Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2026 Feb 17;20(2):e0013990. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013990

Distribution of nematophagous fungi and soil-transmitted helminths in outdoor built environments across Latin America

Rojelio Mejia 1,*, Eva Mereles Aranda 2, Leticia Ojeda 2, Sandra Ocampos Benedetti 2, Janitzio J Guzman 3, Barton Slatko 1, Cristina Almazan 4, Melisa Diaz-Fernandez 4, Ruben Cimino 4, Marisa Juarez 4, Natalia Montellano Duran 5, Estefania Lorena Mansilla Flores 6, Paola Andrea Vargas 5, Amandeep Kaur 1, Nestor L Uzcategui 1, Lucia Estela Mejia 1, Katherine Elizabeth Keegan 1, Emilio Rey Mejia 7, Chiara Cássia Oliveira Amorim 8, Stefan M Geiger 8, Ricardo T Fujiwara 8, Luz Marina Llangarí-Arizo 9,10, Andrea Lopez 10, Natalia Romero-Sandoval 10,11, Irene Guadalupe 12, Liliana E Villanueva-Lizama 13, Julio Vladimir Cruz-Chan 13, Maritza Dalí Camones Rivera 14, Eddyson Montalvo Sabino 15, Carlos Pineda 14, Eric J Wetzel 16, Philip J Cooper 10,17
Editor: Robert Adamu SHEY18
PMCID: PMC12923129  PMID: 41701773

Abstract

Background

Soil-transmitted helminths (STHs) are among the most common global parasitic infections, represent a significant worldwide public health burden, and remain a source of considerable morbidity in Latin America. Nematophagous fungi (NF), such as Arthrobotrys oligospora, naturally inhabit many soil types and are known for their ability to trap and kill nematodes using specialized hyphal structures or secreted enzymes and metabolites. As they prey on different developmental stages of helminths in soil, they may represent an ecological factor influencing helminth persistence and transmission dynamics.

Methods

Using an in vitro test, Toxocara cati eggs were exposed to A. oligospora. By using a flotation, filtration, and bead-beating disruption technique, parasite and fungal DNA were collected and detected by multi-parallel real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR). Similar methods were used to extract DNA from soil samples outside built environments across seven Latin American countries, including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, and Peru.

Results

In vitro testing showed a 40.1% reduction in viable eggs in the presence of A. oligospora, as determined by qPCR (P = 0.0212). Comparing the impact of A. oligospora on T. cati over 14 days revealed a decrease in T. cati DNA concentration compared to control groups (P = 0.0039). Using qPCR to detect A. oligospora, there was a 62.4% decrease in the mean A. oligospora DNA at 14 days. The co-occurrence of NF and STH was evaluated in 805 soil samples from seven Latin American countries representing distinct geoclimatic settings. We observed a significant reduction in helminth abundance (P < 0.05), including Ascaris, Strongyloides, Toxocara, and any helminth.

Conclusion/significance

The ubiquitous presence of A. oligospora in soils and inverse association with STH parasite detection suggest a potential role in environmental helminth transmission patterns.

Author summary

Soil-transmitted helminths (STH) remain a major cause of illness in many regions because their eggs and larvae remain viable in soil, continually driving reinfection. Current human treatment alone cannot interrupt this cycle. We evaluated Arthrobotrys oligospora, a nematophagous fungus naturally present in soil, to better understand its interactions with STH in environmental settings. In vitro, the fungus reduced helminth DNA concentrations, and its presence was detected in soils from seven Latin American countries. The fungus grows toward and penetrates parasites, including Ascaris, Strongyloides, and Toxocara. Its natural presence in soils in outdoor built environments was associated with decreased STH detection. These findings suggest that soil-dwelling nematophagous fungi may represent an ecological factor influencing environmental helminth persistence and transmission dynamics.

Introduction

As major human pathogens worldwide, soil-transmitted helminths (STH) are estimated to affect over 1.5 billion people, mainly in populations living in poverty and with inadequate access to healthcare [1,2]. STH parasites include an adult intestinal stage, with viable eggs released into the environment upon host defecation. In areas of poor sanitation, these eggs reside in the soil and embryonate after several weeks. Individual infection can occur through two main routes: most commonly, by ingestion of eggs through play (usually by children), or by other direct and indirect oral contact with contaminated soil. In the case of hookworms and Strongyloides, larvae can also hatch in the soil and penetrate the skin, often after walking on contaminated soil. Without treatments, the infections can lead to severe morbidity, including colitis, anemia, malnutrition, and, in children, delays in growth and cognitive development [3,4].

It has become clear that traditional approaches addressing human and animal infection, focusing on administering anti-parasitic treatments and chemical treatments of soils, are inadequate, due to several challenges: insufficient coverage and compliance with treatments; development of drug resistance [5]; reinfection due to persistent environmental reservoirs of infective eggs; anti-parasitic drugs do not affect eggs or larvae in soil. An alternative perspective is to examine natural biological interactions that influence the persistence of parasite stages within soil environments [6].

The association for STH intervention with Nematophagous fungi (NF) should consider toxocariasis, as it poses a significant hazard to human and animal health, causing severe morbidity, including eosinophilia, asthma, colitis, visual or neuropathology due to larval migrations, malnutrition, iron deficiency, stunting, and, in children, delays in physical and cognitive development [79]. As the life cycle persists through reinfection via contaminated soil, repeated treatments with anti-parasitic drugs designed to kill adult worms are required. Throughout Latin America, Toxocara prevalence in outdoor built areas is high, with reports of 50% to 100% in public parks [10].

One such unique association employs NF species that have evolved to use nematodes in the environment as a food source [11]. NF isolated from agricultural fields, forests, and compost soils has a history of use as agents for reducing plant and veterinary animal parasitic nematodes [1118]. However, their ecological role in STH transmission dynamics has not been systematically explored. As native soil organisms that act independently of host treatment or behavior, NF are well-suited for studying environmental influences on parasite persistence.

One common NF species is Arthrobotrys oligospora, one of the first NFs to be recognized [11,19]. While A. oligospora primarily uses nematode trap formation to capture and inactivate nematode eggs, along with other NF species, it uses at least one of 4 main mechanisms: nematode trapping using hyphae, spore-based endoparasitic activity, invasion of eggs or larvae, or toxin secretion before invasion. Much is known about the diversity, taxonomy, biology, and ecology of NF, and the molecular/biochemical mechanisms of NF are under active investigation [20,21]. For this pilot project only A. oligospora was evaluated.

We aimed first to confirm previous experiments to evaluate and quantify the effect of NF on the commonly found STH, Toxocara cati, and, secondly, to confirm and extend these observations by assaying NF activity in soil samples from seven Latin American countries. We utilized the commonly found NF species, Arthrobotrys oligospora [22]. The results of this study highlight the potential importance of ecological processes in shaping STH transmission dynamics in soil. These findings support a broader understanding of how naturally occurring environmental organisms may influence helminth persistence outside the host and underscore the value of incorporating environmental biological interactions into models of parasite transmission.

Methods

Ethics approval and consent to participate

No human subjects were enrolled in this environmental study, and no Ethics Committee approval was required. Residents of the homes were invited to join the study and granted permission to collect soil samples.

Biological samples

Arthrobotrys oligospora obtained from ATCC (American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA, USA; strain 24927). Primer-specific qPCR verified that A. oligospora had been grown on yeast peptone dextrose (YPD) plates before use. A. oligospora inoculum was transferred and cultured using sterile technique, in a liquid buffered glycerol-complex medium (BMGY), inoculated and grown at 25°C. Helminth eggs include Toxocara cati that were collected from infected cats’ feces. Toxocara-infected feces were collected from infected cats participating in ongoing research studies and stored at 4°C. Animal feces are weighed and suspended in Feca-Med (Vedco, Inc., St. Joseph, MO) containing Sodium Nitrate (specific gravity 1.3). After agitation and centrifugation, the liquid layer was filtered to retain Toxocara eggs. These were counted by Counting Chamber (Advanced Equine Products, Issaquah, WA) and used for soil studies.

Latin America multi-country sampling of built environments

A total of 805 soil samples from 218 external built environments in seven Latin American countries were sampled for STH, Toxocara species, and A. oligospora. Countries included are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico [23], Paraguay, and Peru [24] (Table 1). Samples were collected from 1 cm deep surface scrapings, and soil was stored at 4°C before processing. Built-environment locations were selected from prior community health campaigns in resource-limited settings. All dirt samples were collected outside participants’ houses, including the entrance, latrine, and patio, except for 45 samples from seven city parks in Huánuco, Peru [24]. These locations are in resource-poor areas throughout Latin America, with outdoor latrines and limited access to proper sanitation. Latrines were limited-service latrines on the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) sanitation ladder, about 2 – 5 meters from the house’s entrance. Permission was obtained from tenants and local Public Health officials.

Table 1. Environmental Sampling and the number of samples for each Latin American country. Ecosystem map in S1 Fig.

Country Date of collection Number of
Samples (805)
Number of Built Environments (218) Ecosystem Climate
Region
(Köppen-Geiger code)
Argentina November 2023 111 28 Tropical
Savanna
Temperate
Dry winter
Hot summer
(Cwa)
Bolivia June 2024 93 25 Tropical
Dry Forest
Tropical
Savanna
(Aw)
Brazil July 2023 88 40 Savanna
Woodlands
Tropical
Savanna
(Aw)
Ecuador August 2023, July 2024 101 21 Warm Temperate Moist Forest Tropical
Rainforest
(Af)
Mexico August 2018 77 34 Tropical Dry Forest Tropical
Savana
(Aw)
Paraguay June 2024, 2025 137 27 Subtropical
Forest
Humid
Subtropical
(Cfa)
Peru August 2023 198 43 Mountainous highlands Temperate
Highland
(Cwb)
Amazon
rainforest
Tropical
Rainforest
(Af)

DNA isolations

The DNA concentration technique uses parasite flotation and filtration to concentrate parasite DNA from experimental and control soil samples before DNA extraction, as previously described [24]. All DNA extraction was performed at each field site and varied as reported. Briefly, Phosphate-buffered saline (Alfa Asesar, Ward Hill, MA) with 0.05% TWEEN (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) was added to a 50 mL tube containing approximately 25 g of soil sample. Samples were weighed and recorded. The samples were vortexed for 5 minutes using a Tornado II portable paint shaker with a 115-volt motor (Blair Equipment Company, Swartz Creek, MI), then centrifuged at 500 g for 5 minutes, and the supernatant containing the debris was discarded. To float helminth eggs and larvae, 10 mL of a 35.6% NaNO3 solution (Vedco, St. Joseph, MO) (USA, Ecuador, and Mexico) or 530 mg/mL of sugar (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru), with a specific gravity of 1.3 measured with a hydrometer (SP Scienceware, Wayne, NJ) and added to the pellet in each conical centrifuge tube. The solution was vortexed in a portable shaker for 5 minutes, then centrifuged for 5 minutes at 500 g. The supernatant for each sample containing the floated parasites was transferred to a filtration apparatus. The filtration apparatus consists of a 20-mL syringe fitted with a 3 µm pore nitrocellulose filter (Millipore Sigma, Burlington, MA), which is small enough to retain all tested parasites. The filtration apparatus was attached to a vacuum manifold, which in turn was connected to a two-stage rotary vane vacuum pump (ELITech, Puteaux, France). Filtration with a vacuum pressure as low as 25 µm Hg was performed until the eluent had passed through the filter. The MP Fast SpinKit for Soil (MP Biomedicals, Santa Ana, CA) was used to extract DNA from parasites retained on a nitrocellulose filter [24]. An internal control DNA was used as an exogenous control to confirm efficient extraction [25]. Heat disruption at 90°C for 10 minutes in a dry bath incubator was followed by mechanical disruption using the MP FastPrep 24-5G disruptor (MP Biomedicals, Santa Ana, CA) at speed 6 for 40 seconds (USA, Ecuador) or a Disruptor Genie (Scientific Industries, Bohemia, NY) at 3,000 rpm for 5 minutes (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Paraguay, and Peru). All DNA eluent was stored at -20°C; information is listed in the Environmental Microbiology Minimum Information (EMMI) (S1 Table). The eluent volume was measured and collected from all seven Latin American countries, spotted onto 0.2 µm filter paper (Millipore, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), air-dried, and shipped at ambient temperature to Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. Once received, DNA was extracted from the filter papers by overnight room-temperature elution using the same volume of elution buffer (MP Biomedicals).

Multi-parallel real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) and primers

DNA collected was analyzed using a multi-parallel real-time quantitative PCR. For each reaction, a 7-µL mixture consisted of 5 µL TaqMan Fast Advanced Master Mix (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) with 900 nM each of forward and reverse primers (and FAM probe with a minor groove binder and nonfluorescent quencher (100 nM final concentration) [26]. 2 µL of extracted DNA was added to each reaction mixture. All reactions were run on a 96-well plate (except in Argentina), with a standard curve prepared using parasite plasmid or fungal genomic DNA. Each plate had a positive (plasmid) and a negative (no template) control. All DNA samples were tested with an internal control to confirm DNA presence [25]. All plates for fungus were processed on a QS7 Pro Real-Time PCR System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) in Houston, Texas, including helminths from Bolivia, Mexico, Paraguay, and Peru. In Ecuador and Brazil, the ABI 7500 Real-Time PCR System (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was used for parasites. In Argentina, the Chia Portable Real-time PCR (Chia Bio, Santa Clara, CA) was used in a 16-well format with two known parasite standard concentrations and two negative control wells. We used qPCR and microscopy to quantify the experimental results. Helminths tested include Ancylostoma species, Ascaris lumbricoides, Necator americanus, Strongyloides stercoralis, Toxocara canis, Toxocara cati, and Trichuris trichiura (S2 Table).

qPCR for A. oligospora quantification used primers as described [20].

Forward: CGG TTT GCT GTT GCA GCT TGT T

Reverse: GGT TCA CAA AGG GTT TAC CAG G

Probe: FAM -CTG TCT TCC GGT TGG TAA GC

In vitro tests of A. oligospora on T. cati eggs

For in vitro experiments, commercial all-purpose soil (Garden Soil, Miracle-Gro, Marysville, OH) was spread on petri plates (approximately 25 g). A. oligospora was cultured in BMGY at 25°C with agitation until an optical density of 0.5 at 600nm, as measured by an Epoch plate reader (BioTek, Winooski, VT). Plates were then incubated at 25°C for 5 days before the addition of T. cati eggs. For all in vitro experiments, 1 mL of A. oligospora and 3,000 T. cati eggs were used per plate.

Statistical analysis

One-way and two-way ANOVA were used for in vitro testing, along with Mann-Whitney tests and log10 transformations for two-way ANOVA. For the Latin American soil samples, odds ratios were calculated using either the Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Any value P < 0.05 was considered significant. Calculations and graphing were performed using GraphPad Prism V.10.6.1 (San Diego, CA).

Results

In vitro experiments

In vitro experiments were first performed to confirm and quantify the activity of A. oligospora, using T. cati eggs. Microscopy visualized fungal predation on Toxocara cati eggs, and qPCR confirmed the complete reduction of Toxocara DNA on YPD plates. Control plates contained no fungus. There was no visible interaction between the fungus and T. cati eggs at the start of the experiment (Fig 1.1). At 4 hours, fungal hyphae were seen growing towards each T. cati egg within proximity of the fungus (Fig 1.2). After 2 days, fungal penetration was observed (Fig 1.3). The control plates had larval hatching at day 2 (Fig 1.4).

Fig 1. A. oligospora grows towards and invades T. catti. 1) 7 days of fungal growth and initial addition of T. cati show no interaction. 2) After 4 hours, the fungus grows towards T. cati eggs. 3) At 2 days, fungal hyphae penetrate T. cati eggs. 4) A control shows larva and egg hatching of living T. cati eggs.

Fig 1

In a subsequent experiment, 45 plates containing 3,000 T. cati eggs each, with and without fungus, were cultured for 9 days, with a decrease of T. cati DNA (Fig 2A) in combination with A. oligospora. The control (no added fungus) group had a median DNA value of 103.1 fg/µL. In comparison, the experimental group had a median DNA value of 61.73 fg/µL, a decrease of 41.37 fg/µL (40.1% reduction) (P = 0.0212). A follow-up 14-day study on 63 separate and individual plates of 3,000 T. cati eggs each, with A. oligospora added to 33 plates. DNA was subsequently isolated from experimental and control plates (no fungus added) on days 0, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 14. Using two-way ANOVA with log10-transformed T. cati DNA concentration as the outcome, there was a significant effect of fungus on T. cati DNA (P = 0.0039), some evidence of a time trend (P = 0.0654), but no treatment-time interaction (P = 0.8928) (Fig 2B).

Fig 2. A. The presence of A. oligospora significantly reduced T. cati DNA levels.

Fig 2

B. Besides, at day 0, A. oligospora significantly decreased the concentration of T. cati (Exp = Experiment).

Fungal testing in soil

The same T. cati plates (Fig 2B) were also tested for the presence and quantity of A. oligospora DNA. DNA was detected in all spiked experimental samples, with decreasing concentrations of A. oligospora DNA over time, indicating transient soil colonization, likely due to the natural life span of fungi in soil. There was a 62.4% decrease in the mean A. oligospora DNA at 14 days, although using a log10-transformed two-way ANOVA was not significant for A. oligospora over time (P = 0.3422) (Fig 3). Even with a reduction in fungal DNA, there was a consistent decrease in T. cati DNA compared to the paired control group (Fig 2B). Several control samples also naturally contained A. oligospora DNA present in the added soil. As a proof-of-principle test, control samples that contained A. oligospora DNA were removed from the in vitro analysis. The two-way ANOVA with log 10-transformed T. cati DNA remained significant on the impact of fungus on T. cati DNA (P = 0.0148) and no significance on time (P = 0.5318) or interaction (P = 0.3096) (S2 Fig).

Fig 3. A. oligospora DNA can be detected in all spiked experimental samples with decreasing concentration of DNA over time.

Fig 3

There is a 62.4% decrease in the mean DNA at 14 days (P = 0.3422). Several control samples naturally contained A. oligospora DNA (Exp = experiment).

Soil testing from seven Latin American Countries

Soil sampling for STH and A. oligospora was conducted at sites in seven Latin American countries (Table 1) (S1 Fig). The results on contamination rates per sample and per built environment, including the mean and range of organism DNA concentrations, showed a wide range across countries (Table 2).

Table 2. Prevalence of parasites and DNA concentrations in the soil.

Parasite/ fungus
Country
Contamination Rate (Samples) Contamination Rates (Built Environment) DNA concentration in kg of soil (fg/µl), mean (range)
Ancylostoma
species
Overall 2.6% (21/805) 8.7% (19/218) 368.8 (0.013 to 7479.9)
Argentina 0% (0/111) 0% (0/28) 0
Bolivia 3.2% (3/93) 12% (3/25) 8.2 (0.042 to 24.6)
Brazil 2.3% (2/88) 5% (2/40) 0.014 (0.013 to 0.015)
Ecuador 7.9% (8/101) 33.3% (7/21) 23.4 (0.63 to 83.7)
Mexico 1.3% (1/77) 2.9% (1/34) 7479.9
Paraguay 0% (0/137) 0% (0/27) 0
Peru 3.5% (7/198) 13.9% (6/43) 7.6 (0.25 to 36.7)
Ascaris
lumbricoides
Overall 6.2% (50/805) 13.8% (30/218) 515.3 (0.026 to 9500.8)
Argentina 9.0% (10/111) 14.3% (4/28) 203.9 (0.1 to 1494.9)
Bolivia 1.1% (1/93) 4% (1/25) 1.2
Brazil 10.2% (9/88) 17.5% (7/40) 29.9 (0.03 to 274.9)
Ecuador 9.9% (10/101) 33.3% (7/21) 35.6 (0.5 to 124.9)
Mexico 9.1% (7/77) 11.8% (4/34) 3379.2 (336.1 to 9500.8)
Paraguay 0% (0/137) 0% (0/27) 0
Peru 6.6% (13/198) 16.3% (7/43) 18.6 (0.16 to 152.7)
Necator
americanus
Overall 2.2% (11/805) 3.7% (8/218) 0.47 (0.063 to 0.88)
Argentina 0% (0/111) 0% (0/28) 0
Bolivia 0% (0/93) 0% (0/25) 0
Brazil 0% (0/88) 0% (0/40) 0
Ecuador 6.9% (7/101) 19.1% (4/21) 0.58 (0.26 to 0.88)
Mexico 0% (0/77) 0% (0/34) 0
Paraguay 0.7% (1/137) 3.7% (1/27) 0.73
Peru 1.6% (3/198) 7.0% (3/43) 0.12 (0.063 to 0.23)
Strongyloides stercoralis
Overall 5.7% (46/805) 15.1% (33/218) 7568.1 (0.016 to 347895)
Argentina 3.6% (4/111) 7.1% (2/28) 1.9 (0.02 to 7.4)
Bolivia 7.5% (7/93) 24% (6/25) 0.57 (0.22 to 1.2)
Brazil 14.8% (13/88) 25% (10/40) 18.0 (0.09 to 161.4)
Ecuador 8.9% (9/101) 33.3% (7/21) 38656.1 (0.02 to 347895)
Mexico 0% (0/77) 0% (0/34) 0
Paraguay 0.73% (1/137) 3.7% (1/27) 0.95
Peru 6.1% (12/198) 16.3% (7/43) 0.74 (0.016 to 3.5)
Toxocara
canis
Overall 4.1% (33/805) 11.5% (25/218) 70888.8 (0.38 to 2188280)
Argentina 3.6% (4/111) 14.3% (4/28) 470591 (300.8 to 2188280)
Bolivia 4.3% (4/93) 16% (4/25) 181.8 (2.6 to 427.1)
Brazil 0% (0/88) 0% (0/40) 0
Ecuador 11.9% (12/101) 38.1% (8/21) 4305.2 (18.3 to 39351.6)
Mexico 9.1% (7/77) 8.8% (3/34) 376.2 (1.6 to 1042.4)
Paraguay 2.9% (4/137) 14.8% (4/27) 493.1 (5.7 to 1,054.1)
Peru 1.0% (2/198) 4.6% (2/43) 133.8 (0.38 to 267.2)
Toxocara
cati
Overall 13.7% (11/805) 3.7% (8/218) 6635.9 (918.7 to 62236)
Argentina 0% (0/111) 0% (0/28) 0
Bolivia 1.1% (1/93) 4% (1/25) 62236
Brazil 0% (0/88) 0% (0/40) 0
Ecuador 9.9% (10/101) 33.3% (7/21) 1075.9 (918.7 to 1263.0)
Mexico 0% (0/77) 0% (0/34) 0
Paraguay 0% (0/137) 0% (0/27) 0
Peru 0% (0/198) 0% (0/43) 0
Trichuris
trichiura
Overall 3.1% (25/805) 10.6% 23/218) 9571.6 (0.017 to 141398)
Argentina 4.5% (5/111) 14.3% (4/28) 65.1 (25.9 to 130.2)
Bolivia 5.4% (5/93) 25% (5/25) 19467 (0.11 to 97314)
Brazil 0% (0/88) 0% (0/40) 0
Ecuador 4.0% (4/101) 19.1% (4/21) 35367.1 (1.05 to 141398)
Mexico 2.6% (2/77) 2.9% (1/34) 0.68 (0.49 to 0.88)
Paraguay 1.5% (2/137) 7.4% (2/27) 3.6 (0.57 to 6.6)
Peru 3.5% (7/198) 16.3% (7/43) 21.2 to (0.016 to 104.1)
Any helminth
Overall 19.0% (153/805) 42.2% (92/218)
Argentina 16.2% (18/111) 35.7% (10/28)
Bolivia 21.5% (20/93) 56% (14/25)
Brazil 23.9% (21/88) 37.5% (15/40)
Ecuador 34.6% (35/101) 81.0% (17/21)
Mexico 18.2% (14/77) 17.6% (6/34)
Paraguay 5.8% (8/137) 25.9% (7/27)
Peru 18.7% (37/198) 53.5% (23/43)
Arthrobotrys
oligospora
Overall 7.4% (60/805) 24.8% (54/218) 5.55 (0.005 to 62.6)
Argentina 11.7% (13/111) 42.8% (12/28) 0.99 (0.04 to 2.98)
Bolivia 5.4% (5/93) 16% (4/25) 2.9 (0.69 to 4.72)
Brazil 9.1% (8/88) 20% (8/40) 12.6 (1.6 to 62.7)
Ecuador 7.9% (8/101) 33.3% (7/21) 18.9 (2.8 to 60.1)
Mexico 6.5% (5/77) 14.7% (5/34) 0.043 (0.005 to 0.11)
Paraguay 6.6% (9/137) 29.6% (8/27) 0.32 (0.056 to 1.7)
Peru 6.1% (12/198) 23.3% (10/43) 4.2 (1.19 to 9.27)

The overall occurrence of parasites and A. oligospora per kg soil across all seven countries showed a large range between helminths and A. oligospora (Fig 4). Individual country data is presented in (S3 Fig). No comparisons between parasite DNA (fg/µl per kg soil) are possible, since the qPCR DNA sequence targets are from different regions on the helminth genomes and cannot be adequately compared across organisms.

Fig 4. The combined helminths and A. oligospora DNA concentrations across all seven countries.

Fig 4

Odds ratios and confidence intervals estimate the strength of the association between qualitative detection of A. oligospora DNA and that of individual STH parasites. A. oligospora was present in 7.4% (5.4 to 11.7%) of samples in all countries combined. When present, the odds ratio analysis shows reduced detection of Ascaris, Strongyloides, and Toxocara species. In toto, pooled data show a reduction across all helminths (Table 2). Combining all seven country data, A. oligospora was protective against Ascaris (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11–0.51, P < 0.0001), Strongyloides (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18–1.0, P = 0.03), T. cati (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.061–0.74, P = 0.042), and Toxocara species (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.93, P = 0.02) A composite “any helminth” outcome also showed significant protection (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24–0.71, P = 0.0015). Overall, the presence of Arthrobotrys oligospora was associated with a decrease in the detection of STH parasites (Table 3) (Fig 5).

Table 3. The odds of detecting A. oligospora DNA but not helminth DNA across all seven Latin American countries combined. Chi-square analysis was used for Ascaris, Strongyloides, Toxocara species, and any helminth. Fisher’s exact test was used for Ancylostoma, Necator, Toxocara canis/cati, and Trichuris.

Helminth ODD RATIO 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper P value
Ascaris lumbricoides 0.24 0.11 0.51 <0.0001 *
Ancylostoma species 0.66 0.19 3.37 0.66
Necator americanus 0.35 0.09 1.67 0.19
Strongyloides stercoralis 0.41 0.18 1.00 0.03 *
Toxocara canis 0.43 0.16 1.06 0.091
Toxocara cati 0.21 0.061 0.74 0.042 *
Trichuris trichiura 0.92 0.24 4.1 0.71
Toxocara species 0.37 0.16 0.93 0.020 *
Any helminth 0.41 0.24 0.71 0.0015 *

Fig 5. The presence of A. oligospora DNA in soil samples was associated with a decrease in helminths throughout all seven countries.

Fig 5

In comparison to the lack of A. oligospora DNA in increased helminth numbers. The only significant differences were in Argentina (Trichuris trichiura), Ecuador (Strongyloides stercoralis, Toxocara species, and any helminth).

Discussion

Nematophagous fungi have been suggested as biologically active organisms affecting plant and animal parasitic nematodes [27]. This exploratory study, which included in vitro analysis in a controlled laboratory setting complemented by field observations from seven Latin American locations, showed an inverse association between A. oligospora and STH – the presence of A. oligospora was consistently associated with lower helminth detection rates. Significant associations with Ascaris, Strongyloides, and Toxocara suggest that NF may represent an ecologically relevant factor influencing environmental helminth persistence and transmission.

This study represents a wide variety of ecosystems and climate regions across seven Latin American countries that are endemic for parasitic infections in humans and animals [3,2833] (Table 1, S1 Fig). The life cycles of these STHs depend on soil type, environment, and climate. These include temperature, humidity, soil moisture, and outdoor temperatures. Also, the lack of proper sanitation in these endemic regions, including the use of outdoor latrines or open-air defecation, likely augments the environmental reservoir of STH and increases the risk of transmission. In 2020, 23.1% of people worldwide had limited access to proper sanitation, indicating that almost 1 in 4 people are at risk of STH infections [34].

The original studies on NFs focused on helminth larvae and described a fungal lattice network that would entrap them [35]. Although recent studies also explore the penetration and digestion of helminth eggs [19]. Interestingly, a series of A. oligospora G protein-coupled receptors has been described that may sense helminth pheromones, thereby directing fungal growth towards the helminths [36]. These findings can be applied to our in vitro studies, in which A. oligospora grows towards and penetrates T. cati (Fig 1).

Our study describes the impact of A. oligospora on several helminths. It shows by association that both fecal-oral and dermal penetration of helminths can be reduced in the presence of NF. By association, these findings were consistent in all seven Latin American countries. In Ecuador, Ascaris levels were comparable between A. oligospora–positive and –negative samples (Fig 5). The observed statistical significance was driven primarily by the disproportionate number of Ascaris-negative samples in the A. oligospora–absent group (88) compared with the present group [3].

Interestingly, the helminths (Necator and Strongyloides) were found in the A. oligospora positive group in Paraguay, likely due to the low prevalence of helminths in Paraguay’s specific ecosystem, and not found in the A. oligospora negative group (Fig 5).

The limitations of our study include a relatively small sample size within individual countries, which can skew comparisons; however, when combined, we did detect a significant impact of NF on helminths. Another limitation is that we are detecting parasite and NF DNA that can come from dead organisms and do not represent active killing of helminths. However, all soil samples were floated and then filtered, which should have allowed only intact eggs/larvae to survive, reducing the quantity of dead helminths for DNA extraction. Another limitation is how the samples were processed, which may decrease the helminth DNA detected by qPCR, since the NF is known to encage helminth eggs/larvae and could remove STH during extraction. However, significant mixing and soil washing should break up any NF-induced entrapment of helminths. There is also potential cross-reactivity with other helminth non-human pathogens. Many helminth species share nearly identical DNA sequences, even in the target regions of our primer/probe sets (S2 Table). Species such as Ascaris ovis, Strongyloides ratti, Trichuris vulpis, and others can also contaminate outdoor built environments accessible to feral animals. While cross-reactivity can occur, our study takes a one-health approach to the NF’s impact on decreasing helminth infections in humans and animals. In this exploratory study, we did not measure or control for relevant environmental factors, such as soil characteristics and climatic conditions, which are likely to affect STH detection across different sampling sites. Future studies will need to measure and control for such factors.

Soil-transmitted helminths persist in many regions due to the inherent biology of soil-based reinfection, along with barriers related to healthcare access, treatment adherence, and diagnostic limitations [37]. In addition, poverty and inadequate sanitation in endemic settings contribute to continued environmental contamination and reinfection cycles [38]. As such, our results suggest that NF A. oligospora is an ecologically relevant soil organism associated with reduced helminth burdens in environmental samples. We also show that Arthrobotrys oligospora NF is a naturally occurring soil component present in household soils where STH are present and is inversely correlated with STH contamination across diverse geographic regions, suggesting it is frequently present when parasite burdens are reduced or absent.

Conclusions

In this exploratory study, we detected NF in soil samples from seven Latin American locations and provided evidence of an inverse association between NF and STH DNA. Further research will be required to examine the effects of soil composition and climate variation on NF activity and investigate how interactions between NF and STH may affect transmission dynamics and human exposure pathways. Longitudinal studies are warranted to evaluate the persistence of NF in soils, spatial-temporal variability, and their role within broader environmental transmission systems.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Ecosystems and regions for seven Latin American countries.

Details are in Table 1 (World Terrestrial Ecosystems retrieved December 8, 2025 using ArcGIS Online by Environmental Systems Research Institute, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=926a206393ec40a590d8caf29ae9a93e).

(TIFF)

pntd.0013990.s001.tiff (6.5MB, tiff)
S1 Table. Environmental Microbiology Minimum Information (EMMI) for qPCR.

(DOCX)

pntd.0013990.s002.docx (18.7KB, docx)
S2 Table. Helminth target regions, primer sequences, and probe sequences for helminths for DNA amplification.

(DOCX)

pntd.0013990.s003.docx (19KB, docx)
S2 Fig. Toxocara concentrations after removing the Control samples that contained Arthrobotrys oligospora.

(TIFF)

pntd.0013990.s004.tiff (552KB, tiff)
S3 Fig. Parasite DNA concentration per Kg of soil across seven Latin American countries.

Values in Table 2.

(TIFF)

pntd.0013990.s005.tiff (1.1MB, tiff)
S3 Table. Odds ratios of helminths and A. oligospora in each Latin American country.

(DOCX)

pntd.0013990.s006.docx (24.6KB, docx)
S1 Data. Fig 2A data.

(XLSX)

pntd.0013990.s007.xlsx (9.6KB, xlsx)
S2 Data. Fig 2B data.

(XLSX)

pntd.0013990.s008.xlsx (10.1KB, xlsx)
S3 Data. Fig 3 data.

(XLSX)

pntd.0013990.s009.xlsx (9.8KB, xlsx)
S4 Data. Fig 4 data.

(XLSX)

pntd.0013990.s010.xlsx (37.4KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the study participants from all Latin American countries for welcoming us into their homes.

Data Availability

All data are in the manuscript and the Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Chen J, Gong Y, Chen Q, Li S, Zhou Y. Global burden of soil-transmitted helminth infections, 1990-2021. Infect Dis Poverty. 2024;13(1):77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Loukas A, Maizels RM, Hotez PJ. The yin and yang of human soil-transmitted helminth infections. Int J Parasitol. 2021;51(13–14):1243–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2021.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mejia R, Chis Ster I, Chico ME, Guadalupe I, Arévalo-Cortés A, Lopez A, et al. Epidemiology of intestinal parasite infections and multiparasitism and their impact on growth and hemoglobin levels during childhood in tropical Ecuador: A longitudinal study using molecular detection methods. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2025;19(6):e0013004. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pabalan N, Singian E, Tabangay L, Jarjanazi H, Boivin MJ, Ezeamama AE. Soil-transmitted helminth infection, loss of education and cognitive impairment in school-aged children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(1):e0005523. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ng’etich AI, Amoah ID, Bux F, Kumari S. Anthelmintic resistance in soil-transmitted helminths: One-Health considerations. Parasitol Res. 2023;123(1):62. doi: 10.1007/s00436-023-08088-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Freeman MC, Akogun O, Belizario V Jr, Brooker SJ, Gyorkos TW, Imtiaz R, et al. Challenges and opportunities for control and elimination of soil-transmitted helminth infection beyond 2020. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(4):e0007201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Khozime A, Mirsadraee M, Borji H. Toxocara sero-prevalence and its relationship with allergic asthma in asthmatic patients in north-eastern Iran. J Helminthol. 2019;93(6):677–80. doi: 10.1017/S0022149X1800086X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fan C-K. Pathogenesis of cerebral toxocariasis and neurodegenerative diseases. Adv Parasitol. 2020;109:233–59. doi: 10.1016/bs.apar.2020.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fan CK, Holland CV, Loxton K, Barghouth U. Cerebral Toxocariasis: Silent Progression to Neurodegenerative Disorders? Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28(3):663–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bonilla-Aldana DK, Morales-Garcia LV, Ulloque Badaracco JR, Mosquera-Rojas MD, Alarcón-Braga EA, Hernandez-Bustamante EA, et al. Prevalence of Toxocara eggs in Latin American parks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infez Med. 2023;31(3):329–49. doi: 10.53854/liim-3103-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang D, Ma N, Rao W, Zhang Y. Recent advances in life history transition with nematode-trapping fungus Arthrobotrys oligospora and its application in sustainable agriculture. Pathogens. 2023;12(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Braga FR, de Araújo JV. Nematophagous fungi for biological control of gastrointestinal nematodes in domestic animals. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;98(1):71–82. doi: 10.1007/s00253-013-5366-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.da Silveira WF, Braga FR, de Oliveira Tavela A, Dos Santos LF, Domingues RR, Aguiar AR, et al. Nematophagous fungi combinations reduce free-living stages of sheep gastrointestinal nematodes in the field. J Invertebr Pathol. 2017;150:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jip.2017.08.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Braga FR, Soares FEF, Giuberti TZ, Lopes ADCG, Lacerda T, Ayupe T de H, et al. Nematocidal activity of extracellular enzymes produced by the nematophagous fungus Duddingtonia flagrans on cyathostomin infective larvae. Vet Parasitol. 2015;212(3–4):214–8. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.08.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Soares FEF, Braga FR, Araújo JV, Geniêr HLA, Gouveia AS, Queiroz JH. Nematicidal activity of three novel extracellular proteases of the nematophagous fungus Monacrosporium sinense. Parasitol Res. 2013;112(4):1557–65. doi: 10.1007/s00436-013-3304-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Doolotkeldieva T, Bobushova S, Muratbekova A, Schuster C, Leclerque A. Isolation, Identification, and Characterization of the Nematophagous Fungus Arthrobotrys oligospora from Kyrgyzstan. Acta Parasitol. 2021;66(4):1349–65. doi: 10.1007/s11686-021-00404-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Soares FE de F, Aguilar-Marcelino L, Braga FR. Editorial: Nematophagous fungi as nematode control agents. Front Fungal Biol. 2024;4:1353132. doi: 10.3389/ffunb.2023.1353132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.de Hollanda Ayupe T, Monteiro TSA, Braga FR, de Freitas Soares FE, de Mello INK, Araujo JM, et al. Assessment of compatibility between the nematophagous fungi Arthrobotrys robusta and Duddingtonia flagrans under laboratory conditions. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2016;33(2):129–30. doi: 10.1016/j.riam.2015.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vidal-Diez de Ulzurrun G, Hsueh Y-P. Predator-prey interactions of nematode-trapping fungi and nematodes: both sides of the coin. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2018;102(9):3939–49. doi: 10.1007/s00253-018-8897-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pathak E, El-Borai FE, Campos-Herrera R, Johnson EG, Stuart RJ, Graham JH, et al. Use of real-time PCR to discriminate parasitic and saprophagous behaviour by nematophagous fungi. Fungal Biol. 2012;116(5):563–73. doi: 10.1016/j.funbio.2012.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Araujo JV, Fonseca JDS, Barbosa BB, Valverde HA, Santos HA, Braga FR. The Role of Helminthophagous Fungi in the Biological Control of Human and Zoonotic Intestinal Helminths. Pathogens. 2024;13(9). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Anderson IC, Cairney JWG. Diversity and ecology of soil fungal communities: increased understanding through the application of molecular techniques. Environ Microbiol. 2004;6(8):769–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00675.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Villanueva-Lizama LE, Cruz-Coral A, Teh-Poot C, Cruz-Chan JV, Mejia R. Detection of Parasite DNA in Soil Samples from Rural Yucatan, Mexico. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2024;112(2):304–6. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.23-0385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pineda C, Camones Rivera MD, Montalva Sabino E, Mejia LE, Keegan KE, Alvarez LPP, et al. Parasite contamination of soil in different Peruvian locations and outside built environments. Parasit Vectors. 2025;18(1):134. doi: 10.1186/s13071-025-06762-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Deer DM, Lampel KA, González-Escalona N. A versatile internal control for use as DNA in real-time PCR and as RNA in real-time reverse transcription PCR assays. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2010;50(4):366–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02804.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mejia R, Seco-Hidalgo V, Garcia-Ramon D, Calderón E, Lopez A, Cooper PJ. Detection of enteric parasite DNA in household and bed dust samples: potential for infection transmission. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13(1):141. doi: 10.1186/s13071-020-04012-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nansen P, Grønvold J, Henriksen SA, Wolstrup J. Interactions between the predacious fungus Arthrobotrys oligospora and third-stage larvae of a series of animal-parasitic nematodes. Vet Parasitol. 1988;26(3–4):329–37. doi: 10.1016/0304-4017(88)90101-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cimino RO, Jeun R, Juarez M, Cajal PS, Vargas P, Echazú A, et al. Identification of human intestinal parasites affecting an asymptomatic peri-urban Argentinian population using multi-parallel quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:380. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0994-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Panti-May JA, Zonta ML, Cociancic P, Barrientos-Medina RC, Machain-Williams C, Robles MR, et al. Occurrence of intestinal parasites in Mayan children from Yucatán, Mexico. Acta Trop. 2019;195:58–61. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.04.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Camacho-Alvarez I, Goyens P, Luizaga-López JM, Jacobs F. Geographic differences in the distribution of parasitic infections in children of Bolivia. Parasite Epidemiol Control. 2021;14:e00217. doi: 10.1016/j.parepi.2021.e00217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Celestino AO, Vieira SCF, Lima PAS, Rodrigues LMCL, Lopes IRS, França CM, et al. Prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections in Brazil: a systematic review. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2021;54:e00332021. doi: 10.1590/0037-8682-0033-2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Servián A, Garimano N, Santini MS. Systematic review and meta-analysis of soil-transmitted helminth infections in South America (2000-2024). Acta Trop. 2024;260:107400. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2024.107400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Iannacone J, Osorio-Chumpitaz M, Utia-Yataco R, Alvariño-Flores L, Ayala-Sulca Y, Del Águila-Pérez CA, et al. Enteroparasitosis in Peru and its relation to the Human Development Index. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2021;59(5):368–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ando H, Kitajima M, Oki T, Murakami M. Advancements in global water and sanitation access (2000-2020). Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):6399. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-90980-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jiang X, Xiang M, Liu X. Nematode-trapping fungi. Microbiol Spectr. 2017;5(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kuo C-Y, Tay RJ, Lin H-C, Juan S-C, Vidal-Diez de Ulzurrun G, Chang Y-C, et al. The nematode-trapping fungus Arthrobotrys oligospora detects prey pheromones via G protein-coupled receptors. Nat Microbiol. 2024;9(7):1738–51. doi: 10.1038/s41564-024-01679-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jia T-W, Melville S, Utzinger J, King CH, Zhou X-N. Soil-transmitted helminth reinfection after drug treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(5):e1621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.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]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013990.r001

Decision Letter 0

jong-Yil Chai, Robert Adamu SHEY

20 Jan 2026

Environmental Nematophagous Fungal Control of Soil-Transmitted Helminths in Contaminated Soils Across Latin America.

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dear Dr. Mejia,

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 by Mar 21 2026 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 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,

Robert Adamu SHEY, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Jong-Yil Chai

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

Journal Requirements:

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

1) 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: Rojelio Mejia, Eva Mereles Aranda, Leticia Ojeda, Sandra Ocampos Benedetti, Janitzio J Guzman, Barton Slatko, Cristina Almazan, Melisa Diaz-Fernandez, Ruben Cimino, Marisa Juarez, Natalia Montellano Duran, Estefanía Lorena Mansilla Flores, Paola Andrea Vargas, Amandeep Kaur, Nestor L. Uzcategui, Lucia Estela Mejia, Katherine Keegan, Emilio Rey Mejia, Chiara Cássia Oliveira Amorim, Stefan M. Geiger, Ricardo T Fujiwara, Luz Marina Llangarí-Arizo, Andrea Lopez, Natalia Romero-Sandoval, Irene Guadalupe, Liliana E. Villanueva-Lizama, Julio Vladimir Cruz-Chan, Maritza Dalí Camones Rivera, Eddyson Montalvo Sabino, Carlos Pineda, Eric J. Wetzel, and Philip J Cooper. 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 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:

- ® on page: 10.

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:

i) Figure S1. Please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC BY 4.0 license.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite u201cPlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0u201d in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/).

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

For example, authors should submit the following data:

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

2) The values used to build graphs;

3) The points extracted from images for analysis..

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

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

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

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: This study clearly states its objectives. The methods section is generally clear, but I have a couple of questions:

Please check that reference 24 is correct.

Could you please provide more details about the sampling sites, i.e., whether they were public areas such as parks or streets; and if there were any specific conditions that facilitated STH contamination?

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The results are clearly presented

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Although the statements on lines 400-406 are correct, please support them with ad hoc references.

The conclusion is appropriate.

**********

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: This manuscript is interesting and presents new knowledge through a little-studied approach on the potential future use of Arthrobotrys oligospora for HTS control.

**********

Summary and General Comments

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

Reviewer #1: This manuscript studies the potential role of nematophagous fungi as an environmentally sustainable approach to reduce soil-transmitted helminths (STHs). The combination of laboratory-based experiments and multi-country environmental sampling is ambitious and, in principle, could provide valuable insights into parasite control at the soil level. However, in its current form, the study suffers from substantial conceptual, methodological, and interpretational limitations that critically undermine the validity of its conclusions. Here below are my main concerns:

The manuscript combines controlled in vitro experiments with a large observational soil survey; however, these two components are not mechanistically or causally integrated. The in vitro assays demonstrate fungal–nematode interactions under highly artificial conditions, whereas the environmental study relies solely on cross-sectional DNA detection. No evidence is provided that the mechanisms observed in vitro operate under natural soil conditions, rendering the linkage between the two datasets speculative.

Another major methodological flaw exists in the in vitro soil-based experiments. Commercial garden soil was used, and several control samples were found to naturally contain A. oligospora DNA. As a result, the control condition is not fungus-free, and qPCR cannot distinguish background fungal DNA from experimentally introduced fungus. This fundamental confounding undermines the validity of the reported reduction in Toxocara cati DNA.

In the environmental study, the nematode qPCR assays are acknowledged to lack strict species specificity, yet the results are interpreted at the species level and extrapolated to human health relevance. In addition, only A. oligospora was assayed despite the known diversity of nematophagous fungi (e.g. Duddingtonia flagrans, Monacrosporium spp., Arthrobotrys spp.) in soil, making broad conclusions about fungal-mediated control unjustified.

Finally, the soil data are purely correlational, based on DNA detection that does not indicate organism viability or active killing, and no multivariable analyses were performed to account for major environmental confounders. Despite these limitations, the manuscript repeatedly implies active biological control of STHs in the environment, which is not supported by the presented data.

The central conclusions regarding environmental control of soil-transmitted helminths by Arthrobotrys oligospora substantially exceed what can be supported by the current data. Addressing these limitations would require extensive redesign of both laboratory and field components of the study. Therefore, I do not consider the manuscript suitable for publication in its present form.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: This manuscript is well written and presents novel results. I suggest clarifying a few minor comments before publication.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure resubmission:

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

Reproducibility:

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013990.r003

Decision Letter 1

jong-Yil Chai, Robert Adamu SHEY

2 Feb 2026

Dear Dr Mejia,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Distribution of Nematophagous Fungi and Soil-Transmitted Helminths in Outdoor Built Environments Across Latin America' 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,

Robert Adamu SHEY, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Jong-Yil Chai

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-0002

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

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013990.r004

Acceptance letter

jong-Yil Chai, Robert Adamu SHEY

Dear Dr Mejia,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "

Distribution of Nematophagous Fungi and Soil-Transmitted Helminths in Outdoor Built Environments Across Latin America," 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 Fig. Ecosystems and regions for seven Latin American countries.

    Details are in Table 1 (World Terrestrial Ecosystems retrieved December 8, 2025 using ArcGIS Online by Environmental Systems Research Institute, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=926a206393ec40a590d8caf29ae9a93e).

    (TIFF)

    pntd.0013990.s001.tiff (6.5MB, tiff)
    S1 Table. Environmental Microbiology Minimum Information (EMMI) for qPCR.

    (DOCX)

    pntd.0013990.s002.docx (18.7KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Helminth target regions, primer sequences, and probe sequences for helminths for DNA amplification.

    (DOCX)

    pntd.0013990.s003.docx (19KB, docx)
    S2 Fig. Toxocara concentrations after removing the Control samples that contained Arthrobotrys oligospora.

    (TIFF)

    pntd.0013990.s004.tiff (552KB, tiff)
    S3 Fig. Parasite DNA concentration per Kg of soil across seven Latin American countries.

    Values in Table 2.

    (TIFF)

    pntd.0013990.s005.tiff (1.1MB, tiff)
    S3 Table. Odds ratios of helminths and A. oligospora in each Latin American country.

    (DOCX)

    pntd.0013990.s006.docx (24.6KB, docx)
    S1 Data. Fig 2A data.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013990.s007.xlsx (9.6KB, xlsx)
    S2 Data. Fig 2B data.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013990.s008.xlsx (10.1KB, xlsx)
    S3 Data. Fig 3 data.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013990.s009.xlsx (9.8KB, xlsx)
    S4 Data. Fig 4 data.

    (XLSX)

    pntd.0013990.s010.xlsx (37.4KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pntd.0013990.s012.docx (28.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data are in the manuscript and the Supporting information files.


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

    RESOURCES