Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2026 Jan 20;20(1):e0013923. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013923

Endothelial cells protect Schistosoma mansoni from hydrogen peroxide-induced death

Bruna Oliveira Lopes Souza 1, Ronald Alves dos Santos 1, Kelvin Edson Marques de Jesus 1, Juliana Bezerra Dória Lima 1, Andressa Moreira Lima 1, Brenda Rodrigues Brito Cunha Silva 1, Fernanda Freitas Costa 1, Lorena Conceição de Queiroz 1, Camilla Almeida Menezes 1, Sânzio Silva Santana 1, Karine Araujo Damasceno 1, Isadora Cristina de Siqueira 1, Marilda de Souza Gonçalves 1, Dalila Luciola Zanette 2, Thassila Nogueira Pitanga 1, Ricardo Riccio Oliveira 1,*
Editor: Eduardo José Lopes-Torres3
PMCID: PMC12829943  PMID: 41557748

Abstract

Introduction

Schistosoma mansoni, the causative agent of intestinal schistosomiasis, thrives in the human host, particularly within the vascular system. Understanding the role of endothelial cells during infection is crucial. Currently, schistosomiasis treatment depends solely on praziquantel (PZQ), but emerging evidence suggests decreasing efficacy. This highlights the need for new therapeutic strategies, including agents that modulate the host antioxidant response, such as dapsone.

Methods

Adult S. mansoni worms were harvested from infected mice via portal perfusion. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) were cultured and exposed to worm pairs and PZQ for 1, 3, or 6 hours. Post-exposure, RNA was extracted and analyzed by qPCR to assess the expression of antioxidant genes (NRF2, SOD1, GPx, GSR, CAT). Additionally, worm viability under oxidative stress was evaluated by incubating worms with hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂), in the presence or absence of HUVECs, catalase, or dapsone hydroxylamine.

Results

Worms did not significantly alter expression of host antioxidant genes except for catalase. H₂O₂ exposure led to worm death, but co-incubation with HUVECs improved worm viability and survival, suggesting a protective role of endothelial cells against oxidative stress. Furthermore, dapsone hydroxylamine reversed the protective effect of catalase, reducing worm viability. However, worms remained viable in co-culture with HUVECs, indicating additional, unidentified mechanisms of protection.

Conclusion

Endothelial cells may play a key role in protecting S. mansoni against host oxidative defenses. Dapsone hydroxylamine interferes with this protection by inhibiting catalase activity. These findings point to potential therapeutic strategies targeting the host-parasite interface and the antioxidant environment in schistosomiasis.

Author summary

Schistosoma mansoni, the causative agent of the intestinal form of the disease, is well adapted to its human host. Unlike other intestinal helminths, the adult S. mansoni worm has a peculiar habitat: the vascular lumen. Despite this known fact, there is still limited information about the interaction between the adult worm and endothelial cells. Current treatment relies exclusively on praziquantel (PZQ), which has shown signs of decreasing efficacy. This underscores the urgent need for alternative therapies or drug combinations, including those that target the host’s antioxidant response - such as dapsone. We evaluated the interaction between adult worms and HUVECs, and their ability to protect the parasites from oxidative stress induced by hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂). It was observed that the worms did not significantly alter the expression of antioxidant genes by HUVECs, except for catalase. H₂O₂ was lethal to the worms, but this effect was reversed in the presence of the endothelial cells, indicating a protective effect. We also tested dapsone hydroxylamine, which inhibited catalase activity and reduced worm viability. However, when the worms were cultured with endothelial cells, they remained viable, suggesting other protective mechanisms. These findings contribute to new therapeutic approaches against schistosomiasis.

Introduction

Schistosomiasis is a neglected tropical disease (NTD) that disproportionately impacts populations living in poverty, particularly those lacking access to safe water and basic sanitation services. According to the World Health Organization, schistosomiasis affects an estimated 250 million individuals worldwide, places approximately 779 million at risk of infection, and remains endemic in 78 countries - primarily in Africa, but also in parts of Asia and South America [1]. Schistosoma mansoni is one of the main species responsible for intestinal schistosomiasis [2], and the parasite is highly adapted to the human host.

Given the intravascular habitat of adult S. mansoni worms, understanding the role of endothelial cells during infection is of fundamental importance. Although some investigations have addressed parasite-host interactions involving endothelial cells, investigations specifically focused on the interface between adult worms and the endothelium remain scarce. Most existing research has examined the interaction between endothelial cells and S. mansoni eggs [3]. These studies have demonstrated that eggs can bind to platelets or host plasma proteins such as von Willebrand factor, potentially facilitating their adhesion to the endothelium and promoting endothelial cell activation [4,5]. Moreover, eggs and egg antigens have been shown to induce proliferation and apoptosis of endothelial cells in vitro [6,7]. Endothelial interaction with the egg also contributes to granuloma formation [8], promoting angiogenesis during hepatic granuloma development [7,9,10]. These findings highlight the active participation of endothelial cells in the host response to S. mansoni eggs. However, much less is known about how adult worms interact with endothelial cells. In this context, investigating whether adult worm-endothelium interactions modulate oxidative stress pathways is of particular interest. Notably, the expression of antioxidant genes by endothelial cells during schistosomiasis has not yet been evaluated.

