighted in yellow from lines 68–77 in the manuscript.

3. Please provide an overview of the current treatment options available for Cryptosporidium parvum infections, including their associated side effects. Additionally, explain the significance of your study in addressing the limitations of these treatments and advancing vaccine development.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for the insightful comment. We have revised the introduction to provide an overview of current treatments for Cryptosporidium parvum. Management mainly involves supportive care and nitazoxanide, the only FDA-approved drug, which shows limited efficacy in immunocompetent individuals and is ineffective in immunocompromised patients. Other agents (paromomycin, azithromycin, clofazimine) have produced inconsistent results, and nitazoxanide is associated with gastrointestinal side effects and poor tolerability. These limitations underscore the urgent need for preventive strategies. Our study addresses this gap by designing a multi-epitope subunit vaccine targeting immunodominant C. parvum antigens to elicit robust mucosal and systemic immunity while avoiding risks linked to live or whole-parasite vaccines (Line no. 78-90).

4. What is the worldwide impact or burden of this problem?

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful question. The worldwide impact and burden of cryptosporidiosis have been addressed in the manuscript. Specifically, we have included details on human prevalence, child mortality, livestock prevalence, neonatal mortality, and foodborne morbidity. These points are covered in the manuscript from line numbers 68-77.

5. The presented 3.5. Global population coverage and epitope conservation explores how effectively the predicted epitopes can elicit immune responses across diverse human populations based on HLA diversity.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this comment. The section on global population coverage and epitope conservation was included to assess how effectively the predicted T-cell epitopes can stimulate immune responses across diverse human populations, considering the high polymorphism of HLA molecules. Our analysis ensured that selected epitopes bind to multiple HLA supertypes, maximizing coverage across 16 global regions, with Europe showing the highest coverage (98.91%) and Central Africa the lowest (70.09%) (Fig. 5; Supplementary Table 5). Conservation analysis further confirmed that most epitopes from CP15, CP23, and CpP2 proteins are highly conserved across strains, supporting their potential to induce broad-spectrum immune protection. Together, these analyses demonstrate that the predicted epitopes are likely to be effective in eliciting immune responses across diverse populations.

6. The images appear to be unclear and may require improved quality for better visibility.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We would like to clarify that high-resolution images were uploaded during the submission process. However, due to the system's formatting, the images may appear compressed within the main PDF file. To view the figures in their original quality, we kindly suggest downloading them using the “Click here to access/download: Figure” links available at the top right-hand corner of the PDF file. Additionally, the population coverage image has been replaced with a higher-resolution version to enhance readability. We appreciate your understanding.

7. Can the authors explain why they did not use the newer software tools available for this analysis? The tools they used are popular, but using the latest ones might add more interest.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We acknowledge that several newer tools have been developed for population coverage and conservancy analysis. However, in our study, we used the IEDB population coverage tool, MEGA v7.0, and WebLogo v3.7.9 because they are widely accepted, validated, and extensively cited in the literature, ensuring reproducibility and comparability with previous studies. Importantly, the IEDB population coverage tool remains the standard and most reliable resource for HLA-based coverage analysis, as it integrates curated data directly from IEDB. Similarly, MEGA and WebLogo have been consistently used for sequence alignment and conservation analysis, offering robust and transparent results.

We agree that newer platforms may offer additional features; however, our selection was based on reliability, accessibility, and acceptance in immunoinformatics studies.

8. I encourage the authors to approach their research from a unique perspective and clearly emphasize the novelty of their study.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have emphasized the novelty of our study by highlighting several key aspects: the use of experimentally validated C. parvum antigens rather than hypothetical proteins, the integration of PCA and MM-GBSA analyses to evaluate dynamic stability and binding energetics, the assessment of global population coverage, which was predicted to reach 95.92% across 16 regions, and the evaluation of mRNA secondary structure to infer translational efficiency. These elements collectively distinguish our work from previous MESV designs and provide both structural and translational insights, underscoring the unique contribution of our study to the field of cryptosporidiosis vaccine development.

9. It would be helpful to clearly highlight the key differences and novel contributions of your study in comparison to this existing work (An immunoinformatics approach for design and validation of multi-subunit vaccine against Cryptosporidium parvum) see this paper mostly like your study.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to clarify the novel contributions of our study relative to the existing work. While the referenced study employed an immunoinformatics approach to design a multi-subunit vaccine against C. parvum, our study differs in several important aspects:

Use of experimentally validated antigens: Unlike the previous work, which relied largely on predicted or hypothetical proteins, we focused on experimentally verified antigens (Cp15, Cp23, CpP2) that play established roles in parasite invasion and host immune recognition.

Rigorous structural and energetic validation: We incorporated PCA and MM-GBSA analyses to evaluate the dynamic stability and binding energetics of the vaccine construct, providing a deeper mechanistic understanding of epitope-receptor interactions.

Global population coverage analysis: Our MESV was assessed for pot

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers-final.pdf

pone.0334754.s015.pdf (179.5KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Rajesh Pathak

1 Oct 2025

In silico design of a multi-epitope vaccine against Cryptosporidium parvum using structural and immunoinformatics approaches

PONE-D-25-36025R1

Dear Dr. Hwang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: After carefully reviewing the revised manuscript titled “In silico design of a multi-epitope vaccine against Cryptosporidium parvum using structural and immunoinformatics approaches,” I find that the authors have effectively addressed the concerns raised in the initial review. The resubmission reflects significant improvements in both the scientific depth and the overall quality of presentation.

The authors response to reviewer comments are comprehensive and well-justified. Methodological issues have been resolved through appropriate revisions, while interpretative ambiguities have been clarified with additional analyses and supporting evidence. The manuscript now conveys a clear and logical narrative, supported by refined technical details and strengthened validation.

Major enhancements in this version include more robust computational protocols, rigorous analysis, and stronger integration of structural biology with immunological predictions. The introduction and discussion have been notably enriched, providing greater contextual depth and highlighting the translational relevance of the findings.

Overall, the manuscript now meets the required standards of scientific rigor, methodological reliability, and clarity. The vaccine design strategy is well-executed, and the conclusions are convincingly supported by the data.

I recommend this manuscript for publication in its current form.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: 1. The manuscript has been substantially improved in its revised form.

2. The organization and flow of the content are now much clearer.

3. The authors have provided stronger and more detailed methodological descriptions, enhancing reproducibility.

4. The discussion section is more balanced and aligns well with the results presented.

5. The responses to the reviewer comments were thorough, addressing the concerns from the initial review round.

6. The revisions have effectively resolved all previously raised issues.

7. Overall, the study now meets the standards for publication, and I recommend acceptance.

**********

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 #3: Yes:  RUPAL OJHA

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to upload.docx

pone.0334754.s016.docx (14.8KB, docx)

Acceptance letter

Rajesh Pathak

PONE-D-25-36025R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hwang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Predicted transmembrane helices of the targeted proteins, determined using the TMHMM v2.0.

    (A) Cp15, (B) Cp23, and (C) CpP2. The x-axis represents the amino acid position in the sequence, and the y-axis indicates the probability of a transmembrane helix at that position.

    (JPG)

    pone.0334754.s001.jpg (112.7KB, jpg)
    S2 Fig. Predicted B-cell epitopes of the selected Cryptosporidium parvum proteins, identified using the BepiPred 3.0 server.

    (A) Cp15, (B) Cp23, and (C) CpP2. The Y-axis indicates the epitope prediction score, and the X-axis represents the amino acid position within each protein. Regions above the threshold line represent predicted linear B-cell epitopes.

    (TIF)

    pone.0334754.s002.tif (989.4KB, tif)
    S3 Fig

    (A) Predicted structural models generated through CABS-flex analysis. (B) AGGRESCAN output showing residues with scores greater than zero, indicating their propensity for aggregation. (C) Flexibility profile from CABS-flex, where residue fluctuations are represented as RMSF values.

    (TIF)

    pone.0334754.s003.tif (838.5KB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Epitope conservation analysis.

    Sequence logo visualization of predicted epitopes from (A) Cp15, (B) Cp23, and (C) CpP2 proteins. The x-axis denotes the position of amino acids within the epitope sequences, while the y-axis shows the relative frequency of each residue at those positions. The overall height of each letter stack indicates the degree of conservation, with taller stacks representing higher conservation across aligned sequences.

    (TIF)

    pone.0334754.s004.tif (704.6KB, tif)
    S5 Fig. Solvent-accessible surface area (SASA) and hydrogen bond (Hb) analyses of vaccine–receptor complexes.

    (A) SASA plot of the vaccine–TLR2 complex (black); (B) Hb plot of the vaccine–TLR2 complex (black); (C) SASA plot of the vaccine–TLR4 complex (black); (D) Hb plot of the vaccine–TLR4 complex (purple).

    (TIF)

    pone.0334754.s005.tif (660.9KB, tif)
    S1 Table. Overview of databases and web-based tools employed in the design of a multi-epitope subunit vaccine against C. parvum.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334754.s006.docx (18.7KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Selected HLA allele reference set of MHC-II using the IEDB server.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334754.s007.docx (14.6KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Prediction of linear (continuous) antibody epitopes using the ElliPro server.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334754.s008.docx (15.4KB, docx)
    S4 Table. ElliPro-based prediction of conformational (discontinuous) antibody epitopes.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334754.s009.docx (15.7KB, docx)
    S5 Table. Worldwide population coverage assessment of the chosen HTL and CTL epitopes.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334754.s010.docx (15.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-36025_Dipti_review_comments.docx

    pone.0334754.s011.docx (15.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review report_PONE-D-25-36025.docx

    pone.0334754.s012.docx (14.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_1264f.docx

    pone.0334754.s013.docx (15.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: comment.pdf

    pone.0334754.s014.pdf (84.8KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers-final.pdf

    pone.0334754.s015.pdf (179.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments to upload.docx

    pone.0334754.s016.docx (14.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES