Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jan 2;21(1):e0330312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330312

Next-Gen intestinal parasite detection: Leveraging metataxonomics for improved diagnosis of intestinal protists and helminths

Katherine Bedoya-Urrego 1, Nicolas Rozo-Montoya 1, Ana L Galván-Díaz 4, Gisela M Garcia-Montoya 1,2,3, Juan F Alzate 1,2,3,*
Editor: Petr Heneberg5
PMCID: PMC12758778  PMID: 41481590

Abstract

Intestinal parasites continue to pose a significant public health burden in low- and middle-income countries and are increasingly recognized in developed regions. Traditional diagnostic methods, primarily based on microscopy, remain widely used despite limitations in sensitivity and taxonomic resolution. In this exploratory study, we applied a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based metataxonomic approach, integrated with classical phylogenetic methods, to characterize intestinal parasites in rural Colombian populations. We compare its performance with conventional microscopy, focusing on both protist and geohelminth detection. Metataxonomics outperformed microscopy in detecting Strongyloides stercoralis and enabled precise species and subtype level assignment for Blastocystis and Entamoeba spp., revealing frequent mixed infections. Microscopy detected Trichuris trichiura, Giardia, Cyclospora, and Chilomastix more effectively, highlighting limitations of current primers and DNA extraction methods. Cystoisospora was only identified by NGS. These results demonstrate the utility of NGS-based metataxonomics for broad parasite detection while emphasizing areas for methodological improvement and providing a foundation for future, larger-scale studies.

Introduction

Intestinal protist and helminth infections remain a significant public health challenge globally, particularly in developing countries, where poor sanitation, and limited access to safe drinking water, inadequate diagnostic capacity, and widespread socioeconomic vulnerability contribute to the transmission [1]. These conditions result in persistent fecal contamination of soil, water, and food, facilitating the continued spread of these infections. Although governmental initiatives, often supported by the World Health Organization (WHO), have been implemented to curb transmission, actions focused on health promotion and infection prevention and control remain insufficient and largely ineffective.

Globally, approximately 3.5 billion people are infected with intestinal protozoa and helminths, of whom around 450 million are symptomatic, leading to significant morbidity and mortality [2]. These parasites contribute substantially to gastrointestinal disorders such as diarrhea, chronic malabsorption, malnutrition, and impaired growth and development [3]. The associated health consequences are particularly severe among vulnerable populations, including school-age children, pregnant women, and immunocompromised individuals. The resulting burden highlights the need for improved detection and control strategies.

Among intestinal protozoan parasites, Giardia intestinalis, Entamoeba histolytica, Cryptosporidium spp. and Blastocystis spp. are the most reported worldwide [4]. In parallel, soil-transmitted helminths (STH) affect more than 1.5 billion people globally, accounting for nearly 24% of the world’s population [5]. The most frequently reported species include Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura, and the hookworm Ancylostoma duodenale and Necator americanus [6,7]. Additionally, the threadworm Strongyloides stercoralis, while significant and likely underreported, is often considered separately [6]. Zoonotic STH species such as Ancylostoma ceylanicum, Ascaris suum, Trichuris vulpis, and Trichuris suis have also increasingly been detected in humans, expanding the spectrum of helminths known to cause disease in the human host [8].

Microscopy-based methods are the common standard for intestinal parasite detection due to their low cost and simplicity [9]. However, they exhibit low sensitivity and specificity which is highly dependent on the parasite load and technician expertise [10]. They also lack the resolution needed to accurately differentiate morphologically similar species, such as Entamoeba histolytica from non-pathogenic Entamoeba spp., A. lumbricoides from closely related zoonotic species like A. suum, or among human-infecting hookworms such as N. americanus and A. duodenale [10,11]. Consequently, there is a growing need for studies using advanced diagnostic tools to reliably identify parasite species infecting human and animal populations in specific areas [1214].

To overcome these limitations, PCR-based methods have been widely adopted, offering superior sensitivity and specificity for detecting specific parasite species or genera [13,15]. A significant advance has been the development of multiplex PCRs for the simultaneous detection of several parasites in a single reaction [13,1619]. However, these molecular approaches present their own challenges. Current multiplex PCR assays for intestinal parasites exhibit significant limitations in their target selection, creating diagnostics gaps that may compromise comprehensive parasitological assessment. These assays are specifically designed to detect established pathogenic species, most of them protozoa, systematically excluding helminths and non-pathogenic organisms.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) strategies emerge as a powerful alternative, enhancing taxonomic resolution through untargeted detection and comprehensive characterization of parasite diversity. These approaches overcome the limitations of specific PCR methods by enabling the simultaneous identification of multiple taxonomic groups, either via direct DNA sequencing (metagenomic) or PCR-based amplification of specific genetic markers (metataxonomic) [2022]. This latter strategy has become invaluable in microbial ecology due to their cost-effectiveness and capacity to identify a broad range of organisms within a single sample. Metataxonomic analyses typically target ribosomal RNA gene regions, such as 16S for bacteria, 18S for eukaryotes, and the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region [23]. While widely applied in bacterial research, amplicon-based analysis in parasitology remains limited. Applications in protists have shown promising results [2429], yet its implementation for human associated helminth detection is still scarce [30]. In protist research, it has revealed greater diversity than traditional methods, enabling the identification of mixed infections and novel genetic variants of parasites like Blastocystis [24,3133], as well as the detection of various intestinal protists (Entamoeba, Iodamoeba, Balantioides, Tetrathrichomonas) and taxa typically excluded from routine diagnostics, such as Dientamoeba fragilis [22,34]. In helminths, NGS has been validated for taxonomic classification, demonstrating efficacy in diverse contexts from soil nematode biodiversity to the identification of key soil-transmitted helminths (STH) including Ascaris, Trichuris, and Strongyloides in modern and archaeological samples [3538], as well as trematodes such as Schistosoma spp. and cestodes like Taenia spp. and Echinococcus spp. [39]. Together, these findings demonstrate that sequencing-based approaches not only mitigate the limitations of traditional methods but also opens new pathways for the discovery of unexpected pathogens.

In response to the recognized diagnostic gaps in parasitology, this study explores the application of a metataxonomic approach coupled with phylogenetic methods for the simultaneous detection and, when possible, species-level confirmation of multiple parasite taxa in human fecal samples from Colombia. By evaluating a scalable, high-throughput strategy, the study aims to contribute to ongoing surveillance efforts and support more accurate monitoring in endemic settings.

Materials and methods

Sample description and microscopic diagnosis

A total of 65 fecal samples were selected in the present study based on confirmed microscopic diagnoses of the soil transmitted helminths and protists. Fecal samples were obtained from individuals in selected regions of Colombia as part of previous research projects. At the time of collection, stool samples were processed using direct saline and iodine smears, following a concentration step using the MiniParasep® SF fecal parasite concentrator (Apacor Ltd, England). The microscopic examination was conducted by an experienced staff of professionals with specific expertise in intestinal parasite diagnosis, following standardized internal protocols aligned with clinical laboratory guidelines [9]. To ensure maximum sensitivity, the entire surface area of each prepared slide (both direct and concentrated) was systematically examined under 100x and 400x magnification. The competence of the technical staff was rigorously maintained through a continuous quality assurance system that included periodic validation of diagnostic skills using reference slide collections. Additionally, a senior parasitologist was available for case consultation and verification of uncertain morphological identifications. This approach ensured standardized morphological identification and consistent performance across all operators. Samples were stored at -80oC until DNA extraction. Prior to molecular analysis, all samples were anonymized and coded to ensure the confidentiality of participants. A complete description of the parasitological results is presented in S1 Table.

DNA extraction and metataxonomic experiment

DNA extraction was performed with the Stool DNA isolation kit NORGEN BIOTEK CORP. DNA quantitation and UV spectral analysis was performed with Nanodrop 2000c to assess DNA purity and quantity. The V4 region of the eukaryotic rDNA gene was selected as marker for this study using the primer pair: 18S-V4Fw: CCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATTCC [40], and the reverse primer was 18S–V4 Rev: RCYTTCGYYCTTGATTRA, as described elsewhere [41]. Amplicon libraries were prepared and sequenced at Macrogen (Seoul, Korea) in a MiSeq (Illumina) platform to generate paired end reads of 300 bases.

Bioinformatic processing

Sequencing depth and quality were evaluated across all samples to ensure adequate coverage for metataxonomic analyses. The number of raw read pairs per sample ranged from 64,254–214,280, with post-filtering Q30-cleaned read pairs ranging from 31,891–120,273. Read cleaning was performed with cutadapt v2.10. After applying the Mothur quality-control pipeline, the number of high-quality sequences retained per sample ranged from 5,884–109,502. The estimated Good’s coverage values varied between 0.996019 and 0.99997, indicating that the sequencing effort was sufficient to capture nearly the entire diversity of dominant taxa present in each sample (S2 Table).

Amplicon reads underwent processing using the MOTHUR pipeline version 1.44 [42]. Briefly, Paired-endPaired end (PE) reads were merged using Mothur’s command “make.contigs”. Sequences with homopolymers longer than 8, with ambiguous bases, or sequences shorter than 250 bases were filtered out. The chimeric sequences were detected with VSEARCH [43] and removed from the analysis. Read clustering to operational taxonomic units (mOTUs) was performed with the subroutine “dist.seqs” at 97% nucleotide identity. Library size for each sample was normalized with the “totalgroup” method.

The taxonomic assignment of the generated mOTUs was conducted by comparisons with the SILVA v138 ribosomal database [44] in the MOTHUR pipeline. mOTUs identified as protist or nematode were retained for subsequent alignment with the BLASTN tool [45]. We selected good quality sequences with a length ≥1000 bp and considered valid candidate mOTUs for subsequent phylogenetic analyses those that showed a bit score ≥400 in the BLASTN.

To perform the taxonomic assignation, a database was built with mOTUS harbouring sequences of the of interest present in the stool samples and a curated reference sequence database of 18S rDNA genes of the nematode and protists. The reference protist included species of the genus Entamoeba, Endolimax, Iodamoeba, Cystoisospora, Besnoitia, Hyaloklossia, Caryospora, Eumonospora, Hammondia, Neospora, Toxoplasma, Nephroisospora and Blastocystis subtypes (ST1 to ST17). We selected nematodes in the superfamily Ancylostomatidae (Rhabditella axei, Angiostrongylus cantonensis, Angiostrongylus costaricensis, Angiostrongylus vasorum, Haemonchus contortus, Ancylostoma duodenale and Necator americanus), Dorylaimia subclass (Soboliphyme baturini, Trichuris muris, Trichuris suis, Trichuris trichiura, Trichinella spiralis, Trichinella pseudospiralis), Strongyloididae family (Strongyloides papillosus, Strongyloides ransomi, Strongyloides ratti and Strongyloides stercoralis), Spirurina (Toxocara vitulorum, Toxocara canis, Toxocara cati, Ascaris lumbricoides, and Ascaris suum). The accession number for the reference sequences can be found in S3 Table.

The reference sequences of each taxonomic group, along with the mOTUs identified by BLASTN comparisons as candidate helminth and protists species were aligned with MAFFT v7.215 software [46]. The phylogenetic tree was calculated using the IQ-TREE2 software [47] with 1000 ultrafast bootstrap pesudoreplicates to test the topology of the trees [48]. The ModelFinder was used to automatically select the best substitution model for each taxa dataset [49].

After the confirmation of the taxonomic assignment for each protist and nematode mOTU, a database was elaborated to summarize the findings from both the microscopic smear analysis and the NGS metataxonomic analysis. The presence of a classified mOTU in any individual was noted as a qualitative value of “present”. Individuals in which the nematode mOTU was absent were categorized as “negative.”

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analyses were performed to compare the detection outcomes obtained by microscopy and metataxonomic (NGS-based) approaches. The presence or absence of each parasite taxon was summarized as qualitative variables, and detection frequencies were calculated as the proportion of positive samples per method. Simple concordance rates between both diagnostic approaches were also calculated to provide a preliminary measure agreement. Results were visualized using comparative bar plots generated in R (v4.3.1) with the ggplot2 package. No inferential statistical tests were applied, as the objective of this preliminary study was to provide an exploratory, qualitative comparison of diagnostic performance. More comprehensive statistical analyses could be performed in future studies with larger sample sizes.

Ethical considerations

Fecal samples were collected in two time periods: April-November 2015 and September 2022-February 2023 as a part of independent research projects. The use of archived, anonymized fecal samples in this study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of Sede de Investigación Universitaria- Universidad de Antioquia (approval code CBE SIU 250, Date: October 18, 2023), in accordance with institutional and national guidelines. The authors had access to epidemiological data from the population; however, all information was anonymized, and participants provided written informed consent prior to data collection. No new samples were collected, and informed consent was not required due to the retrospective and anonymized nature of the material.

Results

Parasitic diagnosis using next-generation sequencing and direct examination

This study aimed to provide a preliminary comparison of parasite detection in human fecal samples using two approaches: traditional smear microscopy performed by trained parasitologists, and a metataxonomic method targeting the V4 hypervariable region of the eukaryotic 18S rDNA. Previous tests confirmed that the primers used in this study are effective for detecting protists and nematodes but do not amplify DNA from cestodes and trematodes. As a result, these groups were excluded from the scope of our analysis. Accordingly, our study focused on the detection of human intestinal protists and nematodes.

The study population was selected due to the high prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections in the region, particularly geohelminths. This selection enabled a robust comparison between the performance of traditional microscopy and metataxonomic (NGS-based) approaches. We began by focusing on nematode infections. Three samples that tested negative for nematodes by microscopy were included as controls. Notably, one of these was negative for all parasites by both methods—NGS and microscopy—serving as a negative reference.

Based on microscopy results, 95.4% of individuals (62 out of 65) were positive for at least one nematode species. In comparison, the metataxonomic approach using NGS detected nematodes in 86.2% of individuals (56 out of 65). As expected, the geohelminths Trichuris, Ascaris, and hookworms were the most prevalent parasites detected. Notably, hookworms surpassed Ascaris in prevalence, displacing it from its typical second position in Colombia. Interestingly, Strongyloides was also detected, despite being less commonly reported. When comparing the performance of the two detection methods, microscopy outperformed the metataxonomic NGS approach in identifying Ascaris by one additional positive sample and Trichuris by twelve. In contrast, both methods yielded the same results for hookworm detection. Strikingly, NGS substantially outperformed microscopy in the detection of Strongyloides, identifying three positive samples compared to just one by microscopy—representing a 300% increase (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Comparison of nematode detection frequencies between NGS-Metataxonomics and microscopy-based diagnostics.

Fig 1

Bar plots show the number of positive samples for four relevant geohelminths—Ascaris, Necator, Strongyloides, and Trichuris—detected using either molecular (NGS) or traditional microscopy approaches (Mic). Detection was binarized (positive vs. negative) and frequencies (Y-axis) were calculated across all samples in the dataset. Bars are grouped by parasite and color-coded by detection method (dark blue for NGS and light blue for microscopy).

Phylogenetic species analysis of nematodes

To improve the taxonomic resolution of nematode identification, we performed phylogenetic analyses using the molecular operational taxonomic units (mOTU) sequences. Curated reference sequences for each of the four detected nematode genera were included to ensure accurate and reliable taxonomic assignment.

Trichuris mOTUs were confirmed as T. trichiura based on phylogenetic analysis, as they formed a well-supported monophyletic clade with curated reference sequences of T. trichiura, receiving a UFB (ultrafast bootstrap) support value of 96 (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Phylogenetic analysis of Trichuris mOTUs for taxonomic assignment.

Fig 2

Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the SSU rRNA gene, constructed using a curated selection of Dorylaimida nematode sequences, including representatives of the genus Trichuris. The tree was inferred with 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates to assess branch support. Numbers shown on the branches correspond to UFBoot support values. Molecular OTUs (mOTUs) identified in this study are labeled with the prefix “mOTU”. Ultrafast bootstrap values are shown at the corresponding nodes. Longiorus elongatus was used as the outgroup.

The phylogenetic analysis of mOTUs assigned to hookworms successfully identified them as N. americanus. The resulting phylogenetic tree showed a well-supported clade containing the human-infecting genera Ancylostoma and Necator. Reference sequences of Ancylostoma formed a distinct branch with 100% ultrafast bootstrap (UFB) support; however, none of the mOTUs from our samples clustered within this branch. Instead, all mOTUs grouped with N. americanus reference sequences, forming a clade with 87% UFB support. Based on this phylogenetic placement, we assigned the detected mOTUs to N. americanus. In conclusion, all individuals in this study who tested positive for hookworms were infected only with N. americanus. (S1 Fig).

Similarly, Ascaris mOTUs were confirmed to belong to the genus Ascaris, forming a clade with a moderate ultrafast bootstrap (UFB) support value of 92. However, species-level assignment was not possible, as the 18S rDNA sequences of the closely related species A. lumbricoides and A. suum are highly similar, making it impossible to resolve them using this molecular marker (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Phylogenetic analysis of Ascaris mOTUs for taxonomic assignment.

Fig 3

Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the SSU rRNA gene, constructed using a curated selection of nematode sequences from the genera Ascaris, Toxocara and Anisakis. Numbers shown on the branches correspond to UFBoot support values. The tree was inferred with 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates to assess branch support. Molecular OTUs (mOTUs) identified in this study are labeled with the prefix “mOTU”. Ultrafast bootstrap support values are shown at the respective nodes. Anisakis genus was used as the outgroup.

Finally, the Strongyloides sequences from the three infected individuals clustered into a single mOTU, which was assigned to S. stercoralis. This mOTU formed a well-supported clade with 100% ultrafast bootstrap (UFB) support alongside curated reference sequences of S. stercoralis, confirming its taxonomic identity. Interestingly, one sample was positive for S. stercoralis by microscopy, based on the visualization of larvae, but was classified as negative for this species by NGS. Instead, NGS identified this sample as positive for N. americanus. Remarkably, all three S. stercoralis infections were exclusively detected by NGS, highlighting its enhanced sensitivity for detecting this parasite (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Phylogenetic analysis of Strongyloides mOTUs for taxonomic assignment.

Fig 4

Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the SSU rRNA gene, constructed using a curated selection of Strongyloides species sequences. The tree was inferred with 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates to assess branch support. Numbers shown on the branches correspond to UFBoot support values. Molecular OTUs (mOTUs) identified in this study are labeled with the prefix “mOTU”. Ultrafast bootstrap support values are shown at the corresponding nodes. Parastrongyloides trichosuri was used as the outgroup.

Based solely on the NGS results—given their higher specificity—we found that 32.1% of individuals harbored single nematode infections, while 67.9% presented with mixed infections. The most common coinfection was N. americanus + T. trichiura (n = 22), followed by N. americanus + T. trichiura + Ascaris (n = 12). Remarkably, one individual was infected with all four detected nematode species. Notably, no single infections with S. stercoralis were observed; this species was detected only in individuals co-infected with other geohelminths (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Distribution of single and mixed nematode infections detected by Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS).

Fig 5

Horizontal bar plot summarizing infection combinations detected by NGS across all samples for four soil-transmitted helminths: Ascaris spp., Necator americanus, Strongyloides stercoralis, and Trichuris trichuria. Each bar represents the number of samples exhibiting a specific infection pattern (X-axis), categorized as either single-species (Single) or mixed-species infections (Mixed). Bars are color-coded by infection type: blue for single infections and red for mixed infections.

Entamoeba and other amoebae

In the NGS metataxonomic analysis, species-level assignment was performed using a phylogenetic approach. This allowed us to confirm the presence of E. coli, E. hartmanni, and E. dispar in the studied population, with strong phylogenetic support (UFB ≥ 98) for each clade (S2 Fig).

A total of 34 individuals (52.3%) tested positive for any Entamoeba species by microscopy, while 42 individuals (64.6%) were positive using NGS-based metataxonomics. Overall, NGS outperformed microscopy in detecting Entamoeba species. The most striking difference was observed for E. hartmanni, with only 9 positives identified by microscopy compared to 29 detected by NGS—over three times more. For E. coli, the results were more similar, with NGS detecting 25 positives and microscopy 24. In the case of E. histolytica/dispar/moshkovskii, both methods yielded identical results, with 13 positive individuals each (Fig 6). Interestingly, the phylogenetic analyses resolved the amoeba diversity at the species level, consistent with the current species framework for this genus, with bootstrap support values that segregated closely related taxa, including members of the Entamoeba histolytica/dispar/moshkovskii complex.

Fig 6. Comparison of amoebae detection using NGS-Metataxonomics and microscopy.

Fig 6

Bar plot showing the number of positive samples for intestinal amoebae: Entamoeba dispar, Entamoeba coli, Entamoeba hartmanni, and Iodamoeba sp., detected using either NGS-Metataxonomics (NGS) or microscopy (Mic). Bars represent the total number of detections for each parasite by method across all samples (Y-axis).

The microscopy examination identified four positive samples for Iodamoeba, whereas no detections were observed using the NGS-based approach. This discrepancy is likely due to poor primer binding, as the reverse primer used for PCR shows limited annealing efficiency in Iodamoeba due to low sequence conservation in the targeted rDNA region.

Based on the higher specificity of the NGS results, we examined the distribution of Entamoeba species and their co-occurrence patterns within the studied population. While single-species infections involving any of the three detected Entamoeba species (E. coli, E. hartmanni, and E. dispar) were observed, mixed infections involving all possible species combinations were also detected. The most common infection types were single E. hartmanni infections and mixed E. coli + E. hartmanni infections, with 12 cases each (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Distribution of single and mixed amoeba infections detected by NGS-Metataxonomics.

Fig 7

Horizontal bar plot summarizing infection combinations detected by NGS across all samples for intestinal amoebae: Entamoeba dispar, Ent. coli, Ent. hartmanni. Each bar represents the number of samples exhibiting a specific infection pattern (X-axis), categorized as either single-species (Single) or mixed-species (Mixed) infections. Bars are color-coded by infection type: brown for single infections and tan for mixed infections. Parasite names were abbreviated for clarity (e.g., Entamoeba → E.).

Blastocystis

Blastocystis represents another compelling case in which microscopy significantly underestimated the number of colonized individuals. While Parasep concentration and direct stool smear analyses detected only 4 positive samples, the NGS metataxonomic approach identified Blastocystis in 46 individuals (70.7%), an eleven-fold increase (Fig 8).

Fig 8. Comparison of Blastocystis detection using NGS-Metataxonomics and Microscopy.

Fig 8

Bar plot showing the number of samples positive for Blastocystis hominis detected by either NGS-Metataxonomics (NGS) and by conventional microscopy (Mic). Each bar represents the total number of positive samples identified by each diagnostic method (Y-axis).

Subtype classification was performed as described in the Methods section, using the mOTUs assigned to Blastocystis. As shown in the phylogenetic tree, all detected mOTUs were assigned to subtypes ST1, ST2, and ST3, with robust phylogenetic support (UFB 100) (S3 Fig).

The most frequent colonization pattern involved a single subtype: ST1 (n = 13), followed by ST3 (n = 10) and ST2 (n = 9). Mixed subtype colonization was observed in 14 individuals (21.5%), with ST1 + ST3 being the most common combination (n = 8). Notably, triple subtype colonization (ST1 + ST2 + ST3) was detected in 2 individuals (Fig 9).

Fig 9. Distribution of Blastocystis subtype (ST) combinations detected by NGS-Metataxonomics.

Fig 9

The bars represent the occurrence of single and mixed Blastocystis subtypes among positive samples (X-axis).

Other protozoa

Regarding the other protozoan intestinal parasites, the NGS metataxonomic approach detected only Cystoisospora. Four mOTUs were assigned to this coccidian genus. Phylogenetic analysis showed that these mOTUs formed a monophyletic group with known mammalian parasitic species including Cystoisospora belli, Cystoisospora ohionensis, Cystoisospora suis, Cystoisospora canis, and Cystoisospora felis, with bootstrap support (98%) (Fig 10). This phylogenetic placement supports the genus-level identity. Microscopy reported the presence of Chilomastix, Cyclospora, and Giardia, while NGS metataxonomics detected only Cystoisospora, which was found in two individuals. Noteworthily, the two Cystoisospora-positive individuals were negative for Cyclospora, the other coccidian parasite (Fig 11).

Fig 10. Phylogenetic analysis of Cystoisospora mOTUs for taxonomic assignment.

Fig 10

Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the 18S rRNA gene, constructed using a curated selection of reference sequences from apicomplexan parasites, including representatives of the genus Cystoisospora. The tree was inferred with 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates to assess branch support. Numbers shown on the branches correspond to UFBoot support values. Molecular OTUs (mOTUs) identified in this study are labeled with the prefix “mOTU”. Ultrafast bootstrap support values are shown at the corresponding nodes. Sarcocystis rileyi was used as the outgroup.

Fig 11. Comparison of other protozoan parasite detection by NGS-Metataxonomics and microscopic smear analysis.

Fig 11

Bar plot summarizing the number of positive samples for other intestinal protozoa (Giardia, Cyclospora, Cystoisospora, and Chilomastix) as detected by NGS-Metataxonomics (NGS) and microscopy (Mic). Each bar represents the total number of samples testing positive per parasite and method (Y-axis).

Discussion

Intestinal parasites remain a significant public health burden in low- and middle-income countries and are increasingly recognized as an emerging concern in developed nations [5052]. Since the initial discovery of intestinal protists and nematodes, microscopy has served as the foundation for the diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections in both humans and animals [53,54] and due to the challenges associated with culturing many intestinal parasites under controlled laboratory conditions [55], still persist in many laboratories as the primary method for taxonomic classification.

Intestinal protozoa and nematode infections occur through interactions between humans, their domestic animals—both companion and livestock— and the surrounding environment. Molecular studies already show parasite exchange across species barriers. Comparative analyses of Strongyloides 18S and cox1 sequences from humans and dogs have revealed two major S. stercoralis lineage, one apparently restricted to canines, and another shared among dogs, cats, humans, and non-human primates [56]. These findings indicated a limited yet plausible zoonotic link, though the direction and geographic extent of transmission remain uncertain, underscoring the need for co-sampling of hosts and population genetic analyses to clarify cross-species dynamics. Human-associated Blastocystis subtypes (ST1-ST3) are frequently detected in cohabiting pets and their owners, suggesting either bidirectional transmission or exposure to shared environmental sources [57]. Given that most studies are cross-sectional, current evidence provides only limited insights into parasite transmission, highlighting the need for high-resolution genotyping, longitudinal sampling, and environmental assessments. Similarly, genetic analyses show extensive overlap among soil-transmitted helminths in humans and animals, suggesting shared transmission cycles rather than exclusively human reservoirs [8]. These findings indicate the need for integrated parasite control and management to mitigate zoonotic and environmental risks. Monitoring and preventive measures across veterinary, medical, and public health sectors are critical to reduce cross-species transmission, but current evidence reveals gaps in treatment, evaluation and coordinated efforts involving health and veterinary professionals, researchers, industry, and governmental authorities [58]. In this context, metataxonomic approaches offer a powerful tool to advance One Health investigations, by providing high-resolution data on parasite diversity, geographic distribution, and potential reservoirs, supporting informed, evidence-based interventions across humans, animals, and the environment.

The advent of PCR in the 1980s and 1990s marked a major advancement, improving the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and enabling more refined classification of parasitic organisms [10,11,16]. However, recent biotechnological innovations have continued to drive progress across all areas of life sciences. Notably, next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have revolutionized parasitology by enabling high-throughput detection methods such as metataxonomic analysis [25,26,34,39]. Unlike traditional qPCR-based methods that rely on fluorescence detection of specific amplicons, NGS allows for the sequencing of hundreds of thousands of DNA fragments simultaneously [39]. This dramatically enhances detection sensitivity and, when coupled with modern bioinformatic tools and phylogenetic analyses, significantly improves taxonomic resolution and specificity [41].

In this study, we combined a metataxonomic approach with classical phylogenetic methods to detect and classify intestinal parasites in rural populations of Colombia, where high prevalence rates have been historically documented [59]. While metataxonomic methods have been increasingly applied for the detection of protist parasites [2426,34], our study expanded their use to include the detection of geohelminths, including S. stercoralis, and, in certain cases, suggested potential species-level resolution within a curated phylogenetic framework. Additionally, we aimed to compare the performance of traditional microscopy with that of NGS-based metataxonomics, highlighting the strengths and limitations of each method in accurately characterizing parasitic infections. Although both technologies successfully detected intestinal nematodes, notable differences were observed in certain cases. For Trichuris trichiura, microscopy identified significantly more infected individuals than the NGS-based metataxonomic approach. A plausible explanation is the high resistance of the Trichuris eggshell [60], which may hinder efficient DNA extraction and reduce the yield of amplifiable material. A similar, albeit less pronounced, pattern was observed for Ascaris, with microscopy detecting one additional positive case. We applied a physical and chemical method for lysis according to manufacturer instructions. Future studies should implement improved lysis protocols to enhance the disruption of tough nematode eggshells [61] and increase detection sensitivity for these species. An additional consideration with Ascaris is that since A. lumbricoides and A. suum are closely related species [62], the 18S rRNA gene does not provide sufficient resolution to distinguish between them, limiting species-level assignment in metataxonomic analyses.

In contrast, for hookworms and S. stercoralis—both of which possess less resistant external structures [63]—microscopy did not outperform metataxonomics. In fact, NGS-based metataxonomic analysis proved more effective for S. stercoralis, detecting three times as many positive samples. This is particularly relevant given the clinical importance of S. stercoralis, which can cause severe, life-threatening infections, especially in immunocompromised individuals [52]. Another advantage of using NGS technologies is their ability to reduce the risk of misidentifying Strongyloides rhabditoid larvae as hookworm larvae. Traditional parasitological methods for its detection (e.g., direct smear, Baermann, agar plate culture) are labor-intensive, technically demanding, and have limited sensitivity—often detecting fewer than 60–70% of cases in single-sample analyses [64]. Molecular approaches, including NGS, offer significantly improved sensitivity and can effectively overcome the challenges posed by low and intermittent larval shedding [64].

One potential advantage of the metataxonomic approach lies in its capacity, when integrated with phylogenetic analyses, to provide putative species-level assignments for several intestinal parasites. However, such classifications should be interpreted with caution, as they are limited by the phylogenetic resolution of the ribosomal marker used and by the completeness of current taxonomic reference databases. As NGS technologies continue to advance and genomic databases for parasites become more comprehensive, the inclusion of multiple molecular markers—or even full phylogenomic approaches—will enable more confident species-level identifications within a robust and resolved taxonomic framework. This represents a substantial improvement over microscopy, which typically permits only genus-level identification and therefore restricts our understanding of the true epidemiology, burden, and transmission dynamics of parasitic infections. By applying our combined NGS-based metataxonomic and phylogenetic framework, we found evidence that the Colombian populations analyzed were infected, in descending order of frequency, with T. trichiura, N. americanus, Ascaris spp., and S. stercoralis.

In the case of protist detection, the NGS-based metataxonomic approach has been successfully applied in several studies involving human stool samples and wastewater. Among the protists reliably detected using this technology are Blastocystis, Giardia, Entamoeba, Balantioides, Acanthamoeba, Cryptosporidium, Dientamoeba, and Rhogostoma [24,26,65]. These examples highlight the broad taxonomic scope and sensitivity of metataxonomic methods for detecting a wide range of eukaryotic microorganisms in complex biological and environmental samples. As shown in previous studies worldwide [24,66,67], Blastocystis is the most prevalent intestinal protist in humans. Our study reflected the same trend, with Blastocystis detected in nearly 71% of the tested population using NGS-based metataxonomic technologies. Strikingly, the sensitivity of microscopic methods was notably lower, as metataxonomics detected over eleven times more colonized individuals than traditional smear techniques.

A further potential advantage of the metataxonomic plus phylogenetic approach is its capacity to assign Blastocystis sequences to specific subtypes and to identify possible mixed-subtype infections [24]. Our findings align with previous studies by our group and others, indicating that the dominant subtypes colonizing Colombian populations are ST1, ST2, and ST3, with ST1 being the most prevalent. Additionally, we found that mixed-subtype colonization was common, occurring in approximately 22% of positive individuals. The most frequent combination was ST1 + ST3, and two individuals harbored all three subtypes simultaneously.

The second most prevalent genus detected was Entamoeba, with nearly 65% of individuals testing positive by NGS-based metataxonomics. In contrast, microscopic smear analysis detected Entamoeba in 52% of the individuals. The most striking discrepancy between the two methods was observed at the species level: in our study, E. hartmanni appeared to be underdiagnosed by microscopy, with NGS detecting three times more cases. This underestimation may be due to morphological misidentification or confusion with other protists under light microscopy [68]. For Entamoeba coli and E. dispar, both methods showed similar performance. In microscopy, the amoeba cysts identified as part of the Entamoeba histolytica/dispar/moshkovskii complex were classified as Entamoeba dispar in the NGS analysis, thanks to the resolution provided by phylogenetic inference. The similar number of positive samples obtained by both methods suggests comparable performance in detecting this genus.

An additional discordance was noted with Iodamoeba: microscopy reported four positive cases, whereas NGS-based metataxonomics failed to detect any. We suspect this is due to inefficient amplification caused by mismatches between the reverse primer and the 18S-V4 target region in Iodamoeba, leading to poor PCR performance during library preparation. Overall, the population studied showed colonization primarily by non-pathogenic, commensal amoebae. Phylogenetic analysis revealed strong resolution within the E. histolytica/E. dispar/E. moshkovskii species complex, and we can rule out the presence of the pathogenic E. histolytica in the detected Entamoeba mOTUs. Our results agree with PCR-based molecular studies in Colombian population which have reported a higher circulation of E. dispar compared with E. histolytica [69].

The most discordant results were observed for other protozoa, namely Chilomastix, Cyclospora, Cystoisospora, and Giardia. For these protozoan taxa, there was no concordance between microscopy and NGS metataxonomic; each was detected by only one method, with no mutual confirmation. This highlights the inherent challenge of capturing the full diversity of parasites using a single methodological approach, given the varying biological and molecular characteristics of these organisms. In 18S rRNA metataxonomics, several technical factors may contribute to false-negative results. First, DNA extraction protocols may not fully disrupt the resistant cyst or oocyst walls of certain protozoa, limiting the recovery of amplifiable DNA [70]. Second, sequence polymorphisms in the target regions can affect the binding efficiency of universal primers, introducing amplification bias [71]. Third, the low abundance of parasite DNA relative to host and microbiome DNA can reduce amplification efficiency [72]. Additionally, variability in ribosomal gene copy number among taxa and preferential amplification of shorter fragments, particularly when targeting V3-V4 regions, can further affect detection sensitivity [73,74]. Taken together, these factors indicate that absence of detection by NGS should be interpreted cautiously, as it may reflect technical limitations rather than true absence of the organism.

In the case of Chilomastix, bioinformatic analysis revealed an issue similar to that observed with Iodamoeba: the reverse primer target region shows poor sequence conservation in this genus, likely impairing efficient primer annealing and thus detection by PCR. For Cyclospora, although we cannot entirely rule out primer incompatibility, the same primer set has successfully amplified other apicomplexan parasites (e.g., Cystoisospora, Cryptosporidium) in past analyses. Therefore, no definitive conclusion can be made regarding Cyclospora detection.

Interestingly, Giardia was not detected by NGS in any of the samples analyzed in this study, even though we have previously reported its successful detection using the same primers and protocols in human stool samples and wastewater from Colombia [41]. This observation is consistent with other metataxonomic studies that have reported limited or no detection of Giardia, highlighting persistent technical challenges [22,34,75,76]. Several authors have suggested that primer mismatches, low abundance, and especially inefficient DNA extraction from the parasite’s resistant cyst wall may underline these failures. Standard fecal DNA extraction protocols may be suboptimal for Giardia which often require more intensive lysis methods— such as mechanical disruption or repeated freeze-thaw cycles— to ensure adequate DNA release [77].

Other molecular approaches, such as PCR, have been employed to detect intestinal parasites. However, these techniques present inherent limitations, especially when aiming to identify a wide range of taxa. Detecting more than 20 different parasite genera—each comprising multiple species or subtypes, as in the case of Blastocystis—requires the use of multiple primer sets and separate reactions. This not only reduces scalability but also increases cost and complexity over time. In contrast, the NGS-based metataxonomic approach enables the simultaneous detection of a broad and potentially unlimited diversity of intestinal parasites in a single assay. Furthermore, the downstream analysis can be streamlined and automated using current, well-established bioinformatic pipelines.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has not replaced conventional diagnostic tools but has experienced growing adoption as a complementary methodology in parasitology. Its applications have expanded significantly beyond detection to include understanding genetic interrelationships among parasites, characterizing genetic diversity and intra-isolate variation, and determining the relative abundance of specific parasite species within complex clinical samples [74]. The available research demonstrates several key comparative advantages of NGS over traditional diagnostic tools for parasite detection, though comprehensive head-to-head studies remain limited. When comparing next-generation sequencing (NGS) to PCR in the diagnosis of parasitic infections, NGS offers broader detection capabilities, particularly for mixed infections and subtype resolution, while PCR tends to provide higher sensitivity for single-target detection. For example, in studies on Blastocystis spp., qPCR was more sensitive for detecting the presence of the parasite in low-load samples, but NGS was superior in identifying multiple subtypes and mixed infections, which were undetected by PCR and Sanger sequencing [78]. Stensvold et al. directly compared metabarcoding (NGS) and real-time PCR (qPCR) for detecting zoonotic protists in pigs, revealing complementary methodological strengths [76]. While both methods were equally effective for detecting Balantioides coli, metabarcoding proved superior for broad-spectrum screening, simultaneously identifying additional parasites like G. intestinalis and Enterocytozoon bieneusi. In contrast, qPCR remained the optimal tool for sensitive and targeted quantification of specific pathogens. In relation to intestinal amoebae, several studies have demonstrated that next-generation sequencing (NGS) offers markedly improved sensitivity and resolution over conventional methods such as microscopy and PCR. NGS-based approaches, including amplicon sequencing and metagenomics, consistently detect higher species richness, mixed infections, and intra-host diversity that are frequently overlooked by traditional diagnostics [79,80]. For instance, short-amplicon NGS revealed substantial genetic diversity within Iodamoeba bütschlii, including host-specific lineages and novel variants undetectable by standard PCR [79]. Similarly, NGS analyses of E. coli, E. hartmanni, and Endolimax nana have uncovered extensive intrageneric diversity and previously unrecognized ribosomal lineages [80,81]. In livestock and wildlife hosts, NGS has identified mixed-subtype infections and novel genotypes of Entamoeba and Blastocystis, expanding the known host range and genetic landscape of these protists [34,80].

NGS has proven particularly valuable for protozoan pathogens such as G. intestinalis and Cryptosporidium spp., where mixed infections are common but often undetected by conventional sequencing methods. For Giardia, several studies have demonstrated that next-generation amplicon sequencing (NGS) provides significant methodological advantages over conventional Sanger sequencing for molecular characterization and epidemiological investigations [33,82,83]. NGS consistently shows higher sensitivity and improved capacity to detect mixed assemblage infections, which are frequently missed or yield ambiguous results with Sanger sequencing due to its inability to resolve heterogeneous sequences. By targeting loci such as the beta-giardin and tpi genes, deep amplicon sequencing has revealed the presence and relative abundance of multiple assemblages (e.g., A, B, AII, BIV) within individual hosts and outbreak samples [33,82,83]. Notably, in outbreak investigations, NGS successfully identified mixed assemblages in 43.5% of cases where Sanger failed and further detected 12 novel sub-assemblage-level variants [83]. Additionally, its ability to quantify minor single-nucleotide variants present at frequencies as low as 5% provides unprecedented resolution into parasite population structure. These capabilities not only offer deeper genetic insights but also enhance the precision of transmission tracking and public health surveillance efforts. Furthermore, in the case of Cryptosporidium, NGS offers a critical advantage by revealing a complex landscape of infection that remains hidden to conventional methods. While Sanger sequencing of the gp60 gene often identifies only a dominant subtype, NGS applications consistently uncover mixed infections and substantial within-subtype genetic diversity [29,84,85].This high-resolution view of the pathogen population is crucial for accurate epidemiological tracing and for understanding the true dynamics of transmission.

Our current metataxonomic approach fails to detect cestodes and trematodes, likely due to poor primer annealing caused by the high sequence divergence of their 18S rDNA V4 region compared to other intestinal parasites such as protists and nematodes. Bioinformatic analyses from this study indicate that Platyhelminths are not efficiently amplifiable with the primers used. Additionally, certain amoebae—such as Iodamoeba—appear to be inefficiently amplified, likely due to mismatches at the primer binding sites. These findings highlight the need for improved primer design to broaden taxonomic coverage and enhance the diagnostic utility of metataxonomic protocols.

Another potential limitation of this study is the long-term storage of DNA samples prior to NGS analysis. While prolonged preservation at -80oC generally maintains DNA integrity, factors such as storage duration and freeze-thaw cycles can influence quality. Evidence from microbiota research indicates that fecal DNA can remain viable for extended periods, even up to 14 years, under stable frozen conditions [8688]. However, parasite specific data is more limited. Although studies suggest that parasite DNA, such as from Giardia, remains detectable after long-term storage [89], the effect on the broader parasitome is less clear. In our study, all samples were maintained under a strict and uniform storage protocol at -80oC from collection until DNA extraction. This consistent handling ensures that any potential DNA degradation would be systematic across the entire sample set. Consequently, such effects would likely reduce overall detection sensitivity uniformly, without compromising our core finding that NGS identifies greater parasite diversity than microscopy in these archival samples.

We are now entering a new era in parasitology, empowered by an expanded molecular toolkit that includes genomic, metagenomic, and metataxonomic approaches. These technologies provide high-resolution taxonomic and evolutionary insights, enable the genomic characterization of unculturable parasites, and enhance the detection of parasitic organisms in complex samples such as stool or environmental matrices [90].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Phylogenetic analysis of Necator mOTUs for taxonomic assignment.

Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the 18S rRNA gene, constructed using a curated selection of reference sequences from nematode genera related to hookworms, including representatives of Necator and Ancylostoma. The tree was inferred with 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates to assess branch support. Molecular OTUs (mOTUs) identified in this study are labeled with the prefix “mOTU”. All hookworm mOTUs clustered within the Necator americanus clade, indicating that this was the sole hookworm species detected in the sampled population. Ultrafast bootstrap support values are shown at the corresponding nodes. Rhabditis sp. was used as the outgroup.

(PDF)

pone.0330312.s001.pdf (4.8KB, pdf)
S2 Fig. Phylogenetic analysis of Entamoeba mOTUs for taxonomic assignment.

Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the 18S rRNA gene, constructed using a curated selection of reference sequences from the genus Entamoeba. The tree was inferred with 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates to assess branch support. Molecular OTUs (mOTUs) identified in this study are labeled with the prefix “mOTU”. All mOTUs clustered within known Entamoeba species clades, supporting their taxonomic assignments. Ultrafast bootstrap support values are indicated at the corresponding nodes. Representative sequences of Dientamoeba fragilis were used as the outgroup.

(PDF)

pone.0330312.s002.pdf (7.5KB, pdf)
S3 Fig. Phylogenetic analysis of Blastocystis mOTUs for subtype (ST) classification.

Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the 18S rRNA gene, constructed using a curated selection of Blastocystis reference sequences representing subtypes (STs) 1–17, including all subtypes commonly associated with human populations. Molecular OTUs (mOTUs) identified in this study are labeled with the prefix “mOTU”. The tree was inferred with 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates to assess branch support, and UFBoot values are shown at the corresponding nodes. All mOTUs clustered within well-supported clades corresponding to known Blastocystis subtypes, enabling confident subtype assignment. A combined clade of Blastocystis ST15 and ST17 was used as the outgroup.

(PDF)

pone.0330312.s003.pdf (8.3KB, pdf)
S1 Table. Description of the conventional parasitological results.

(XLSX)

pone.0330312.s004.xlsx (18.1KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Read statistics for the bacterial 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and processing.

(XLSX)

pone.0330312.s005.xlsx (13.3KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. Accession numbers for the reference sequences.

(XLSX)

pone.0330312.s006.xlsx (17.1KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

Data are available at NCBI SRA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA1293464.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by Escuela de Microbiología-CODI, Universidad de Antioquia, under grant code 2023-64370. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Echazú A, Bonanno D, Juarez M, Cajal SP, Heredia V, Caropresi S, et al. Effect of poor access to water and sanitation as risk factors for soil-transmitted helminth infection: selectiveness by the infective route. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(9):e0004111. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tegen D, Damtie D, Hailegebriel T. Prevalence and associated risk factors of human intestinal protozoan parasitic infections in ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Parasitol Res. 2020;2020:8884064. doi: 10.1155/2020/8884064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fauziah N, Aviani JK, Agrianfanny YN, Fatimah SN. Intestinal parasitic infection and nutritional status in children under five years old: a systematic review. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2022;7(11):371. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed7110371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ahmed M. Intestinal parasitic infections in 2023. Gastroenterology Res. 2023;16(3):127–40. doi: 10.14740/gr1622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Krolewiecki AJ, Lammie P, Jacobson J, Gabrielli A-F, Levecke B, Socias E, et al. A public health response against Strongyloides stercoralis: time to look at soil-transmitted helminthiasis in full. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(5):e2165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mutombo PN, Man NWY, Nejsum P, Ricketson R, Gordon CA, Robertson G, et al. Diagnosis and drug resistance of human soil-transmitted helminth infections: a public health perspective. Adv Parasitol. 2019;104:247–326. doi: 10.1016/bs.apar.2019.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Savioli L, Albonico M, Daumerie D, Lo NC, Stothard JR, Asaolu S, et al. Review of the 2017 WHO guideline: preventive chemotherapy to control soil-transmitted helminth infections in at-risk population groups. an opportunity lost in translation. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(4):e0006296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mawrie UG, Kharkongor R, Valladares MM, Kepha S, Ajjampur SSR, Sarkar R, et al. The occurrence of cross-host species soil-transmitted helminth infections in humans and domestic/livestock animals: a systematic review. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2025;5(8):e0004614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0004614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Garcia LS, Arrowood M, Kokoskin E, Paltridge GP, Pillai DR, Procop GW, et al. Practical guidance for clinical microbiology laboratories: laboratory diagnosis of parasites from the gastrointestinal tract. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2017;31(1):e00025-17. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00025-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Miswan N, Singham GV, Othman N. Advantages and limitations of microscopy and molecular detections for diagnosis of soil-transmitted helminths: an overview. Helminthologia. 2022;59(4):321–40. doi: 10.2478/helm-2022-0034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Formenti F, Valerio M, Guerriero M, Perandin F, Pajola B, Mistretta M, et al. Molecular biology can change the classic laboratory approach for intestinal protozoan infections. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2191. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hassan N-A, Thodsapol A, Lim YAL, Wan Sulaiman WY, Sidi Omar SFN, Umsakul K, et al. Copro-molecular identification of intestinal nematode infections in a rural community in East Malaysia. Parasitol Int. 2021;80:102237. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2020.102237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Khurana S, Singh S, Mewara A. Diagnostic techniques for soil-transmitted helminths - recent advances. Res Rep Trop Med. 2021;12:181–96. doi: 10.2147/RRTM.S278140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Phosuk I, Sanpool O, Thanchomnang T, Sadaow L, Rodpai R, Anamnart W, et al. Molecular identification of trichuris suis and trichuris trichiura eggs in human populations from Thailand, lao PDR, and Myanmar. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;98(1):39–44. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.17-0651 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Verweij JJ, Stensvold CR. Molecular testing for clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations of intestinal parasitic infections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014;27(2):371–418. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00122-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Garg P, Bhasin SL, Malhotra P, Rana SS, Singh S, Sethi J, et al. Multiplex PCR for gastrointestinal parasites in stool: benchmarking against direct microscopy and simplex PCR. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2024;110(2):116475. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2024.116475 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Autier B, Belaz S, Razakandrainibe R, Gangneux J-P, Robert-Gangneux F. Comparison of three commercial multiplex PCR assays for the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa. Parasite. 2018;25:48. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2018049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lamien-Meda A, Schneider R, Walochnik J, Auer H, Wiedermann U, Leitsch D. A novel 5-Plex qPCR-HRM assay detecting human diarrheal parasites. Gut Pathog. 2020;12:27. doi: 10.1186/s13099-020-00365-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Llewellyn S, Inpankaew T, Nery SV, Gray DJ, Verweij JJ, Clements ACA, et al. Application of a multiplex quantitative PCR to Assess prevalence and intensity of intestinal parasite infections in a controlled clinical trial. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(1):e0004380. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chourasia R, Patel RV, Das G, Kumar S, Nath S, Agrawal A, et al. Next generation sequencing in parasitic disease research: applications and advances. J Adv Biol Biotechnol. 2025;28(8):318–26. doi: 10.9734/jabb/2025/v28i82708 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kounosu A, Murase K, Yoshida A, Maruyama H, Kikuchi T. Improved 18S and 28S rDNA primer sets for NGS-based parasite detection. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):15789. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-52422-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wylezich C, Caccio SM, Walochnik J, Beer M, Höper D. Untargeted metagenomics shows a reliable performance for synchronous detection of parasites. Parasitol Res. 2020;119(8):2623–9. doi: 10.1007/s00436-020-06754-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Breitwieser FP, Lu J, Salzberg SL. A review of methods and databases for metagenomic classification and assembly. Brief Bioinform. 2019;20(4):1125–36. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbx120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Garcia-Montoya GM, Galvan-Diaz AL, Alzate JF. Metataxomics reveals Blastocystis subtypes mixed infections in Colombian children. Infect Genet Evol. 2023;113:105478. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2023.105478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hino A, Maruyama H, Kikuchi T. A novel method to assess the biodiversity of parasites using 18S rDNA Illumina sequencing; parasitome analysis method. Parasitol Int. 2016;65(5 Pt B):572–5. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2016.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Moreno Y, Moreno-Mesonero L, Amorós I, Pérez R, Morillo JA, Alonso JL. Multiple identification of most important waterborne protozoa in surface water used for irrigation purposes by 18S rRNA amplicon-based metagenomics. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018;221(1):102–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rusiñol M, Martínez-Puchol S, Timoneda N, Fernández-Cassi X, Pérez-Cataluña A, Fernández-Bravo A, et al. Metagenomic analysis of viruses, bacteria and protozoa in irrigation water. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020;224:113440. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.113440 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Stensvold CR, Lebbad M, Hansen A, Beser J, Belkessa S, O’Brien Andersen L, et al. Differentiation of Blastocystis and parasitic archamoebids encountered in untreated wastewater samples by amplicon-based next-generation sequencing. Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2019;9:e00131. doi: 10.1016/j.parepi.2019.e00131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zahedi A, Greay TL, Paparini A, Linge KL, Joll CA, Ryan UM. Identification of eukaryotic microorganisms with 18S rRNA next-generation sequencing in wastewater treatment plants, with a more targeted NGS approach required for Cryptosporidium detection. Water Res. 2019;158:301–12. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.04.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lappan R, Classon C, Kumar S, Singh OP, de Almeida RV, Chakravarty J, et al. Meta-taxonomic analysis of prokaryotic and eukaryotic gut flora in stool samples from visceral leishmaniasis cases and endemic controls in Bihar State India. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(9):e0007444. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Higuera A, Herrera G, Jimenez P, García-Corredor D, Pulido-Medellín M, Bulla-Castañeda DM, et al. Identification of multiple blastocystis subtypes in domestic animals from Colombia using amplicon-based next generation sequencing. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:732129. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.732129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Maloney JG, Molokin A, Santin M. Next generation amplicon sequencing improves detection of Blastocystis mixed subtype infections. Infect Genet Evol. 2019;73:119–25. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2019.04.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Maloney JG, Molokin A, da Cunha MJR, Cury MC, Santin M. Blastocystis subtype distribution in domestic and captive wild bird species from Brazil using next generation amplicon sequencing. Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2020;9:e00138. doi: 10.1016/j.parepi.2020.e00138 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wylezich C, Belka A, Hanke D, Beer M, Blome S, Höper D. Metagenomics for broad and improved parasite detection: a proof-of-concept study using swine faecal samples. Int J Parasitol. 2019;49(10):769–77. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2019.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chessa D, Murgia M, Sias E, Deligios M, Mazzarello V, Fiamma M, et al. Metagenomics and microscope revealed T. trichiura and other intestinal parasites in a cesspit of an Italian nineteenth century aristocratic palace. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12656. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69497-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kenmotsu H, Ishikawa M, Nitta T, Hirose Y, Eki T. Distinct community structures of soil nematodes from three ecologically different sites revealed by high-throughput amplicon sequencing of four 18S ribosomal RNA gene regions. PLoS One. 2021;16(4):e0249571. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kenmotsu H, Uchida K, Hirose Y, Eki T. Taxonomic profiling of individual nematodes isolated from copse soils using deep amplicon sequencing of four distinct regions of the 18S ribosomal RNA gene. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0240336. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tanaka R, Hino A, Tsai IJ, Palomares-Rius JE, Yoshida A, Ogura Y, et al. Assessment of helminth biodiversity in wild rats using 18S rDNA based metagenomics. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110769. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110769 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Basirpour B, Tabaripour R, Jafarian F, Fakhar M, Ziaei Hezarjaribi H, Gholami S. Applications of the powerful next-generation sequencing tool for detecting parasitic infections: towards a smart laboratory platform. Microb Pathog. 2025;206:107746. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2025.107746 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Choi J, Park JS. Comparative analyses of the V4 and V9 regions of 18S rDNA for the extant eukaryotic community using the Illumina platform. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):6519. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-63561-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rozo-Montoya N, Bedoya-Urrego K, Alzate JF. Monitoring potentially pathogenic protists in sewage sludge using Metataxonomics. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2023;33:e00210. doi: 10.1016/j.fawpar.2023.e00210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, et al. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75(23):7537–41. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01541-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahé F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2584. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D590-6. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.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]
  • 46.Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(4):772–80. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD, von Haeseler A, et al. IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol Biol Evol. 2020;37(5):1530–4. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msaa015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hoang DT, Chernomor O, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ, Vinh LS. UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35(2):518–22. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods. 2017;14(6):587–9. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Fletcher SM, Stark D, Harkness J, Ellis J. Enteric protozoa in the developed world: a public health perspective. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25(3):420–49. doi: 10.1128/CMR.05038-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Li J, Wang Z, Karim MR, Zhang L. Detection of human intestinal protozoan parasites in vegetables and fruits: a review. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):380. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04255-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lucas Dato A, Wikman-Jorgensen P, Borrajo Brunete E, Hernández Rabadán MD, García-Morante H, Merino Trigueros MA, et al. Concomitant serological and molecular methods for strongyloides stercoralis screening in an endemic area of Spain. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2024;9(9):194. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed9090194 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Soares FA, Benitez A do N, Santos BMD, Loiola SHN, Rosa SL, Nagata WB, et al. A historical review of the techniques of recovery of parasites for their detection in human stools. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2020;53:e20190535. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0535-2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.van Lieshout L, Roestenberg M. Clinical consequences of new diagnostic tools for intestinal parasites. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21(6):520–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.03.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ibañez-Escribano A, Esteban-Sánchez L, Fonseca-Berzal C, Ponce-Gordo F, García-Rodríguez JJ. Challenges and achievements in the in vitro culture of Balantioides coli: insights into the excystation process. Pathogens. 2025;14(8):725. doi: 10.3390/pathogens14080725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bradbury RS, Streit A. Is strongyloidiasis a zoonosis from dogs?. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2024;379(1894):20220445. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2022.0445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Heneberg P. Crossing the species barrier: bidirectional transmission of blastocystis between pets and their owners. One Health. 2025;21:101166. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2025.101166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Giannelli A, Schnyder M, Wright I, Charlier J. Control of companion animal parasites and impact on One Health. One Health. 2024;18:100679. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100679 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Castañeda S, Acosta CP, Vasquez-A LR, Patiño LH, Mejía R, Ramírez JD. Molecular detection of intestinal parasites in a rural community of Colombia: a one health approach to explore potential environmental-zoonotic transmission. Zoonoses Public Health. 2024;71(6):723–35. doi: 10.1111/zph.13138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wharton DA, Jenkins T. Structure and chemistry of the egg-shell of a nematode (Trichuris suis). Tissue Cell. 1978;10(3):427–40. doi: 10.1016/s0040-8166(16)30338-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Waindok P, Raulf M-K, Strube C. Potentials and challenges in the isolation and detection of ascarid eggs in complex environmental matrices. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2022;28:e00174. doi: 10.1016/j.fawpar.2022.e00174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Zhou C, Guo T, Deng Y, He J, Ouyang S, Wu X. Mitochondrial phylogenomics of human-type Ascaris, pig-type Ascaris, and hybrid Ascaris populations. Vet Parasitol. 2020;287:109256. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2020.109256 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Chauhan VM, Scurr DJ, Christie T, Telford G, Aylott JW, Pritchard DI. The physicochemical fingerprint of Necator americanus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(12):e0005971. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Chan AHE, Thaenkham U. From past to present: opportunities and trends in the molecular detection and diagnosis of Strongyloides stercoralis. Parasit Vectors. 2023;16(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s13071-023-05763-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Sarzhanov F, Dogruman-Al F, Santin M, Maloney JG, Gureser AS, Karasartova D, et al. Investigation of neglected protists Blastocystis sp. and Dientamoeba fragilis in immunocompetent and immunodeficient diarrheal patients using both conventional and molecular methods. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(10):e0009779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Fusaro C, Bernal JE, Baldiris-Ávila R, González-Cuello R, Cisneros-Lorduy J, Reales-Ruiz A, et al. Molecular prevalence and subtypes distribution of blastocystis spp. in humans of Latin America: a systematic review. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2024;9(2):38. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed9020038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Tito RY, Chaffron S, Caenepeel C, Lima-Mendez G, Wang J, Vieira-Silva S, et al. Population-level analysis of Blastocystis subtype prevalence and variation in the human gut microbiota. Gut. 2019;68(7):1180–9. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Servián A, Lorena Zonta M, Navone GT. Differential diagnosis of human Entamoeba infections: Morphological and molecular characterization of new isolates in Argentina. Rev Argent Microbiol. 2024;56(1):16–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ram.2023.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Fotedar R, Stark D, Beebe N, Marriott D, Ellis J, Harkness J. PCR detection of Entamoeba histolytica, Entamoeba dispar, and Entamoeba moshkovskii in stool samples from Sydney, Australia. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45(3):1035–7. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02144-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Naushad S, Gao R, Duceppe M-O, Dupras AA, Reiling SJ, Merks H, et al. Metagenomic detection of protozoan parasites on leafy greens aided by a rapid and efficient DNA extraction protocol. Front Microbiol. 2025;16:1566579. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1566579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Bradley IM, Pinto AJ, Guest JS. Design and evaluation of illumina MiSeq-compatible, 18S rRNA gene-specific primers for improved characterization of mixed phototrophic communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82(19):5878–91. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01630-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Frau A, Kenny JG, Lenzi L, Campbell BJ, Ijaz UZ, Duckworth CA, et al. DNA extraction and amplicon production strategies deeply inf luence the outcome of gut mycobiome studies. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):9328. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44974-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Chihi A, O’Brien Andersen L, Aoun K, Bouratbine A, Stensvold CR. Amplicon-based next-generation sequencing of eukaryotic nuclear ribosomal genes (metabarcoding) for the detection of single-celled parasites in human faecal samples. Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2022;17:e00242. doi: 10.1016/j.parepi.2022.e00242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Stensvold CR. Metabarcoding in gut protozoology. Trends Parasitol. 2024;40(12):1173–82. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2024.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Ramayo-Caldas Y, Prenafeta-Boldú F, Zingaretti LM, Gonzalez-Rodriguez O, Dalmau A, Quintanilla R, et al. Gut eukaryotic communities in pigs: diversity, composition and host genetics contribution. Anim Microbiome. 2020;2(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s42523-020-00038-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Stensvold CR, Jirků-Pomajbíková K, Tams KW, Jokelainen P, Berg RPKD, Marving E, et al. Parasitic intestinal protists of zoonotic relevance detected in pigs by metabarcoding and real-time PCR. Microorganisms. 2021;9(6):1189. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9061189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Babaei Z, Oormazdi H, Rezaie S, Rezaeian M, Razmjou E. Giardia intestinalis: DNA extraction approaches to improve PCR results. Exp Parasitol. 2011;128(2):159–62. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2011.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Šloufová M, Lhotská Z, Jirků M, Petrželková KJ, Stensvold CR, Cinek O, et al. Comparison of molecular diagnostic approaches for the detection and differentiation of the intestinal protist Blastocystis sp. in humans. Parasite. 2022;29:30. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2022029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Guilane A, Ali Zouaoui M, Trelis M, Boutellis A, Stensvold CR. On the host specificity and genetic diversity of Iodamoeba bütschlii: observations from short amplicon-based next-generation sequencing. Protist. 2024;175(5):126058. doi: 10.1016/j.protis.2024.126058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Stensvold CR, Berg RPKD, Maloney JG, Molokin A, Santin M. Molecular characterization of Blastocystis and Entamoeba of muskoxen and sheep in Greenland. Int J Parasitol. 2023;53(11–12):673–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2023.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Hocke EF, Jamy M, Burki F, Clark CG, Stensvold CR. Unravelling the phylogeny of a common intestinal protist: intrageneric diversity of endolimax. Protist. 2022;173(5):125908. doi: 10.1016/j.protis.2022.125908 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Hublin JSY, Maloney JG, George NS, Molokin A, Lombard JE, Urie NJ, et al. Enhanced detection of Giardia duodenalis mixed assemblage infections in pre-weaned dairy calves using next generation sequencing. Vet Parasitol. 2022;304:109702. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2022.109702 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Ogbuigwe P, Biggs PJ, Garcia-Ramirez JC, Knox MA, Pita A, Velathanthiri N, et al. Uncovering the genetic diversity of Giardia intestinalis in isolates from outbreaks in New Zealand. Infect Dis Poverty. 2022;11(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s40249-022-00969-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Bailly E, Valot S, Vincent A, Duffourd Y, Grangier N, Chevarin M, et al. Evaluation of next-generation sequencing applied to Cryptosporidium parvum and Cryptosporidium hominis epidemiological study. Pathogens. 2022;11(8):938. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11080938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Zahedi A, Gofton AW, Jian F, Paparini A, Oskam C, Ball A, et al. Next Generation Sequencing uncovers within-host differences in the genetic diversity of Cryptosporidium gp60 subtypes. Int J Parasitol. 2017;47(10–11):601–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2017.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Kia E, Wagner Mackenzie B, Middleton D, Lau A, Waite DW, Lewis G, et al. Integrity of the human faecal microbiota following long-term sample storage. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0163666. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Kim JH, Jeon J-Y, Im Y-J, Ha N, Kim J-K, Moon SJ, et al. Long-term taxonomic and functional stability of the gut microbiome from human fecal samples. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):114. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-27033-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Nel Van Zyl K, Whitelaw AC, Newton-Foot M. The effect of storage conditions on microbial communities in stool. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0227486. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Kuk S, Yazar S, Cetinkaya U. Stool sample storage conditions for the preservation of Giardia intestinalis DNA. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2012;107(8):965–8. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762012000800001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Vatta P, Cacciò SM. Detection of parasites in food and water matrices by shotgun metagenomics: a narrative review. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2025;39:e00265. doi: 10.1016/j.fawpar.2025.e00265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Petr Heneberg

24 Sep 2025

Dear Dr. Alzate,

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 Nov 08 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,

Petr Heneberg

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was funded by Escuela de Microbiología-CODI, Universidad de Antioquia, under grant code 2023-64370.”

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

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing [the repository name and/or the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database]. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This study was funded by Escuela de Microbiología-CODI, Universidad de Antioquia, under grant code 2023-64370.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This study was funded by Escuela de Microbiología-CODI, Universidad de Antioquia, under grant code 2023-64370”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <Supp_TABLE_1_NGS_Mic.xlsx>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

6. 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 claim that metataxonomics outperforms microscopy is presented too strongly. The results show that sequencing was superior for detecting Strongyloides and Blastocystis, yet microscopy was more effective for Trichuris and Ascaris. This contrast demonstrates that the performance of each method is parasite dependent. The interpretation should therefore highlight complementarity rather than positioning one method as superior to the other.

The treatment of discrepancies between methods is not sufficiently critical. For example, the lack of Giardia detections in sequencing is attributed to true absence in the population, yet microscopy found positive cases. Technical limitations such as primer mismatch or inefficient DNA extraction provide more plausible explanations. Similar issues appear for Iodamoeba and Cyclospora. The manuscript would benefit from a stronger discussion of methodological causes for these mismatches, ideally supported by targeted molecular validation.

The sample size of 65 is small and combines specimens from two time periods almost seven years apart. Pooling across such a wide temporal gap introduces the possibility of confounding through epidemiological changes or laboratory practice differences. The authors should address this explicitly and discuss how these potential biases were controlled or accounted for in the study design.

Figures showing detection frequencies are presented as simple bar charts without any measure of uncertainty. Although presence and absence data are used, statistical analysis or variability indicators would allow readers to assess the strength of the comparisons. In the phylogenetic analyses, bootstrap values are presented as definitive, yet even high values need careful interpretation. A more cautious discussion of these analyses is necessary.

The methods section relies on a single primer pair targeting the 18S V4 region, which has known limitations. The exclusion of cestodes, trematodes, and some amoebae is acknowledged briefly, but the manuscript still describes the method as broad spectrum. A more nuanced description of primer biases and their impact on detection outcomes would improve the study’s credibility.

The raw sequencing data are stated to be deposited in the NCBI SRA under BioProject accession PRJNA1293464, with a reviewer link provided. This is an important positive step, and the final version should clearly include accession numbers to ensure compliance with data availability policies and to allow independent verification of results.

The discussion emphasizes advantages of sequencing approaches, yet does not sufficiently acknowledge the limitations of this marker or the need for complementary methods. For instance, species level identification of Ascaris is not possible with 18S rDNA, yet the text does not consistently highlight this limitation. Balancing strengths with weaknesses would provide a more rigorous and realistic assessment of the approach.

Ethical approval is reported and the use of archived anonymized samples is clearly justified. Consent and confidentiality procedures are explained adequately. However, the quality control procedures for microscopy are not described in detail. Including information on slide reading standards and technician validation would help rule out operator variability as a source of discrepancy.

The text is clearly structured and generally readable, yet it often repeats similar arguments and adopts a promotional tone. The writing would benefit from greater conciseness, less redundancy, and a more neutral presentation of the study’s impact. This would align the manuscript more closely with the standards of scientific reporting.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting manuscript which describes the use of NGS for identifying parasites in clinical samples, focusing on Blastocystis and Entamoeba spp. The manuscript is well written and follows a logical structure, making it easy for readers to follow the flow of the study. The technical terminology used throughout is appropriate and no major grammatical errors were identified.

I felt that the introduction could be expanded to include more recent studies on NGS in parasitology but otherwise provided a good overview of the wider literature within the context of parasitology and molecular diagnostics.

The discussion was generally well structured but could benefit from the following minor revisions:

1) There is no mention of sequencing depth and coverage. Was this sufficient to detect low-abundance parasites? Insufficient sequencing depth could lead to under-detection of rare species or mixed infections. The authors should discuss how sequencing variability might influence the results.

2) The potential risk of contamination during sample processing or sequencing is not discussion. This is a common issue in NGS studies, potentially leading to false positives or biased results.

3) How can this be translated to clinical practice? Are the identified parasites clinically significant? What is the practicality of implementation in routine clinical/ field settings?

4) Discuss any recent studies on NGS applications in parasitology (if any). Include a more critical comparison of NGS with other emerging diagnostic technologies.

Reviewer #2: Intestinal parasites cause a major health burden worldwide, and traditional microscopy offers only limited sensitivity. In this manuscript, the authors applied an NGS-based metataxonomic approach, which showed higher sensitivity than microscopy for Strongyloides stercoralis but lower for Trichuris trichiura. The method also provided improved species- and subtype-level resolution. Overall, metataxonomics appears powerful for broad parasite detection, although primer design still requires refinement. I find this topic very interesting, but I have a few questions and suggestions to consider:

Major comments:

1. It is unclear whether random primers were used for library construction and sequencing, or whether DNA extraction was followed by library preparation employing only the 18S-V4Fw and 18S-V4 primers. An alternative possibility is that these primers were used specifically as supplements for sequencing. Clarification of this methodological step would be very helpful.

2. NGS is undoubtedly a powerful tool for species identification, but it also has the issue of noisy sequencing reads. The main concern here is that the ground truth of this study is not clearly defined, making it difficult to evaluate what are false positives or false negatives (e.g., lines 245–248) and how these were ruled out. In turns, it becomes challenging to assess which method truly outperforms the others.

3. The authors suggest that the failure of the NGS-based metataxonomic approach for Trichuris trichiura detection may be due to the high resistance of the eggshell, which leads to the issue of DNA isolation and lower yield. This hypothesis could be easily tested by using a bioanalyzer or Qubit to precisely quantify the amount and quality of DNA.

Minor comments:

1. There are quite a number of typos, which require careful correction

2. I also suggest that the authors improve the organization of their result figures and captions related to the phylogenetic analyses. (e.g., what the numbers represent? what the distinction is between “GE_Strongyloides_stercoralis_” and “Strongyloides_stercoralis” within the same phylogenetic tree??). In its current form, these figures are somewhat difficult to interpret.

**********

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

**********

[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.

PLoS One. 2026 Jan 2;21(1):e0330312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330312.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Oct 2025

PONE-D-25-39373

Next-Gen Intestinal Parasite Detection: Leveraging Metataxonomics for Improved Diagnosis of Intestinal Protists and Helminths

Rebuttal Letter

R/: We are very grateful to the editor and reviewers for investing their time in carefully reviewing our manuscript and for their thoughtful comments, critiques, and recommendations. We have made every possible effort to improve the manuscript by addressing all the feedback, and we are confident that this revised version represents a significant improvement.

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.

R:/ We have adjusted the manuscript format according to the journal’s recommendations and renamed the figures and supplementary materials as suggested.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was funded by Escuela de Microbiología-CODI, Universidad de Antioquia, under grant code 2023-64370.”

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

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

R:/ Thank you for the comment. Indeed, the funders had no role in the study, and we have added this clarification to the Acknowledgments section:

“This study was funded by Escuela de Microbiología-CODI, Universidad de Antioquia, under grant code 2023-64370. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

3. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing [the repository name and/or the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database]. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

R:/ The data were made publicly available on October 16th, and the BioProject containing the raw data can be accessed through the following link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA1293464

This information was also added to the manuscript.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This study was funded by Escuela de Microbiología-CODI, Universidad de Antioquia, under grant code 2023-64370.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This study was funded by Escuela de Microbiología-CODI, Universidad de Antioquia, under grant code 2023-64370”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

R:/ Thank you for the clarification. The funding information was removed from the Acknowledgements section and is not mentioned elsewhere in the manuscript. The funding information provided in the online submission form should be as follows:

This study was funded by Escuela de Microbiología-CODI, Universidad de Antioquia, under grant code 2023-64370. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

5. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <Supp_TABLE_1_NGS_Mic.xlsx>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

R:/ Thanks for the clarification. The table S1 was modified to remove any information related to age, sex, or any other details that could compromise participant privacy.

6. 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.

R:/ Thanks for the observation. We took it into consideration while preparing the revised version of the manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments:

The claim that metataxonomics outperforms microscopy is presented too strongly. The results show that sequencing was superior for detecting Strongyloides and Blastocystis, yet microscopy was more effective for Trichuris and Ascaris. This contrast demonstrates that the performance of each method is parasite dependent. The interpretation should therefore highlight complementarity rather than positioning one method as superior to the other.

The treatment of discrepancies between methods is not sufficiently critical. For example, the lack of Giardia detections in sequencing is attributed to true absence in the population, yet microscopy found positive cases. Technical limitations such as primer mismatch or inefficient DNA extraction provide more plausible explanations. Similar issues appear for Iodamoeba and Cyclospora. The manuscript would benefit from a stronger discussion of methodological causes for these mismatches, ideally supported by targeted molecular validation.

R:/ We fully agree with the comment and have revised the manuscript to present the two methods as complementary. Our main idea is that this technology represents a new tool within the parasitologist’s technological toolbox. Additionally, we have included the following paragraph in the manuscript to further elaborate on the possible explanations for the incongruent results observed between the NGS and microscopy analyses:

The most discordant results were observed for other protozoa, namely Chilomastix, Cyclospora, Cystoisospora, and Giardia. For these protozoan taxa, there was no concordance between microscopy and NGS metataxonomic; each was detected by only one method, with no mutual confirmation. This highlights the inherent challenge of capturing the full diversity of parasites using a single methodological approach, given the varying biological and molecular characteristics of these organisms. In 18S rRNA metataxonomics, several technical factors may contribute to false-negative results. First, DNA extraction protocols may not fully disrupt the resistant cyst or oocyst walls of certain protozoa, limiting the recovery of amplifiable DNA (Naushad et al., 2025). Second, sequence polymorphisms in the target regions can affect the binding efficiency of universal primers, introducing amplification bias (Bradley et al., 2016). Third, the low abundance of parasite DNA relative to host and microbiome DNA can reduce amplification efficiency (Frau et al., 2019). Additionally, variability in ribosomal gene copy number among taxa and preferential amplification of shorter fragments, particularly when targeting V3-V4 regions, can further affect detection sensitivity (Chihi et al., 2022; Stensvold, 2024). Taken together, these factors indicate that absence of detection by NGS should be interpreted cautiously, as it may reflect technical limitations rather than true absence of the organism.

In the case of Chilomastix, bioinformatic analysis revealed an issue similar to that observed with Iodamoeba: the reverse primer target region shows poor sequence conservation in this genus, likely impairing efficient primer annealing and thus detection by PCR. For Cyclospora, although we cannot entirely rule out primer incompatibility, the same primer set has successfully amplified other apicomplexan parasites (e.g., Cystoisospora, Cryptosporidium) in past analyses. Therefore, no definitive conclusion can be made regarding Cyclospora detection.

Interestingly, Giardia was not detected by NGS in any of the samples analyzed in this study, even though we have previously reported its successful detection using the same primers and protocols in human stool samples and wastewater from Colombia (Rozo-Montoya et al., 2023). This observation is consistent with other metataxonomic studies that have reported limited or no detection of Giardia, highlighting persistent technical challenges (Ramayo-Caldas et al., 2020; Stensvold et al., 2021; Wylezich et al., 2019, 2020). Several authors have suggested that primer mismatches, low abundance, and especially inefficient DNA extraction from the parasite’s resistant cyst wall may underline these failures. Standard fecal DNA extraction protocols may be suboptimal for Giardia which often require more intensive lysis methods— such as mechanical disruption or repeated freeze-thaw cycles— to ensure adequate DNA release (Babaei et al., 2011).

The sample size of 65 is small and combines specimens from two time periods almost seven years apart. Pooling across such a wide temporal gap introduces the possibility of confounding through epidemiological changes or laboratory practice differences. The authors should address this explicitly and discuss how these potential biases were controlled or accounted for in the study design.

R:/ We thank the reviewer for raising these relevant points. While the cohort of 65 samples may appear limited, it was sufficient to capture the diversity of intestinal parasites circulating in the studied populations and to demonstrate the applicability and performance of the metataxonomic–phylogenetic framework. Our primary objective was methodological—to evaluate the capacity of NGS-based metataxonomics to detect and resolve multiple intestinal parasites within real field samples—rather than to perform a large-scale epidemiological survey. Moreover, we fully acknowledge the potential implications of combining samples collected at different time periods. Our primary objective was to perform a methodological comparison between NGS and microscopy for parasite detection in an endemic setting. The relative stability of parasitic infections in such regions provides a suitable context in which pooling these samples enables a robust evaluation of the technique’s capacity to reveal diversity that might be overlooked by microscopy alone. Moreover, it is important to note that all stool samples were processed within a short time after collection—within a few days—and DNA extraction was performed using the same commercial kit by the same highly trained Ph.D.-level researcher experienced in molecular biology techniques. All purified DNA samples were stored at −80 °C to ensure optimal preservation and minimize degradation. These steps were taken to control potential biases as much as possible. In response to this comment, we will add a paragraph to the discussion explicitly addressing how long-term sample storage could affect DNA quality and NGS performance, thereby strengthening the interpretation of our findings:

“Another potential limitation of this study is the long-term storage of DNA samples prior to NGS analysis. While prolonged preservation at -80oC generally maintains DNA integrity, factors such as storage duration and freeze-thaw cycles can influence quality. Evidence from microbiota research indicates that fecal DNA can remain viable for extended periods, even up to 14 years, under stable frozen conditions (Kia et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2023; Nel Van Zyl et al., 2020). However, parasite specific data is more limited. Although studies suggest that parasite DNA, such as from Giardia, remains detectable after long-term storage (Kuk et al., 2012), the effect on the broader parasitome is less clear. In our study, all samples were maintained under a strict and uniform storage protocol at -80oC from collection until DNA extraction. This consistent handling ensures that any potential DNA degradation would be systematic across the entire sample set. Consequently, such effects would likely reduce overall detection sensitivity uniformly, without compromising our core finding that NGS identifies greater parasite diversity than microscopy in these archival samples.”

Figures showing detection frequencies are presented as simple bar charts without any measure of uncertainty. Although presence and absence data are used, statistical analysis or variability indicators would allow readers to assess the strength of the comparisons. In the phylogenetic analyses, bootstrap values are presented as definitive, yet even high values need careful interpretation. A more cautious discussion of these analyses is necessary.

R:/ We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive observation. We fully agree that including measures of uncertainty and adopting a more cautious interpretation of the phylogenetic analyses will strengthen the manuscript.

It is important to note that our main goal in this work is to demonstrate how classical parasitological methods can be complemented by NGS-based metataxonomics and to highlight the potential limitations inherent to each approach. We believe that the results presented here will open new avenues for research in diagnostic methodologies, and that the conclusions drawn from this study will help guide the design of more quantitative and statistically robust analyses in future investigations.

Regarding the phylogenetic analyses, we have carefully revised the text to moderate our interpretation of bootstrap support values, emphasizing that—even when high—these values represent statistical confidence within the dataset and should not be regarded as absolute indicators of phylogenetic certainty. As an additional line of support, the selection of molecular operational taxonomic units (mOTUs) corresponding to each genus was validated through BLASTN comparisons against reference sequences. These comparisons consistently showed nea

Attachment

Submitted filename: ReviwersResponse_R1_FINAL.docx

pone.0330312.s008.docx (238KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Petr Heneberg

2 Nov 2025

Dear Dr. Alzate,

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 Dec 17 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 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,

Petr Heneberg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. 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. 

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

Additional Editor Comments:

The revision substantially improved the paper. I have just one minor comment - the manuscript would benefit from a stronger emphasis on One Health and zoonotic perspectives, framing intestinal parasite detection within the broader context of human–animal–environment interactions. Incorporating a One Health viewpoint aligns the study with current global efforts to understand and mitigate cross-species transmission risks through integrated diagnostic and surveillance strategies. For instance, One Health (18, 2024, 100679) discusses how the control of companion animal parasites directly influences human health outcomes and advocates for coordinated One Health approaches to reduce zoonotic burdens. Similarly, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (379, 2023, 20220445) reviews the debated zoonotic potential of Strongyloides infections transmitted between dogs and humans, underscoring the clinical and epidemiological importance of molecular differentiation across hosts. A global synthesis published in PLOS Global Public Health (5, 2025, e0004614) examines cross-host soil-transmitted helminth infections in humans and domestic or livestock animals, highlighting that many intestinal parasites circulate within multi-host ecological systems rather than exclusively human reservoirs. In addition, Review One Health (21, 2025, 101166) presents recent evidence for bidirectional transmission of Blastocystis between pets and their owners and calls for standardized genomic approaches to discern true zoonotic events from shared environmental exposures. Integrating insights from these studies would allow to position metataxonomic diagnostics not merely as a technical advancement but as a practical One Health surveillance tool capable of mapping host–parasite networks, detecting emerging zoonoses, and informing cross-sectoral control strategies linking human, veterinary, and environmental health.