Although the immune system plays a critical role in the defense against the parasite, there are no reports of spontaneous cure in untreated individuals. Currently, treatment for schistosomiasis relies solely on praziquantel (PZQ), which, despite its considerable efficacy, has been associated with reduced cure rates and therapeutic failure in some studies [11,12]. These limitations underscore the urgent need to identify new therapeutic agents or combination strategies. In this context, host-directed therapies that target inflammation or oxidative stress pathways have gained attention. Dapsone, an anti-inflammatory and antioxidant compound, has been investigated in other chronic inflammatory conditions and may serve as a candidate for further evaluation in the context of schistosomiasis [13,14].

In this study, we investigated the interaction between adult S. mansoni worms and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), focusing on the ability of these cells to protect the parasite from death under pro-oxidative conditions. In addition, we evaluated the in vitro effect of dapsone hydroxylamine, an active metabolite of dapsone, on parasite viability in an oxidative environment, aiming to explore its potential to induce worm death through catalase inhibition.

Methods

Ethics statement

All experiments involving animals were approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Use of the Gonçalo Moniz Institute – Fiocruz Bahia (protocol 015/2021).

Recovery of adult worms

Swiss Webster mice were infected subcutaneously with 100 S. mansoni cercariae. After 6–8 weeks of infection, mice were euthanized using a lethal dose of ketamine + xylazine administered intraperitoneally. Adult S. mansoni worms were recovered through portal perfusion using 0.9% saline solution containing 3% sodium citrate [15,16]. Recovered worms were transferred to a Petri dish containing RPMI 1640 medium (Gibco, Life Technologies Australia Pty Ltd, Mulgrave, VIC, Australia), and then to a second dish containing RPMI supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Gibco, New York, NY, USA), and 1% glutamine and HEPES. Prior to the experiments, worms were placed in a 96-well plate, and their sex and viability were assessed under an inverted microscope.

Cell cultures for gene expression analysis

Immortalized HUVECs were seeded in flat-bottom 12-well plates at a concentration of 1 × 10⁵ cells/mL in 800 µL of RPMI 1640 medium supplemented with 1% PenStrep (10,000 U/mL penicillin and 10,000 µg/mL streptomycin; Gibco, New York, NY, USA), 10% fetal bovine serum, and 1% glutamine and HEPES (GH). Cells were maintained in a humidified incubator at 37°C with 5% CO₂. After 24 hours of incubation, one pair of adult worms was added per well, and plates were cultured for 1, 3, or 6 hours. All experiments were performed in triplicate and repeated at least three independent times.

Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR)

At the end of the incubation period, the worms and supernatant were removed, and Trizol reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was added to each well for mRNA extraction. RNA concentration and purity were measured using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer.

Complementary DNA (cDNA) synthesis was performed using 250 ng of total RNA with the High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The thermal conditions were 25°C for 10 minutes, 37°C for 120 minutes, 85°C for 5 minutes, and finally 4°C. The resulting cDNA was resuspended in RNase-free water, aliquoted, and stored at –20°C.

Gene expression analysis was performed using real-time PCR (qPCR) in 96-well optical plates, with sample duplicates, on the ABI 7500 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Antioxidant genes and the endogenous control gene HPRT (Table 1) were amplified using SYBR-Green PCR Master Mix (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), according to the manufacturer’s protocol.

Table 1. Primer sequences for qPCR amplification of antioxidant and control genes.

Gene Forward Primer (5’ → 3’) Reverse Primer (5’ → 3’)
NRF2 GTA TGC AAC AGG ACA TTG AGC ATG GTA GTC TCA ACC AGC TT
SOD1 TGG CCG ATG TGT CTA TTG AA CAC CTT TGC CCA AGT CAT CT
GPx CCA AGC TCA TCA CCT GGT CT TCG ATG TCA ATG GTC TGG AA
GSR ACT TGC CCA TCG ACT TTT TG GGT GGC TGA AGA CCA CAG TT
CAT CTG GAG CAC AGC ATC CAA TA TCA TTC AGC ACG TTC ACA TAG A
HPRT GAA CGT CTT GCT CGA GAT GTG A TCC AGC AGG TCA GCA AAG AAT

The standard qPCR conditions were as follows: initial denaturation at 95°C for 10 minutes, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 seconds and 60°C for 60 seconds. After amplification and melt curve analysis, threshold cycle (Ct) values were obtained using the 7500 system software (Applied Biosystems, USA). Gene expression levels were normalized to the endogenous control (HPRT), and relative expression values (ddCt) were calculated using the median of untreated controls as the calibrator.

Evaluation of Schistosoma mansoni adult worm viability under oxidative conditions

Three experimental models were used to assess the survival of adult S. mansoni worms under oxidative stress. In the first model, worm pairs were cultured in RPMI medium without HUVECs, supplemented with five different concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂): 100 μM, 200 μM, 400 μM, 800 μM, and 1600 μM. The second model consisted of co-cultures of HUVECs and worm pairs exposed to the same H₂O₂ concentrations. In the third model, worm pairs were cultured in RPMI medium supplemented with the same H₂O₂ concentrations and the addition of catalase enzyme. All experimental models were incubated at 37°C with 5% CO₂ for 24 hours. Experiments were performed in quadruplicate and repeated twice.

Following incubation, worm viability was assessed using an inverted microscope. Viability was evaluated based on motility and tegument integrity, using a scoring system ranging from 0 to 3 (Fig 1) [17]. Score 0 indicated death, defined by complete tegument darkening and absence of movement. Score 1 indicated a darkened tegument with low motility and impaired oral and ventral suckers, often with worms detached from the well surface. Score 2 indicated partial tegument damage and moderate motility. Score 3 indicated fully viable worms with intact tegument and active movement. Egg deposition in wells was also considered a sign of viability. Scoring was performed independently by two observers, and in cases of disagreement, re-evaluation was carried out to reach a consensus.

Fig 1. Representative images illustrating the viability scoring system for adult Schistosoma mansoni worms cultured in vitro.

Fig 1

(A) Score 0 – Dead worm with fully darkened tegument and no movement. (B) Score 1 – Worm with darkened tegument, reduced motility, and impaired suckers. (C) Score 2 – Worm with partially damaged tegument and moderate motility. (D) Score 3 – Fully viable worm with intact tegument and active movement. The red circle indicates egg deposition, also used as a marker of viability. Image created by the authors.

Dapsone hydroxylamine assay

Dapsone hydroxylamine (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, TX, USA) was tested in three different in vitro experimental models. First, assays were performed using only varying concentrations of dapsone hydroxylamine (12.5 μM, 25 μM, 50 μM, 100 μM, and 200 μM) to assess its direct effect on adult worms. The second model aimed to evaluate the ability of dapsone hydroxylamine to inhibit catalase activity in vitro in the presence of a pro-oxidant environment. For this, S. mansoni worm pairs were cultured in RPMI medium containing 400 μM of H₂O₂, a dose previously shown to cause ~50% mortality, along with 400 units of catalase and the different concentrations of dapsone hydroxylamine. A third model was tested by co-culturing HUVECs with worm pairs, 400 μM H₂O₂, and the various concentrations of dapsone hydroxylamine. All conditions were incubated at 37 °C with 5% CO₂ for 24 hours. Following incubation, worm viability was assessed using the same criteria as in the oxidative stress assays.

Statistical analysis

For the PCR assays, gene expression differences between groups were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Dunn’s post hoc test. Outliers identified by mathematical criteria were excluded. Results are expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR) or mean and standard deviation (SD). For the analysis of adult S. mansoni worm survival, group comparisons were performed using Fisher’s exact test, and survival curves were compared using the Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. All analyses were conducted using GraphPad Prism version 8.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

Results

Expression of antioxidant genes in HUVECs

We initially assessed the expression of five antioxidant response-related genes in HUVECs co-cultured with adult S. mansoni worm pairs for 1, 3, and 6 hours. As shown in Fig 2 and S1 Table, the relative mRNA expression of NRF2 remained stable across all time points, both in HUVECs exposed to adult worms and in the LPS-stimulated control group. Similarly, SOD1 expression did not vary under any of the experimental conditions. The expression of GPX also remained unchanged over time in response to worm exposure. In contrast, GSR expression significantly decreased at 3 hours [0.883 (0.335)] compared to 1 hour [1.181 (0.539); p < 0.05], followed by a significant increase at 6 hours [1.268 (0.382); p < 0.05]. Notably, CAT mRNA expression progressively increased in HUVECs exposed to adult S. mansoni, with a significant difference between 1 hour [0.925 (0.590)] and 6 hours [1.547 (0.718); p < 0.05].

Fig 2. Temporal expression of antioxidant genes in HUVECs exposed to adult Schistosoma mansoni.

Fig 2

Relative mRNA expression of antioxidant genes (SOD1, GPX, GSR, CAT, and NRF2) in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) after co-culture with adult S. mansoni worm pairs for 1, 3, and 6 hours.

Survival of adult S. mansoni worms after exposure to oxidative stress

The survival capacity of adult S. mansoni worms under pro-oxidant conditions was evaluated by culturing worm pairs in increasing concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂), either in the presence or absence of HUVECs. The distribution of viability scores differed among the cultures with increasing H₂O₂ concentrations. Worm death (score 0) was only observed at H₂O₂ concentrations starting from 400 μM. The frequency of score 0 increased progressively at higher H₂O₂ concentrations: 56.3% at 400 μM, 75% at 800 μM, and 100% worm death at 1600 μM H₂O₂ (Fig 3 and S2 Table).

Fig 3. Distribution of S. mansoni worm viability scores after exposure to oxidative stress with and without HUVECs.

Fig 3

Viability scores of adult Schistosoma mansoni worms after 24-hour exposure to increasing concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂), in the absence (A) or presence (B) of HUVECs. Worm viability was categorized into four scores: score 3 (intact tegument and active motility), score 2 (partial tegument damage and moderate motility), score 1 (darkened tegument and low motility), and score 0 (complete loss of motility and tegument integrity, indicating death). In the presence of HUVECs, a higher proportion of worms maintained viability (score 3), even at elevated H₂O₂ concentrations, with no deaths observed at 800 µM. In contrast, exposure to H₂O₂ alone resulted in a dose-dependent decline in viability, with complete mortality at 1600 µM.

In contrast, co-culturing worms with HUVECs under the same oxidative conditions yielded different survival outcomes. Viability score 3, indicating full tegument integrity and motility, and thus optimal viability, was observed even at higher H₂O₂ concentrations. Specifically, 50% of worms scored 3 at 400 μM, 33.3% at 800 μM, and 22.2% at 1600 μM H₂O₂. Notably, no worm deaths (score 0) were recorded at 800 μM in the presence of HUVECs, while 61.1% of worms were dead at 1600 μM (Fig 3 and S2 Table).

To compare survival outcomes across experimental conditions, worms were categorized into two groups based on viability scores: high viability group (HVG; scores 2 and 3) and low viability group (LVG; scores 0 and 1). A significant increase in worm survival was observed at H₂O₂ concentrations of 400 µM and 800 µM when worms were co-cultured with HUVECs, compared to those exposed to H₂O₂ alone (Fig 4A and S3 Table).

Fig 4. Protective effect of HUVECs on S. mansoni worm survival under oxidative stress.

Fig 4

(A) Percentage of adult Schistosoma mansoni worms classified as high viability (scores 2–3) after exposure to increasing concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂), either in the absence (Sm + H₂O₂) or presence (Sm + H₂O₂ + HUVEC) of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). Co-culture with HUVECs significantly improved worm survival at 200, 400, and 800 µM H₂O₂, compared to exposure to H₂O₂ alone (p < 0.001, Fisher’s exact test). (B) Survival analysis of adult Schistosoma mansoni worms exposed to increasing concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) in three experimental models: worms incubated with H₂O₂ alone (blue line), co-cultured with HUVECs (green line), or treated with exogenous catalase (CAT, red line). Worms cultured without HUVECs or catalase exhibited reduced survival starting at 400 µM H₂O₂. In contrast, both co-culture with HUVECs and catalase treatment preserved worm viability, with mortality observed only at the highest concentration (1600 µM). No significant difference was detected between the HUVEC and catalase models, suggesting that the protective effect of endothelial cells may be mediated, at least in part, by antioxidant enzymes such as catalase.

The survival curves of adult S. mansoni worms exposed to oxidative stress were analyzed under three different experimental conditions to determine whether the addition of catalase mimics the protective effect observed in co-culture with HUVECs. In the absence of HUVECs or catalase, worm survival declined markedly from 400 μM H₂O₂ onward. In contrast, co-cultures with HUVECs showed mortality only at the highest concentration tested (1,600 μM H₂O₂). No statistically significant differences were observed between the survival curves of worms cultured with HUVECs and those treated with catalase, suggesting that HUVEC-mediated protection may be attributed, at least in part, to the secretion of antioxidant enzymes such as catalase (Fig 4B and S3 Table).

Dapsone reversed the in vitro effect of catalase

Considering the ability of hydroxylamine to inhibit catalase, the objective of this study was to evaluate the potential of dapsone’s active metabolite, dapsone hydroxylamine (DDS-NOH), to block catalase activity and thus promote parasite death. To assess the direct effect of DDS-NOH on adult worms, the parasites were cultured in the absence of catalase, H₂O₂, or HUVECs and exposed them to different concentrations of DDS-NOH. A total of 100% of worms showed low viability at 100 μM, and 83.3% at 200 μM. At 50 μM, only 38.8% of the worms showed low viability, while the lowest concentrations, 25 μM and 12.5 μM, resulted in 5.5% of worms with low viability (Table 2).

Table 2. Percentage of worm survival after exposure to different concentrations of Dapsone hydroxylamine.

Drug Concentration in µM Total Number of worms tested Death Rate (%)
No drug 18 0
Dapsone hydroxylamine 12.5 18 5.5
25 18 5.5
50 18 38.8
100 6 100
200 6 83.3

The percentage of worm mortality was determined after exposure to each concentration. Control groups were maintained without drug exposure. Data are presented as the number of worms tested and corresponding mortality rates for each condition.

High mortality in worms cultured with 100 and 200 μM DDS-NOH suggests that death was caused by a direct effect of the drug. To assess the ability of DDS-NOH to inhibit catalase, lower concentrations were used; therefore, the following results were obtained using only 50 μM DDS-NOH. When adult worms were cultured with H₂O₂, an increased percentage of worms with low viability (81%) was observed. This frequency dropped considerably (to 30%) when catalase was added to the culture. However, when worms were cultured with H₂O₂, catalase, and 50 μM DDS-NOH, the percentage of worms with low viability increased again, suggesting that DDS-NOH was able to inhibit catalase activity in vitro. Interestingly, when worms were cultured with H₂O₂, catalase, and DDS-NOH in the presence of HUVECs, no loss in worm viability was observed. This finding suggests that, beyond catalase, HUVECs may protect adult S. mansoni worms through additional mechanisms (Fig 5 and S4 Table).

Fig 5. Effect of DDS-NOH on the viability of adult S. mansoni worms under oxidative stress in different experimental conditions.

Fig 5

The percentage of nonviable worms was assessed following exposure to H₂O₂ (400 µM), with or without the addition of catalase (CAT), DDS-NOH (50 µM), and/or HUVECs. Catalase reduced the mortality induced by H₂O₂, an effect that was reversed in the presence of DDS-NOH, suggesting catalase inhibition. Interestingly, co-culture with HUVECs preserved worm viability even in the presence of DDS-NOH, indicating that HUVECs may provide additional protective mechanisms beyond catalase activity. Bars represent the percentage of nonviable worms in each experimental condition; horizontal lines indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test).

Discussion

The findings of this study reveal a previously unrecognized role of endothelial cells in promoting the survival of S. mansoni under oxidative stress, adding a novel layer to the understanding of host-parasite interactions. While parasite survival in the vascular system has traditionally been explained by immune evasion strategies—such as the acquisition of host antigens [18], molecular mimicry [19], tegumental resistance [20], and immunomodulatory proteins and extracellular vesicles [2123], the current results suggest that host vascular endothelial cells may also directly contribute to parasite protection.

The most striking and original result is the observation that adult S. mansoni worms maintained high viability when co-cultured with human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), even in the presence of H₂O₂, a potent pro-oxidant. This protective effect appears to be at least partially mediated by catalase, an antioxidant enzyme produced by HUVECs [24]. The enhancement of catalase expression in co-culture conditions, accompanied by higher worm viability, supports the hypothesis that endothelial antioxidant mechanisms play a direct role in parasite resilience.

These findings align with previous studies indicating the importance of oxidative stress resistance in S. mansoni survival [25]. However, the demonstration that host-derived antioxidant responses can compensate for exogenous oxidative pressure expands the current understanding of host support in chronic infections. Importantly, this study demonstrates that dapsone hydroxylamine (DDS-NOH) significantly reduces worm viability under oxidative conditions. DDS-NOH has been reported to inhibit catalase activity in mammalian cells [26,27], suggesting that this mechanism may also contribute to its effect on S. mansoni. However, since catalase activity was not directly assessed in our experimental model, further studies are needed to confirm this mechanism in the context of schistosomiasis. Nonetheless, these findings support the idea that targeting antioxidant pathways may represent a promising strategy to sensitize adult worms to oxidative damage.

An unexpected yet revealing observation was that worm viability remained preserved in the presence of HUVECs, even under conditions of pharmacological catalase inhibition. This finding suggests that endothelial cells may contribute additional cytoprotective mechanisms beyond catalase activity, including the secretion of soluble mediators, modulation of the redox microenvironment, or provision of metabolic substrates. Endothelial cells are known to release various antioxidant molecules, such as glutathione, nitric oxide, and prostaglandins, which can mitigate oxidative stress and modulate inflammatory responses [2830]. These findings challenge the notion that antioxidant enzyme activity alone is sufficient to explain host-mediated protection and point to the complexity of host-parasite biochemical crosstalk.

Despite the robustness of the in vitro model employed, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The study was conducted under controlled laboratory conditions that may not fully replicate the dynamics of in vivo parasite-endothelial interactions, such as immune cell recruitment, blood flow, and tissue architecture. Additionally, the precise molecular pathways underlying HUVEC-mediated protection were not identified and require further exploration.

The implications of these findings are twofold. First, they highlight the importance of considering host tissue contributions beyond immune evasion or parasite-intrinsic adaptations when investigating the persistence of S. mansoni in the vasculature. Second, they identify endothelial cells as potential facilitators of parasite survival, actively shaping the microenvironment in a way that favors worm maintenance. This discovery opens new perspectives on the vascular niche as a supportive habitat for adult worms, which may be critical for their long-term survival despite the presence of immune effector cells such as eosinophils and other producers of reactive oxygen species.

Rather than being passive barriers, endothelial cells emerge here as active modulators of parasite viability, with potential implications for both pathogenesis and treatment. Understanding the molecular mechanisms involved in this protection—particularly the identity of soluble mediators and redox-modifying factors—may uncover novel therapeutic targets and deepen our knowledge of host–parasite interactions at the vascular interface.

Conclusion

This study reveals a novel role of human endothelial cells in promoting Schistosoma mansoni viability under oxidative stress. Our findings suggest that endothelial cells, which remain in constant contact with adult worms in the vasculature, contribute actively to parasite maintenance. While catalase activity appears to participate in this protective effect, the persistence of worm viability despite catalase inhibition points to additional, yet unidentified, protective pathways. Altogether, these results challenge the traditional view of immune evasion as the sole mechanism of worm persistence and highlight the vascular endothelium as a critical, and potentially targetable, player in schistosomiasis pathophysiology.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Relative expression levels of antioxidant response genes in HUVECs.

Relative expression values of NRF2, SOD1, GPx, GSR, and CAT genes. Expression levels were normalized to the endogenous control gene HPRT. Relative expression (ddCt) values were calculated using the median of untreated controls as the calibrator sample.

(XLSX)

pntd.0013923.s001.xlsx (23.5KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Viability of adult Schistosoma mansoni worms after exposure to hydrogen peroxide.

(A) Number of adult worms after 24-hour exposure to increasing concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂). (B) Number of adult worms after 24-hour exposure to increasing concentrations of H₂O₂ in the presence of HUVECs. Worm viability was categorized into four scores: score 3 (intact tegument and active motility), score 2 (partial tegument damage and moderate motility), score 1 (darkened tegument and low motility), and score 0 (complete loss of motility and tegument integrity, indicating death).

(XLSX)

pntd.0013923.s002.xlsx (20.3KB, xlsx)
S3 Table. Number of Schistosoma mansoni adult worms with high or low viability after 24-hour exposure to increasing concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂).

Worm viability was assessed under three experimental conditions: (A) exposure to H₂O₂ alone (100–1600 µM), (B) exposure to H₂O₂ in the presence of HUVECs, and (C) exposure to H₂O₂ with catalase supplementation.

(XLSX)

pntd.0013923.s003.xlsx (20.1KB, xlsx)
S4 Table. Number of Schistosoma mansoni adult worms with high or low viability after exposure to different conditions.

Worms were exposed to H₂O₂ alone, H₂O₂ with catalase, or H₂O₂ with catalase plus 50 μM DDS-NOH, and worms exposed to H₂O₂ in the presence of HUVECs and DDS-NOH.

(XLSX)

pntd.0013923.s004.xlsx (19.6KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Ana Moretti, Ph.D. and Dr. Heraldo Possolo de Souza, M.D., from the São Paulo State University Medical School (FMUSP-Brazil), for generously donating the HUVEC cells used in this study.

Data Availability

All raw data supporting the findings of this study are provided in the Supporting Information files published alongside the article.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the “Programa de Excelência em Pesquisa” (PROEP/IGM/2020, Edital 01/2020, Grant ID: FIOTEC IGM-002-FIO-20-2-24, to RRO); “Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior” (CAPES) – Finance Code 001 (doctoral fellowship to BOLS); and “Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia” (FAPESB, master’s fellowship to BOLS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. WHO guideline on control and elimination of human schistosomiasis. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240041608 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Elbaz T, Esmat G. Hepatic and intestinal schistosomiasis: review. J Adv Res. 2013;4(5):445–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2012.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.File S. Interaction of schistosome eggs with vascular endothelium. J Parasitol. 1995;81(2):234–8. doi: 10.2307/3283925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wu YP, Lenting PJ, Tielens AGM, de Groot PG, van Hellemond JJ. Differential platelet adhesion to distinct life-cycle stages of the parasitic helminth Schistosoma mansoni. J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5(10):2146–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02725.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dewalick S, Hensbergen PJ, Bexkens ML, Grosserichter-Wagener C, Hokke CH, Deelder AM, et al. Binding of von Willebrand factor and plasma proteins to the eggshell of Schistosoma mansoni. Int J Parasitol. 2014;44(5):263–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2013.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Freedman DO, Ottesen EA. Eggs of Schistosoma mansoni stimulate endothelial cell proliferation in vitro. J Infect Dis. 1988;158(3):556–62. doi: 10.1093/infdis/158.3.556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Loeffler DA, Lundy SK, Singh KP, Gerard HC, Hudson AP, Boros DL. Soluble egg antigens from Schistosoma mansoni induce angiogenesis-related processes by up-regulating vascular endothelial growth factor in human endothelial cells. J Infect Dis. 2002;185(11):1650–6. doi: 10.1086/340416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schwartz C, Fallon PG. Schistosoma “Eggs-Iting” the Host: Granuloma Formation and Egg Excretion. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2492. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Baptista AP, Andrade ZA. Angiogenesis and schistosomal granuloma formation. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2005;100(2):183–5. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762005000200012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lemos QT, Andrade ZA. Angiogenesis and experimental hepatic fibrosis. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2010;105(5):611–4. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762010000500002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vale N, Gouveia MJ, Rinaldi G, Brindley PJ, Gärtner F, Correia da Costa JM. Praziquantel for Schistosomiasis: Single-Drug Metabolism Revisited, Mode of Action, and Resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(5):e02582-16. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02582-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wang W, Wang L, Liang Y-S. Susceptibility or resistance of praziquantel in human schistosomiasis: a review. Parasitol Res. 2012;111(5):1871–7. doi: 10.1007/s00436-012-3151-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Etemadifar A, Bahraminejad S, Pardakhty A, Sharifi I, Keyhani A, Ranjbar M. Preparation, Characterization, and Leishmanicidal Assessment of Silver- and Dapsone-Loaded Niosomes Co-administration: In Silico and In Vitro Study. Adv Pharm Bull. 2024;14(4):892–907. doi: 10.34172/apb.42740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Khalilzadeh M, Shayan M, Jourian S, Rahimi M, Sheibani M, Dehpour AR. A comprehensive insight into the anti-inflammatory properties of dapsone. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2022;395(12):1509–23. doi: 10.1007/s00210-022-02297-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pellegrino JSAF. Técnica de perfusão para colheita de schistosoma mansoni em cobaias experimentalmente infestadas. Revista Brasileira de Malariología e Doenças Tropicais. 1956. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Smithers SR, Terry RJ. The infection of laboratory hosts with cercariae of Schistosoma mansoni and the recovery of the adult worms. Parasitology. 1965;55(4):695–700. doi: 10.1017/s0031182000086248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lombardo FC, Pasche V, Panic G, Endriss Y, Keiser J. Life cycle maintenance and drug-sensitivity assays for early drug discovery in Schistosoma mansoni. Nat Protoc. 2019;14(2):461–81. doi: 10.1038/s41596-018-0101-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Smithers SR, Terry RJ, Hockley DJ. Host antigens in schistosomiasis. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1969;171(1025):483–94. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1969.0007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hambrook JR, Hanington PC. Immune Evasion Strategies of Schistosomes. Front Immunol. 2021;11:624178. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.624178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dessein A, Samuelson JC, Butterworth AE, Hogan M, Sherry BA, Vadas MA, et al. Immune evasion by Schistosoma mansoni: loss of susceptibility to antibody or complement-dependent eosinophil attack by schistosomula cultured in medium free of macromolecules. Parasitology. 1981;82(Pt 3):357–74. doi: 10.1017/s0031182000066890 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wilson RA. Virulence factors of schistosomes. Microbes Infect. 2012;14(15):1442–50. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2012.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Colley DG, Secor WE. Immunology of human schistosomiasis. Parasite Immunol. 2014;36(8):347–57. doi: 10.1111/pim.12087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hamway Y, Zimmermann K, Blommers MJJ, Sousa MV, Häberli C, Kulkarni S, et al. Modulation of Host-Parasite Interactions with Small Molecules Targeting Schistosoma mansoni microRNAs. ACS Infect Dis. 2022;8(10):2028–34. doi: 10.1021/acsinfecdis.2c00360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Meilhac O, Zhou M, Santanam N, Parthasarathy S. Lipid peroxides induce expression of catalase in cultured vascular cells. J Lipid Res. 2000;41(8):1205–13. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2275(20)33427-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Avelar L das GA, Gava SG, Neves RH, Silva MCS, Araújo N, Tavares NC, et al. Smp38 MAP Kinase Regulation in Schistosoma mansoni: Roles in Survival, Oviposition, and Protection Against Oxidative Stress. Front Immunol. 2019;10:21. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Albuquerque RV, Malcher NS, Amado LL, Coleman MD, Dos Santos DC, Borges RS, et al. In Vitro Protective Effect and Antioxidant Mechanism of Resveratrol Induced by Dapsone Hydroxylamine in Human Cells. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0134768. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Veggi LM, Pretto L, Ochoa EJ, Catania VA, Luquita MG, Taborda DR, et al. Dapsone induces oxidative stress and impairs antioxidant defenses in rat liver. Life Sci. 2008;83(5–6):155–63. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2008.05.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bontor K, Gabryel B. Sulodexide protects endothelial cells against 4-hydroxynonenal-induced oxidative stress and glutathione-dependent redox imbalance by modulation of sestrin2/nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 pathway. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2024;75(4):10.26402/jpp.2024.4.03. doi: 10.26402/jpp.2024.4.03 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bruschi M, Biancucci F, Masini S, Piacente F, Ligi D, Bartoccini F, et al. The influence of redox modulation on hypoxic endothelial cell metabolic and proteomic profiles through a small thiol-based compound tuning glutathione and thioredoxin systems. Biofactors. 2023;49(6):1205–22. doi: 10.1002/biof.1988 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Jongkind JF, Verkerk A, Baggen RG. Glutathione metabolism of human vascular endothelial cells under peroxidative stress. Free Radic Biol Med. 1989;7(5):507–12. doi: 10.1016/0891-5849(89)90026-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013923.r001

Decision Letter 0

Peter U Fischer, Eduardo José Lopes-Torres

13 Aug 2025

Endothelial cells protect Schistosoma mansoni from hydrogen peroxide-induced death

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Oct 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

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

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

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Peter Fischer

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

Journal Requirements:

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

At this stage, the following Authors/Authors require contributions: Bruna Oliveira Lopes Souza, Ronald Alves dos Santos, Kelvin Edson Marques de Jesus, Juliana Bezerra Dória Lima, Andressa Moreira Lima, Brenda Rodrigues Brito Cunha Silva, Fernanda Freitas Costa, Lorena Conceição Queiroz, Camilla Almeida Menezes, Sânzio Silva Santana, Karine Araujo Damasceno, Isadora Cristina Siqueira, Marilda de Souza Gonçalves, Dalila Luciola Zanette, Thassila Nogueira Pitanga, and Ricardo Riccio Oliveira. Please ensure that the full contributions of each author are acknowledged in the "Add/Edit/Remove Authors" section of our submission form.

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

2) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

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

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

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

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

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

Potential Copyright Issues:

- Please confirm (a) that you are the photographer of Figure 1, or (b) provide written permission from the photographer to publish the photo(s) under our CC BY 4.0 license.

6) Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well.

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

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: u201cThe authors received no specific funding for this work.u201d

Reviewers' Comments:

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

Figure resubmission:

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

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013923.r003

Decision Letter 1

Peter U Fischer, Eduardo José Lopes-Torres

3 Nov 2025

Endothelial cells protect Schistosoma mansoni from hydrogen peroxide-induced death

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Dec 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosntds@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

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

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

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Peter Fischer

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

Journal Requirements:

1) We note that the main files of the manuscript are duplicated on your submission. Please remove any unnecessary or old files ("SouzaBOL_Manuscriptv1.pdf) from your revision, and make sure that only those relevant to the current version of the manuscript are included.

2) We do not publish any copyright or trademark symbols that usually accompany proprietary names, eg ©,  ®, or TM  (e.g. next to drug or reagent names). Therefore please remove all instances of trademark/copyright symbols throughout the text, including:

- TM on pages: 7, and 8.

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

4) Thank you for stating "All relevant data will be made available upon publication through the Arca Dados platform, the official data repository of Fiocruz, at "https://arcadados.fiocruz.br/." Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal dataset will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board.

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

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

Note: 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.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

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

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

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The objectives of the study are generally well presented, but the main hypothesis could be articulated more explicitly to guide the reader through the rationale of the analyses. The study design is overall appropriate to address the stated objectives; however, more details are needed regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study population. The description of the population should be clearer, including relevant demographic and epidemiological characteristics to assess the generalizability of the findings.

The sample size seems reasonable, but no formal justification or power calculation is provided. This information is crucial to determine whether the study is sufficiently powered to address the research questions. Statistical analyses are generally appropriate, but some methods lack sufficient detail (e.g., model specifications, handling of missing data). Ethical considerations are mentioned briefly but would benefit from more explicit information on the ethical clearance process and informed consent procedures.

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The analyses presented mostly match the analysis plan; however, some important secondary analyses mentioned in the methods are not fully reported. The results are presented clearly overall, but some tables and figures require additional detail or clarification (e.g., labels, legends, denominators). Several figures could be improved in terms of resolution and clarity to ensure that the data are easily interpretable. Some findings would benefit from more stratified analyses or additional contextual interpretation to support the conclusions.

**********

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

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

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The conclusions are generally consistent with the data presented but could be more nuanced regarding the study’s limitations. The authors should more clearly discuss potential sources of bias, limitations in the methodology, and how these might affect the interpretation of the results. The public health relevance is addressed, but the discussion could be expanded to better highlight the contribution of the findings to current malaria control strategies and surveillance systems.

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Clarify population characteristics and study setting in the Methods section.

Add a formal sample size or power calculation.

Provide more details on the statistical methods (e.g., model choice, handling of missing data).

Ensure consistency between the methods and the results presented.

Consider shortening or restructuring some sections for clarity and flow.

**********

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: This is a valuable study addressing an important topic in malaria control and surveillance. The research has the potential to contribute significantly to the understanding of [insert topic briefly, e.g., “malaria transmission dynamics and intervention impact”], but several aspects require clarification and strengthening before publication.

The major weaknesses include insufficient methodological detail (especially regarding population description, sample size justification, and statistical analyses), some inconsistencies between methods and results, and the need to refine the conclusions to better reflect the study’s limitations. Editorial improvements to figures, tables, and structure would also enhance readability.

Overall, I recommend Major Revision. Addressing these points will considerably strengthen the manuscript.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

Figure resubmission:

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013923.r005

Decision Letter 2

Peter U Fischer, Eduardo José Lopes-Torres

9 Jan 2026

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Endothelial cells protect Schistosoma mansoni from hydrogen peroxide-induced death' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Eduardo José Lopes-Torres, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Peter Fischer

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

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

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013923.r006

Acceptance letter

Peter U Fischer, Eduardo José Lopes-Torres

Dear Dr. Oliveira,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "

Endothelial cells protect Schistosoma mansoni from hydrogen peroxide-induced death," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

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

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

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Relative expression levels of antioxidant response genes in HUVECs.

    Relative expression values of NRF2, SOD1, GPx, GSR, and CAT genes. Expression levels were normalized to the endogenous control gene HPRT. Relative expression (ddCt) values were calculated using the median of untreated controls as the calibrator sample.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013923.s001.xlsx (23.5KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Viability of adult Schistosoma mansoni worms after exposure to hydrogen peroxide.

    (A) Number of adult worms after 24-hour exposure to increasing concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂). (B) Number of adult worms after 24-hour exposure to increasing concentrations of H₂O₂ in the presence of HUVECs. Worm viability was categorized into four scores: score 3 (intact tegument and active motility), score 2 (partial tegument damage and moderate motility), score 1 (darkened tegument and low motility), and score 0 (complete loss of motility and tegument integrity, indicating death).

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013923.s002.xlsx (20.3KB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. Number of Schistosoma mansoni adult worms with high or low viability after 24-hour exposure to increasing concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂).

    Worm viability was assessed under three experimental conditions: (A) exposure to H₂O₂ alone (100–1600 µM), (B) exposure to H₂O₂ in the presence of HUVECs, and (C) exposure to H₂O₂ with catalase supplementation.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013923.s003.xlsx (20.1KB, xlsx)
    S4 Table. Number of Schistosoma mansoni adult worms with high or low viability after exposure to different conditions.

    Worms were exposed to H₂O₂ alone, H₂O₂ with catalase, or H₂O₂ with catalase plus 50 μM DDS-NOH, and worms exposed to H₂O₂ in the presence of HUVECs and DDS-NOH.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013923.s004.xlsx (19.6KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    pntd.0013923.s006.pdf (254KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers.docx

    pntd.0013923.s007.docx (41KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw data supporting the findings of this study are provided in the Supporting Information files published alongside the article.


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

    RESOURCES