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

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Jan 2;21(1):e0330312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330312.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


6 Nov 2025

We thank the Editor for the insightful suggestion. Accordingly, we have included the following paragraph in the Discussion section, as recommended by the reviewer.

“Human nematode and protozoan infections often emerge from interconnected human–animal (particularly companion animal)–environment relationships (63). Integrating high-performance diagnostic approaches, such as metataxonomic sequencing, can provide a powerful means to map these host–parasite networks within complex environmental contexts. Geohelminths such as Strongyloides spp. have shown debated zoonotic potential between dogs and humans, highlighting the need for molecular differentiation to clarify cross-host transmission (64). Ascaris suum commonly infects domestic swine; however previous studies suggest that pig Ascaris suum may cause zoonotic infections in children (65). Furthermore, Blastocystis transmission appears to occur bidirectionally between pets and their owners, supporting the importance of genomic tools to identify true zoonotic events (66). Within this broader context, metataxonomic and phylogenetic frameworks such as the one applied in this study can be envisioned as practical One Health surveillance tools, enabling mapping of host–parasite networks, early detection of emerging zoonoses, and evidence-based guidance for integrated control strategies that link human, veterinary, and environmental health.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: ReviwersResponse_R1_FINAL_auresp_2.docx

pone.0330312.s009.docx (238KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Petr Heneberg

9 Nov 2025

Dear Dr. Alzate,

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 Dec 24 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,

Petr Heneberg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

Additional Editor Comments:

The references need to be double-checked, unnecessary Spanish words removed, and missing letters added. The suggested text was added, but it contains some weird references instead of the suggested ones. The reference on Strongyloides was replaced by some irrelevant one; similarly, the reference on Blastocystis was replaced by a paper that only marginally deals with Blastocystis itself. Remove the text likely generated by LLM (the presence of em-dashes, and unnecessary words, such as “Finally”, etc., and unusual words, such as “plausible” suggests use some AI-generated text). Add a real discussion of your results. Include a Statistics section and analyze your data using relevant statistical methods.

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

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Jan 2;21(1):e0330312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330312.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 3


9 Dec 2025

PONE-D-25-39373

Next-Gen Intestinal Parasite Detection: Leveraging Metataxonomics for Improved

Diagnosis of Intestinal Protists and Helminths

Rebuttal Letter

1- Journal Requirements:

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

Additional Editor Comments:

The references need to be double-checked, unnecessary Spanish words removed, and missing letters added. The suggested text was added, but it contains some weird references instead of the suggested ones. The reference on Strongyloides was replaced by some irrelevant one; similarly, the reference on Blastocystis was replaced by a paper that only marginally deals with Blastocystis itself. Remove the text likely generated by LLM (the presence of em-dashes, and unnecessary words, such as “Finally”, etc., and unusual words, such as “plausible” suggests use some AI-generated text). Add a real discussion of your results. Include a Statistics section and analyze your data using relevant statistical methods.

R/ We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment. In response, we have carefully revised the manuscript by reviewing and correcting all references to ensure that each cited work is relevant, accurate, and properly formatted. In addition, we removed residual Spanish words and typographical inconsistencies throughout the text. We also incorporated the suggested references to strengthen the discussion, emphasizing the relevance of metataxonomic approaches within a One Health framework. We made every effort to ensure that the discussion fully addresses the findings obtained in this study and their broader implications. The revised section now includes the following paragraph:

Intestinal protozoa and nematode infections occur through interactions between humans, their domestic animals—both companion and livestock— and the surrounding environment. Molecular studies already show parasite exchange across species barriers. Comparative analyses of Strongyloides 18S and cox1 sequences from humans and dogs have revealed two major S. stercoralis lineage, one apparently restricted to canines, and another shared among dogs, cats, humans, and non-human primates (56). These findings indicated a limited yet plausible zoonotic link, though the direction and geographic extent of transmission remain uncertain, underscoring the need for co-sampling of hosts and population genetic analyses to clarify cross-species dynamics. Human-associated Blastocystis subtypes (ST1-ST3) are frequently detected in cohabiting pets and their owners, suggesting either bidirectional transmission or exposure to shared environmental sources (57). Given that most studies are cross-sectional, current evidence provides only limited insights into parasite transmission, highlighting the need for high-resolution genotyping, longitudinal sampling, and environmental assessments. Similarly, genetic analyses show extensive overlap among soil-transmitted helminths in humans and animals, suggesting shared transmission cycles rather than exclusively human reservoirs (8). These findings indicate the need for integrated parasite control and management to mitigate zoonotic and environmental risks. Monitoring and preventive measures across veterinary, medical, and public health sectors are critical to reduce cross-species transmission, but current evidence reveals gaps in treatment, evaluation and coordinated efforts involving health and veterinary professionals, researchers, industry, and governmental authorities (58). In this context, metataxonomic approaches offer a powerful tool to advance One Health investigations, by providing high-resolution data on parasite diversity, geographic distribution, and potential reservoirs, supporting informed, evidence-based interventions across humans, animals, and the environment.

We also appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding language and style. The manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed and edited to improve clarity and consistency with the formal scientific tone required by PLOS ONE. Unnecessary words and stylistic elements have been removed to ensure a clear and objective presentation of the findings.

A dedicated section has been added to describe the statistical analyses performed. These analyses correspond to a preliminary exploratory assessment, which we consider appropriate for the current scope of the study and sufficient to support the interpretation of the data. More advanced statistical analyses will be incorporated in future studies as additional datasets become available. Here is the paragraph included in the methodology section:

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analyses were performed to compare the detection outcomes obtained by microscopy and metataxonomic (NGS-based) approaches. The presence or absence of each parasite taxon was summarized as qualitative variables, and detection frequencies were calculated as the proportion of positive samples per method. Simple concordance rates between both diagnostic approaches were also calculated to provide a preliminary measure agreement. Results were visualized using comparative bar plots generated in R (v4.3.1) with the ggplot2 package. No inferential statistical tests were applied, as the objective of this preliminary study was to provide an exploratory, qualitative comparison of diagnostic performance. More comprehensive statistical analyses could be performed in future studies with larger sample sizes.

Furthermore, we have made a minor modification to the introductory paragraph of the Results section to clearly indicate that this work represents a preliminary comparison between traditional microscopy and metataxonomic approaches for parasite detection. Here is the modified paragraph:

This study aimed to provide a preliminary comparison of parasite detection in human fecal samples using two approaches: traditional smear microscopy performed by trained parasitologists, and a metataxonomic method targeting the V4 hypervariable region of the eukaryotic 18S rDNA. Previous tests confirmed that the primers used in this study are effective for detecting protists and nematodes but do not amplify DNA from cestodes and trematodes. As a result, these groups were excluded from the scope of our analysis. Accordingly, our study focused on the detection of human intestinal protists and nematodes.

In addition, the abstract has been revised to reflect the exploratory nature of the study, including the challenges encountered with certain taxa, the differential detection by each method, and the limitations of current primers and DNA extraction techniques. This adjustment ensures that the manuscript accurately conveys the scope and preliminary character of the study. Here is the modified abstract:

Intestinal parasites continue to pose a significant public health burden in low- and middle-income countries and are increasingly recognized in developed regions. Traditional diagnostic methods, primarily based on microscopy, remain widely used despite limitations in sensitivity and taxonomic resolution. In this exploratory study, we applied a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based metataxonomic approach, integrated with classical phylogenetic methods, to characterize intestinal parasites in rural Colombian populations. We compare its performance with conventional microscopy, focusing on both protist and geohelminth detection. Metataxonomics outperformed microscopy in detecting Strongyloides stercoralis and enabled precise species and subtype level assignment for Blastocystis and Entamoeba spp., revealing frequent mixed infections. Microscopy detected Trichuris trichiura, Giardia, Cyclospora, and Chilomastix more effectively, highlighting limitations of current primers and DNA extraction methods. Cystoisospora was only identified by NGS. These results demonstrate the utility of NGS-based metataxonomics for broad parasite detection while emphasizing areas for methodological improvement and providing a foundation for future, larger-scale studies.

We trust that these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns and enhance the overall clarity, rigor, and scientific value of the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: vANA_Dic_Rev_Response_R3.docx

pone.0330312.s010.docx (21.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Petr Heneberg

10 Dec 2025

Next-Gen Intestinal Parasite Detection: Leveraging Metataxonomics for Improved Diagnosis of Intestinal Protists and Helminths

PONE-D-25-39373R3

Dear Dr. Alzate,

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,

Petr Heneberg

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Petr Heneberg

PONE-D-25-39373R3

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Alzate,

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. Petr Heneberg

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. Phylogenetic analysis of Necator mOTUs for taxonomic assignment.

    Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the 18S rRNA gene, constructed using a curated selection of reference sequences from nematode genera related to hookworms, including representatives of Necator and Ancylostoma. The tree was inferred with 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates to assess branch support. Molecular OTUs (mOTUs) identified in this study are labeled with the prefix “mOTU”. All hookworm mOTUs clustered within the Necator americanus clade, indicating that this was the sole hookworm species detected in the sampled population. Ultrafast bootstrap support values are shown at the corresponding nodes. Rhabditis sp. was used as the outgroup.

    (PDF)

    pone.0330312.s001.pdf (4.8KB, pdf)
    S2 Fig. Phylogenetic analysis of Entamoeba mOTUs for taxonomic assignment.

    Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the 18S rRNA gene, constructed using a curated selection of reference sequences from the genus Entamoeba. The tree was inferred with 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates to assess branch support. Molecular OTUs (mOTUs) identified in this study are labeled with the prefix “mOTU”. All mOTUs clustered within known Entamoeba species clades, supporting their taxonomic assignments. Ultrafast bootstrap support values are indicated at the corresponding nodes. Representative sequences of Dientamoeba fragilis were used as the outgroup.

    (PDF)

    pone.0330312.s002.pdf (7.5KB, pdf)
    S3 Fig. Phylogenetic analysis of Blastocystis mOTUs for subtype (ST) classification.

    Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree based on the 18S rRNA gene, constructed using a curated selection of Blastocystis reference sequences representing subtypes (STs) 1–17, including all subtypes commonly associated with human populations. Molecular OTUs (mOTUs) identified in this study are labeled with the prefix “mOTU”. The tree was inferred with 1,000 ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates to assess branch support, and UFBoot values are shown at the corresponding nodes. All mOTUs clustered within well-supported clades corresponding to known Blastocystis subtypes, enabling confident subtype assignment. A combined clade of Blastocystis ST15 and ST17 was used as the outgroup.

    (PDF)

    pone.0330312.s003.pdf (8.3KB, pdf)
    S1 Table. Description of the conventional parasitological results.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0330312.s004.xlsx (18.1KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Read statistics for the bacterial 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and processing.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0330312.s005.xlsx (13.3KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. Accession numbers for the reference sequences.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0330312.s006.xlsx (17.1KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ReviwersResponse_R1_FINAL.docx

    pone.0330312.s008.docx (238KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ReviwersResponse_R1_FINAL_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0330312.s009.docx (238KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: vANA_Dic_Rev_Response_R3.docx

    pone.0330312.s010.docx (21.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available at NCBI SRA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA1293464.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES