Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Feb 23;21(2):e0341312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341312

Serum proteomic characterization of stump-tailed macaques (Macaca arctoides) with neutralizing antibodies against Dengue virus in Thailand

Pakorn Ruengket 1, Sittiruk Roytrakul 2, Daraka Tongthainan 3, Kobporn Boonnak 4, Kanokwan Taruyanon 5, Bencharong Sangkharak 6, Wirasak Fungfuang 7,*
Editor: Harapan Harapan8
PMCID: PMC12928434  PMID: 41729959

Abstract

Dengue infection is a leading global public health problem, and the virus (DENV) is transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes and causes a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations in humans. Previous studies have shown that wild macaques in Thailand have been exposed to the dengue virus. Accordingly, this study aims to characterize the serum proteomic profiles of wild macaques with (seropositive) and without (naive) dengue virus-neutralizing antibodies, to improve our understanding of differential protein expression and identify candidate biomarkers. We analyzed thirty-two serum samples obtained from wild macaques in Thailand. Out of the 32 samples, 16 macaques (50%) were seropositive for DENV. A total of 9,532 proteins were identified, out of which 582 were differentially expressed (DEPs) and used to generate a proteomic profile. Among the nine identified proteins of interest, three were associated with the nervous system, while the remaining six have been reported to play roles in anti-dengue antiviral mechanisms. These include the induction of interferon responses triggered by cellular stress, degradation of viral RNA, and activation of dendritic cells and Th1-mediated immune responses via IFN-γ and TNF-α. Although these proteins have been implicated in the nervous system and are involved in anti-DENV in several reports, in this study, it was shown that these proteins remain up-regulated even after infection, which requires further study into the dynamics after long-term infection in the future. These findings highlight the need for further longitudinal studies to validate the functional relevance of these proteins.

Introduction

Dengue virus (DENV) is a single positive-stranded RNA virus belonging to the genus Flavivirus and family Flaviviridae, and has four serotypes: DENV1–4 [13]. DENV is the causative agent of dengue fever, which is transmitted through the bite of infected Aedes aegypti and A. albopictus mosquitoes [4,5]. Although DENV infection is typically self-limiting, it can cause a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations in humans, ranging from asymptomatic or mild dengue fever (DF) to life-threatening dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) and dengue shock syndrome (DSS) [2,6]. A previous study reported that infection with a given serotype may confer lifelong immunity against homologous strains, while only short-term cross-protection is provided against heterologous serotypes [6,7]. However, reinfection with a different serotype can lead to severe dengue due to antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) [6]. Furthermore, cytokines are key regulators in dengue pathogenesis, mediating the complex interactions between immune dysregulation and the progression of infection [8]. Recently, DENV has become the most widespread arthropod-borne viral disease and poses a major global public health concern, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions [9]. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported a nearly tenfold increase in global dengue incidence, from 505,430 cases in 2000 to 5.2 million in 2019 [10]. Modeling studies estimate that from the 390 million annual DENV infections, approximately 96 million result in clinical symptoms. DENV is now endemic in over 100 countries, with Southeast Asia accounting for approximately 70% of all reported cases [11,12].

WHO guidelines emphasize mosquito population control and a reduction in the potential breeding habitats as strategies to reduce and prevent dengue transmission. However, these methods have limitations: while effective in the short term, their long-term usage is financially challenging. The global economic burden of dengue is substantial, with annual costs estimated at US$8.9 billion [13,14]. Therefore, there is a pressing need for innovative and sustainable strategies to combat mosquito-borne diseases that have both long-term effectiveness and economic feasibility [14].

Moreover, DENV circulates through both a sylvatic (enzootic) cycle involving non-human primates and various Aedes mosquito species, and a human transmission cycle, primarily vectored by A. aegypti [15,16]. In Africa, the only sylvatic DENV serotype isolated to date is DENV-2. In contrast, sylvatic DENV-1, DENV-2, and DENV-4 have been isolated in Asia [16], although the last confirmed isolation of a sylvatic strain (DENV-4) occurred in 1975. Additionally, the so-called sylvatic isolate of DENV-1 is not phylogenetically distinct from human-derived lineages, leading to uncertainty about its origins [17]. Phylogenetic analyses suggest that sylvatic DENVs are ancestral to the strains currently endemic in human populations. Numerous non-human primate species, including chimpanzees, rhesus and cynomolgus macaques, sooty mangabeys, African green monkeys, Guinea baboons, common marmosets, and owl monkeys, have been reported to host DENV [4,18,19]. The extensive biodiversity and broad geographic distribution of macaques, from North Africa to Asia, indicate their importance as potential reservoirs of zoonotic diseases. Members of the Macaca genus are highly adaptable, capable of thriving in diverse habitats, which increases their likelihood of interactions with humans and other animals. This ecological flexibility enhances their potential role in cross-species disease transmission. Previous studies have shown that rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) as one of the earliest non-human primate species experimentally infected with dengue virus. Despite their extensive use as an experimental model, these macaques seldom develop the hallmark clinical features of dengue fever [20,21]. Likewise, cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis) typically exhibit only transient clinical manifestations and low viremia, accompanied by antibody response profiles resembling those observed in human infections, yet without overt signs of disease [20,22]. In addition, the macaques exhibited no observable clinical symptoms, and no significant alterations were detected in body temperature, body weight, hematocrit levels, platelet counts, or red and white blood cell counts [23]. Pre-existing immunity to one of the four DENV serotypes is recognized to elevate the risk of severe disease during secondary infection with a distinct serotype. Similar to humans, macaques can experience Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE), wherein pre-existing antibodies from a prior infection with one dengue serotype may intensify disease severity following infection with a heterologous serotype [23]. As such, understanding the role of macaques in zoonotic pathogen dynamics is critical for both public health planning and wildlife conservation efforts [24].

In Thailand, macaques inhabit a wide range of ecosystems, from forests to urban environments. However, their populations are increasingly threatened by habitat loss driven by deforestation, agricultural expansion, and urban development. These pressures not only reduce the available habitat but also increase the chances of human-macaque interactions, often resulting in conflict. In agricultural areas, macaques are known to raid crops, creating tension with local farmers. In urban settings, they may scavenge for food and are often regarded as nuisance animals. Such interactions further complicate efforts to manage disease risk and conserve primate populations [25,26]. Tongthainan D, et al. [27] identified the presence of neutralizing antibodies (seropositive) against DENV, Zika, and Chikungunya viruses in three distinct species of wild macaques native to Thailand, emphasizing the potential risk of viral disease transmission from animals to humans. The detection of neutralizing antibodies against DENV in serum indicates prior exposure of macaques to the virus, suggesting that the proteins identified in seropositive individuals may be associated with past immune responses. Several studies have shown that serum/plasma is a common biomarker for diagnosis and prognosis in a variety of diseases, as tissue pathology often leads to the release of certain proteins into the bloodstream [28,29]. Accordingly, this study employed proteomic approaches to investigate proteins potentially involved in the recovery from previous infection, long-term immune protection, or indicative of residual effects from past DENV-induced pathology and develop candidate biomarkers by comparing macaques with neutralizing antibodies against DENV to seronegative (naive) individuals.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All animal care and handling procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute at Kasetsart University in Thailand (ID: ACKU67-SCI-006) in accordance with the National Institutes of Health’s (U.S.A.) Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The experimental protocols for the study in a conservation area, obtaining of blood samples, and the release of wild macaques were approved by the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation in Thailand (Permit Number: 0909.204/14187).

Sample collection

Thirty-two blood samples were collected from 24 males and 8 females wild stump-tailed macaques (Macaca arctoides) living freely around the Pa La-U Waterfall in Huahin District, Prachuap Kiri Khan Province (GPS: 12.240800, 99.464004). 31 adult and 1 juvenile macaques were captured using baited cages (4 x 4 x 3; W x L x H), containing seasonal fruits. To minimize stress, the captured macaques were subsequently transported to a temporary veterinary station with opaque cloths during handling. All macaques were anesthetized via an intramuscular injection of tiletamine-zolazepam (2–5 mg/kg) and xylazine hydrochloride (0.5–2 mg/kg). Blood was drawn from the femoral vein and collected in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) tubes, with a maximum volume of 3 mL per tube. Samples were centrifuged at 2,200 × g for 20 minutes at 4°C, and the resulting plasma was stored at –80°C until further analysis. Following sample collection, each macaque was monitored during recovery in a cage that was placed in a quiet area. Respiratory rate, heart rate, and body temperature were continuously monitored during the anesthetic procedure. The recovery was defined as the return of normal posture and mobility, which typically occurred within 60–90 minutes post-anesthesia. After full recovery from anesthesia, all macaques were released back into their habitat.

Serology assessment

Neutralizing antibodies to DENV1–4 were identified using the 90% plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT90), based on the lowest serum dilution resulting in a 90% reduction in viral foci. Test sera were sequentially diluted by 4-fold starting at 1:5 using OptiMEM (Invitrogen, USA) containing 0.3% human serum albumin, which was heat-inactivated at 56°C for 30 minutes. DENV1–4 viruses were diluted to a final concentration of 1,000 pfu/mL and mixed in an equal volume with diluted serum, followed by incubation at 37°C for 30 minutes. Vero cell monolayers grown in 24-well plates (90% confluence) were infected by adding 50 µL of the virus-serum mixture to duplicate wells. After 60 minutes of adsorption at 37°C, cells were overlaid with 0.5% methylcellulose in OptiMEM supplemented with 2% FBS and incubated for 4 days. Plaques were visualized using immunoperoxidase staining. After removing the overlay, cells were fixed with 80% methanol for 30 minutes and blocked with 5% nonfat milk in PBS. Monoclonal antibodies 2H2 (anti-DENV1–4 prM) and 4G2 (anti-Flavivirus envelope E protein) were added at a 1:2,000 dilution and incubated for 1 hour at room temperature. After washing, peroxidase-labeled goat anti-mouse IgG (1:2,000) was added and incubated for 1 hour at 37°C. The plates were washed again, and plaques were developed using 4-chloro-1-naphthol in H2O2. Visible plaques were counted, and PRNT90 titers were calculated using the NIH/NIAID online tool (available at https://bioinformatics.niaid.nih.gov/plaquereduction). According to the WHO criteria for dengue seropositivity, a PRNT90 titer of ≥20 is considered seropositive for DENV [3032]. According to these criteria, ZIKV infection is classified in samples with PRNT90 titer values greater than 20 and a 4-fold difference between ZIKV and DENV PRNT90 titers.

Serum protein preparation

Using bovine serum albumin as the protein standard, the protein content of each serum sample was determined in accordance with the Lowry protein assay procedure [33]. Briefly, 5 mM dithiothreitol in 10 mM ammonium bicarbonate was added to 5 µg of serum, and the mixture was incubated at 60°C for 1 hour to reduce disulfide bonds. Next, sulfhydryl group alkylation, with 15 mM iodoacetamide in 10 mM ammonium bicarbonate, was carried out at room temperature for 45 minutes in the dark. The carbamidomethylated protein samples were then digested with sequencing-grade trypsin at a 1:20 ratio and incubated at 37°C overnight. The tryptic peptides were dried using a speed vacuum concentrator, and the resulting pellet was resuspended in 0.1% formic acid for nano-liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis.

LC-MS/MS analysis

Tryptic peptide samples were injected into an Ultimate3000 Nano/Capillary LC System (Thermo Scientific, UK) coupled with an HCTUltra LC-MS system (Bruker Daltonics Ltd., Hamburg, Germany) using a Nano-captive spray ion source. Briefly, 5 µg peptide digests were enriched on a Precolumn 300 µm ID × 5 mm C18 PepMap 100, 5 µm, 100 Å (Thermo Scientific, UK), and separated on a 75 µm ID × 15 cm column packed with Acclaim PepMap RSLC C18, 2 µm, 100 Å, nanoViper (Thermo Scientific, UK). A column oven set to 60°C was used to house the C18 column. The analytical column was supplied with solvents A and B, which contained 0.1% formic acid in water and 0.1% formic acid in 80% acetonitrile, respectively. The peptides were eluted over 30 minutes using a solvent B gradient of 5–55% at a constant flow rate of 0.30 µL/min. Utilizing CaptiveSpray, electrospray ionization was carried out at 1.6 kV. Approximately 50 L/h of nitrogen was used as the drying gas. Collision-induced dissociation (CID) product ion mass spectra were captured using nitrogen as the collision gas. Positive-ion mode MS and MS/MS spectra were collected at 2 Hz, spanning a range of 150–2200 m/z. Collision energy was set to 10 eV based on the m/z values, and each sample was analyzed in triplicates through the LC-MS.

Protein identification and quantification

LC-MS/MS data were quantified using DeCyder MS Differential Analysis Software, and the UniProt Macaca protein database was searched using the Mascot search engine to identify and annotate the peptide sequences generated from LC-MS/MS analysis [34,35]. Trypsin served as the digesting enzyme, and the following Mascot standard settings were applied: a maximum of three missed tryptic cleavages, a fragment peptide mass tolerance of 1.2 Da, an MS/MS tolerance of 0.6 Da, cysteine carbamidomethylation (Cysteine CAM) as the fixed modification, methionine oxidation as the variable modification, and peptide charge states of 1 +, 2 +, and 3 +. Protein expression levels (PELs) from the MS/MS spectra were expressed as log2-transformed values.

Statistical analysis

Neutralizing antibodies to DENV1, DENV2, DENV3, and DENV4 were detected using PRNT90 assays. Half of the samples were seropositive, while the remaining half were naïve. PELs were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test in IBM SPSS Statistics version 22.0.0 (Armonk, NY, USA) to compare total protein levels between the two groups at a significance level of P < 0.05. Fold change thresholds of 1.2 and 1.5 were applied to identify enriched protein subsets.

Machine learning analysis

Four classification algorithms, which included random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), and logistic regression (LR), were used to generate classification prediction scores [36]. RF, structured as an ensemble of decision trees, minimized Gini impurity with a maximum tree depth of four and used 1,000 estimators. SVM employed a polynomial kernel of degree two to analyze data for classification [36,37]. KNN, a non-parametric, instance-based learning algorithm, was implemented with three nearest neighbours (K = 3) using Euclidean distance as the metric. LR modeled the binary output using a logistic function, with unconstrained nonlinear optimization performed iteratively via the Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS) algorithm. Leave-one-out cross-validation was used to determine the classification accuracy for each sample.

Unsupervised machine learning was applied to cluster the sample groups. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the protein expression level (PEL) data to visualize protein distribution and clustering in a scatter plot. The 32 samples were grouped into two main clusters as either non-infected or infected, and further analyzed using hierarchical clustering analysis (HCA) based on PELs

Bioinformatic data analysis

Gene orthology and functional categorization analyses were conducted by comparing proteins with a 1.5 FC to the EuKaryotic Orthologous Groups (KOGs) and KEGG Orthology (KO) databases. Functional protein association networks were constructed using the STRING database version 11.5 with a minimum interaction confidence score of 0.400 and query proteins only. Protein–drug–chemical interaction networks were generated using the STITCH database v5.0 with a high confidence threshold. Cytoscape version 3.9.0 was used to visualize networks from STRING and STITCH. Potential protein function was assigned by K number to the protein sequence using the Protein Analysis Through Evolutionary Relationships or PANTHER classification system, Reactome, KEGG Orthology, Links Annotation (GhostKOALA) databases, and HMMER, with cut-off E-value set to 1E–05.

Results

Neutralizing antibody against DENV

The PRNT90 assay was used to detect neutralizing antibody titers against DENV1, DENV2, DENV3, and DENV4 in serum. A PRNT90 titer >20 was considered DENV seropositive. All four DENV serotypes were neutralized in the serum samples. Of the 32 serum samples, 16 (50%) were seropositive for DENV antibodies. Overall, DENV-2 (36.84%) was the most prevalent serotype, followed by DENV-1 (31.58%), DENV-3 (23.69%), and DENV-4 (7.89%). Among the seropositive macaques, 15.63% showed monotypic and 3-serotype responses, while 9.38% showed 2-serotype and 4-serotype responses (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1. Neutralizing antibody titers against DENV in macaque serum.

Samples PRNT90
DENV1 DENV2 DENV3 DENV4
N01
N02
N03
N04
N05
N06
N07
N08
N09
N10
N11
N12
N13
N14
N15
N16
I01 63.5 280
I02 22
I03 70.4
I04 69.7 92.3
I05 97.6
I06 70.1
I07 364.2
I08 1387 320.5 344 35.7
I09 70.1 285
I10 63.3 96.6 92.8
I11 20.8 28.6 33.6
I12 2278 281.4 429.9 33
I13 138.1 80.9 30.6
I14 2278 285.8 385.1 84.3
I15 97.2 80.8 82.5
I16 136 389.7 285.7

The initial serum dilution in this assay was 1:5, and seropositivity was defined as a PRNT 90 > 1:20 based on WHO criteria.

Table 2. Number of seropositive samples.

Neutralizing antibody against dengue serotype Number
Naïve 16 (50.00%)
Monotypic
  DENV-1 2 (6.25%)
  DENV-2 3 (9.38%)
  DENV-3 0
  DENV-4 0
Total monotypic 5 (15.63%)
Multipletypic
2-serotype
  DENV-1/DENV-2 2 (6.25%)
  DENV-1/DENV-3 0
  DENV-1/DENV-4 0
  DENV-2/DENV-3 1 (3.13%)
  DENV-3/DENV-4 0
Subtotal 2-serotype 3 (9.38%)
3-serotype
  DENV-1/2/3 5 (15.63%)
  DENV-1/2/4 0
  DENV-1/3/4 0
  DENV-2/3/4 0
Subtotal 3-serotype 5 (15.63%)
4-serotype
  DENV-1/2/3/4 3 (9.38%)
Total mutipletypic 11 (34.38%)
Total 32 (100%)

Differential protein identification between two macaque groups

Samples from both naïve and seropositive macaques were analyzed in triplicate to reduce random sampling effects and improve the validity of protein detection. Log2 fold changes between paired values were calculated to identify proteins with a significantly altered expression due to infection. A total of 9,532 proteins were identified through shotgun proteomic analysis. Among these, 68 and 70 proteins were uniquely expressed in naïve and seropositive macaques, respectively, while 9,394 proteins were identified in both groups (Fig 1). Statistical analysis refined the protein dataset, isolating 582 differentially expressed proteins (DEPs), with 560 shared between groups and 13 and 9 uniquely expressed in naïve and seropositive macaques, respectively. To enhance the proteomic profile, fold-change thresholds of 1.2 and 1.5 were used, respectively. At 1.2-fold change, 94 proteins were upregulated and 488 downregulated, while the 1.5-fold change threshold identified 86 upregulated proteins.

Fig 1. Descriptive data.

Fig 1

The flow chart of filtration methods for the proteome profile.

The expression data were subjected to feature selection and supervised classification analysis to identify the subset of proteins that discriminated between naïve and seropositive macaques. A combination of three filter-based methods was used to select proteins with differential expression profiles between the two groups. From the original set of 9,532 proteins, using 1.2-fold and 1.5-fold upregulation thresholds resulted in subsets of 94 and 86 proteins, respectively (Table 3). Four classification algorithms, RF, SVM, KNN, and LR, were used for model training. The best classification performance was achieved with an 86-protein subset (1.5-fold change), with classification rates ranging from 93.75% (RF and KNN) to 100% (SVM and LR).

Table 3. Classification algorithm analysis.

Number of features Total proteins (9,532 Proteins) 1.2-fold-change up-regulated (94 Proteins) 1.5-fold-change up-regulated (86 Proteins)
Classification algorithm Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy
Random forest 50.00% 90.62% 93.75%*
Support vector machine 65.62% 100.00%* 100.00%*
K-nearest neighbors 68.75% 90.62% 93.75%*
Logistic regression classifier 65.62% 96.88% 100.00%*

*Highest accuracy score.

Subsequently, an unsupervised PCA was used to visualize the 86 feature proteins. The first two principal components accounted for 22.00% and 6.01% of the total variance, respectively (Fig 2). A clear separation between the naïve and seropositive groups was obtained using unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the 86 proteins (Fig 3).

Fig 2. Unsupervised principal component analysis (PCA) based on 86 up-regulated proteins.

Fig 2

The PCA represents the summarized dimension with a total variance of 28.01% to distinguish between naïve and seropositive groups. The first and second dimensions account for 22.00% and 6.01% of the variance, respectively.

Fig 3. Unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis based on 86 up-regulated proteins.

Fig 3

Purple and green bands in the horizontal columns represent samples in the seropositive and naïve groups, respectively. The vertical rows indicate the 86 up-regulated protein names. The color of the heatmap indicates the scale of PELs with low-to-high expression in 32 samples and 86 up-regulated protein features.

Construction of interaction networks

Functional classification of the 86 proteins was performed using the KO and KOGs databases. The obtained classification and categorization rates by KO and KOGs were 68.60% and 63.95%, respectively. However, combining both KO and KOGs analyses increased the classification rate to 72.09% (Fig 4A). Among these, 38.37% of the proteome was enriched in cellular processes and signaling, followed by information storage (22.09%), metabolism (11.63%), and unknown function (27.91%) (Fig 4B). Gene ontology enrichment analysis based on Molecular Function indicated that most proteins were involved in catalytic activity (26%), followed by binding (21%), transporter activity (5%), transcription regulator activity (3%), ATP-dependent activity (2%), molecular function regulator (2%), molecular transducer activity (1%), and structural molecular activity (1%) (Fig 4C). The biological processes included cellular process (26%), metabolic process (17%), biological regulation (11%), response to stimulus (5%), signaling (5%), localization (4%), multicellular organismal process (2%), reproduction (2%), reproductive process (2%), biological adhesion (1%), developmental process (1%), and immune system process (1%) (Fig 4D). Cellular Components included cellular anatomical entity (46%) and protein-containing complex (15%) (Fig 4E).

Fig 4. Data analysis.

Fig 4

(A) The Venn diagram shows the comparative gene orthologous function based on KO and KOGs databases, and (B) the pie chart represents function categories when merging two databases. The gene enrichment (GO) base using PANTHER for (C) Molecular Function, (D) Biological Process, and (E) Cellular Component.

A protein–protein interaction network was constructed using STRING (Fig 5). The network formed one sub-network, with Heat Shock 70 kDa Protein 4 (HSPA4) identified as the hub protein. Additionally, eight other proteins were associated with inflammation, host defense, apoptosis, and immune response. These included Glutamate Ionotropic Receptor NMDA Type Subunit 2C (GRIN2C), Ubiquitin Carboxyl-Terminal Hydrolase (UCHL1), Myelin Basic Protein (MBP), GB1/RHD3-Type G Domain-Containing Protein (GBP3), Ribonuclease L (RNASEL), Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4 (CDK4), NAD-Dependent Protein Deacetylase Sirtuin-4 (SIRT4), and Threonyl-tRNA Synthetase (TARS2) (Fig 6, Table 4).

Fig 5. Protein interaction networks of nine up-regulated reported proteins.

Fig 5

Octagon represents proteins associated with inflammation, host defense, the apoptosis pathway, and the immune system. The graded color of the circles represents the p-values of interesting proteins.

Fig 6. The nine up-regulated interesting proteins.

Fig 6

The scatter dot plot represents the protein expressed level of nine up-regulated proteins between naïve (green) and DENV seropositivity (purple) namely (A) GRIN2C, (B) UCHL1, (C) MBP, (D) HSPA4, (E) GBP3, (F) RNASEL, (G) CDK4, (H) SIRT4, and (I) TARS2.

Table 4. 9 Up-regulated interesting proteins.

Initial Protein names Function p-values PELs* %Protein Identified Fold change
N S N S
GRIN2C Glutamate ionotropic receptor NMDA type subunit 2C Nervous system 0.0250 0.00 12.65 37.50 87.50 11.64
UCHL1 Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase Nervous system 0.0240 0.00 15.05 43.75 75.00 14.05
MBP Myelin basic protein Nervous system 0.0210 0.00 14.96 37.50 81.25 13.96
HSPA4 Heat shock 70 kDa protein 4 Immune system 0.0040 0.00 14.41 31.25 81.25 13.41
GBP3 GB1/RHD3-type G domain-containing protein Immune system 0.0100 0.00 15.08 43.75 81.25 14.08
RNASEL Ribonuclease L Immune system 0.0260 0.00 14.65 37.50 81.25 13.65
CDK4 Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 Immune system 0.0200 0.00 15.50 25.00 62.50 14.50
SIRT4 NAD-dependent protein deacetylase sirtuin-4 Metabolism 0.0470 0.00 14.04 31.25 75.00 13.04
TARS2 Threonyl-tRNA synthetase Metabolism 0.0140 0.00 12.89 12.50 56.25 11.89

PELs = Protein expressed levels (Medium values), %Protein identified = (Number of Proteins identified in samples in each group/ Number of samples in each group)*100, N = Naïve group, S = Seropositive group,Fold change = [[PELs(Naïve)]-[PELs(Seropositive)]]/[PELs(Naïve)], p-values = significant with Mann–Whitney U test at p < 0.050.

Discussion

The present study aimed to profile the differential serum protein expression in wild stump-tailed macaques with and without DENV-neutralizing antibodies. Our results showed that 50% of the macaques were seropositive for DENV. LC-MS/MS analysis of 32 serum samples identified a total of 9,532 proteins. To identify serum proteins with potential utility as biomarkers for detecting dengue-seropositive macaques, we prioritized molecules exhibiting upregulation proteins, as these are more amenable to reliable detection. Accordingly, we implemented a filter-based analytical framework integrating multiple bioinformatic approaches, including statistical testing, fold-change assessment, and both supervised and unsupervised machine-learning algorithms. Using a filter-based method, we initially identified 86 proteins that met significance criteria based on statistical testing, fold-change analysis, and machine-learning evaluations. Although these proteins passed the primary screening, subsequent assessments of gene orthology and gene ontology revealed that only a subset could be functionally characterized. Ultimately, when these 86 proteins were mapped to the STRING database to construct a protein–protein interaction network, only nine exhibited meaningful or biologically relevant interaction patterns. Nine notable proteins were identified as significant in distinguishing the protein expression patterns between seropositive and naïve macaques. Within these, three were associated with the nervous system, four related to the immune system, and two were involved in metabolic processes.

Neurological symptoms associated with dengue infection have been frequently described, with previous studies identifying three types of neurological complications linked to DENV infection: metabolic alterations, viral invasion, and autoimmune responses [27]. In this study, the overexpression of GRIN2C, UCHL1, and MBP in seropositive macaques was associated with the nervous system. GRIN2C encodes a subunit of the ionotropic glutamate receptor, specifically the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor [38]. NMDARs are involved in abnormal neuronal discharges, nerve conduction, inflammation, and neuronal injury. These cation-permeable receptors, expressed in the central nervous system, are critical for synaptic plasticity, memory formation, and learning [39]. The subunit composition of these receptors is implicated in neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and schizophrenia [40].

UCHL1 was initially identified as a brain-specific protein [41], but subsequent studies have shown its abundance in the fetal and adult brain as well as in the spinal cord [41]. Reduced UCHL1 activity has been linked to neurodegeneration, a hallmark of several neurological diseases. Moreover, UCHL1 is used as a neuron-derived biomarker for hemorrhagic stroke, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, epilepsy, cardiac arrest, and traumatic brain injury [42]. Long HT, et al. [43] reported that gene transcript abundance patterns in the blood of children with dengue reflect differences in disease progression and host responses. They found that UCHL1 was highly expressed in DSS samples collected on day four relative to the corresponding convalescent samples.

MBP (myelin basic protein) is considered a marker of active demyelination and plays a critical role in forming the myelin sheath of oligodendrocytes and Schwann cells in the CNS [44]. Glushakova OY, et al. [45]reported that MBP levels were significantly elevated at the time of hospitalization and remained high for up to two weeks in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Elevated serum MBP levels were also associated with poorer clinical outcomes. The upregulation of MBP observed in this study suggests potential neurofunctional alterations in the seropositive wild macaques. Collectively, the upregulation of GRIN2C, UCHL1, and MBP in dengue-seropositive macaques highlights a strong association between seropositive to DENV and neurofunctional perturbations. However, it cannot be concluded that all these results are due to the direct effect of dengue; further studies are needed, as there were no clinical studies in our study. Further validation in controlled cohorts will be essential to confirm their diagnostic and pathophysiological relevance.

Additionally, four proteins identified in this study may have important functional roles. Heat shock 70 kDa protein 4 (HSPA4) is typically expressed at low levels under normal conditions but is upregulated in response to cellular stress, including specific viral infections [46]. Elevated expression of HSPA4 suggests a stress response to viral presence. As a molecular chaperone, HSPA4 is involved in protein folding, refolding misfolded proteins, and facilitating protein transport across cellular compartments. It has been identified as a potential drug target against DENV given its role in the virus-receptor complex [47]. A previous study demonstrates that inducible Hsp70 (Hsp70i) plays a crucial role in DENV pathogenesis, with its expression markedly upregulated following infection. Targeting Hsp70i with the selective allosteric inhibitor HS-72 significantly reduces viral infection by disrupting its association with the DENV receptor complex. These findings highlight Hsp70i as a viable antiviral target and support HS-72 as a promising therapeutic candidate for dengue intervention [48]. In this study, HSPA4 was upregulated and served as a hub in the protein interaction network, interacting with multiple proteins. GBPs, which are IFN-inducible and secreted by endothelial cells, contribute to antioxidant and antiviral responses. Previous research reported that markers of plasma leakage and oxidative stress were negatively correlated with GBP expression [49]. In this study, GBP3 was upregulated and connected to inflammatory and host defense pathways in the protein interaction network.

RNASEL, part of the NOD-like receptor signaling pathway, plays a key role in antiviral immunity and host defense. It degrades total RNA in coordination with OAS genes and MDA5 within the IFN-I pathway, contributing to the inhibition of RNA virus replication [50,51]. A high expression of RNASEL observed in this study may reflect an antiviral response attempting to suppress viral propagation. CDK4 is a general enzyme involved in cell cycle regulation and proliferation [51]. While its increased expression suggests heightened cellular activity, it does not necessarily indicate a direct role in dengue pathogenesis. Therefore, further investigation is required to determine its relevance to the dengue infection.

Two proteins identified in this study may have potential roles in cellular metabolism. Similar to HSPA4, SIRT4 also exhibits upregulation under cellular stress. SIRT4 belongs to the NAD + -dependent histone deacetylase family and is involved in regulating the mitochondrial function and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production [5254]. Meuren L, et al. [55] emphasized the significance of oxidative stress as a therapeutic target in DENV infection to prevent neuroinvasion, vascular permeability, and inflammation. Threonyl-tRNA synthetase (TARS2 or TRS) functions as an aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase that catalyzes the attachment of threonine to its corresponding tRNA. Jung H, et al. [56] demonstrated that TRS promotes dendritic cell maturation and CD4 + T cell polarization. They found that MAPK inhibitors reduced IκB degradation and enhanced the production of IL-12 in TRS-treated dendritic cells, indicating that MAPK pathways regulate NF-κB activity during TRS-induced immune responses. TRS has been shown to enhance dendritic cell-mediated Th1 responses and exert antiviral effects against influenza A virus through IFN-γ and TNF-α. The nine proteins identified in this study serve as potential biomarkers for DENV exposure in wild macaques, reflecting immune activation, neurofunctional changes, and metabolic stress. Their differential expression distinguishes seropositive from naïve animals and provides molecular insight into prior infection, host response, and pathways potentially linked to disease severity. While these nine proteins represent potential biomarkers of immune response in wild macaques with DENV-neutralizing antibodies, further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed to validate their functional roles.

One notable advantage of this study is its field-based design, which investigates wild macaques in their natural habitats rather than employing a controlled laboratory system. This design enables a more accurate depiction of host–virus interactions influenced by ecological and evolutionary pressures, thereby increasing the relevance of the findings to real-world zoonotic transmission. The integration of proteomic analyses with bioinformatic and pathway approaches further reinforces the reliability of the identified molecular targets. Despite these strengths, the study is constrained by a comparatively small sample size, which may limit its statistical robustness. There is also the issue of the detection of monotypic and multitypic seropositive groups that may have different effects on serum protein expression, but due to the sample size limitation, further group separation is not possible. However, the nine proteins in our study should be further studied in the future with larger sample sizes and to see trends between the monotypic and multitypic seropositive groups.

Conclusions

Our study highlights emerging challenges in the investigation of serum proteins in wild macaques with neutralizing antibodies against DENV. Nine proteins were identified with significantly upregulated expression in the seropositive group, distinguishing them from naïve individuals. Among these, three proteins were associated with the nervous system, while six had potential relevance to anti-DENV activity. HSPA4 is frequently linked to cellular stress and has been proposed as a potential antiviral target. GBP3 indicates a heightened host immune response via IFN signaling, and RNASEL, commonly involved in RNA virus clearance, was highly expressed. CDK4 suggests increased cellular activity, while SIRT4 is upregulated under cellular stress. TARS2, a general aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, also contributes to dendritic cell activation and Th1-mediated immune responses through IFN-γ and TNF-α. Although the antiviral potential of these six proteins is to be confirmed, their elevated levels in seropositive macaques, alongside increased expression of three nervous system proteins, suggest their relevance in post-infection responses. Although these proteins have been associated with the nervous system and have been implicated in anti-DENV responses, the macaques in this study were only previously infected. Nonetheless, these proteins remain up-regulated post-infection, warranting further investigation into their dynamics during long-term post-infection periods. While human serum proteomic profiling in dengue is well-studied, corresponding analyses in non-human primates remain limited and warrant further investigation for their value in understanding immune cross-reactivity.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Thailand for their assistance in trapping the stump-tailed macaques.

Abbreviations

ADE

Antibody-dependent enhancement

BFGS

Broydene-Fletcher-Goldfarbe-Shanno

CID

Collision-induced-dissociation

CDK4

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4

Cysteine CAM

Cysteine carbamidomethylation

DHF

Dengue hemorrhagic fever

DSS

Dengue shock syndrome

DENV

Dengue virus

DEPs

Differentially expressed proteins

EDTA

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

KOGs

EuKaryotic Orthologous Groups

GBP3

GB1/RHD3-type G domain-containing protein

GRIN2C

Glutamate ionotropic receptor NMDA type subunit 2C

HSPA4

Heat shock 70 kDa protein 4

HCA

Hierarchical clustering analysis

KO

KEGG Orthologous

GhostKOALA

KEGG Orthology, Links Annotation

KNN

K-nearest neighbors

LC-MS/MS

Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

LR

Logistic regression

DF

Mild dengue fever

MBP

Myelin basic protein

SIRT4

NAD-dependent protein deacetylase sirtuin-4

NMDA

N-methyl-D-aspartate

PCA

Principal component analysis

PANTHER

Protein Analysis Through Evolutionary Relationships

PELs

Protein expression levels

PRNT90

90% plaque reduction neutralization assays

RF

Random forest

RNASEL

Ribonuclease L

SVM

Support vector machine

TARS2

Threonyl-tRNA synthetase

UCHL1

Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the jPOST, PXD052111 (https://proteomecentral.proteomexchange.org/cgi/GetDataset?ID=PXD052111) and the data sets supporting the conclusions of this article are included with the article and its additional files.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the Thailand Research Fund, Thailand (Grant No. MRG 6080260). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bhatnagar P, Sreekanth GP, Murali-Krishna K, Chandele A, Sitaraman R. Dengue virus non-structural protein 5 as a versatile, multi-functional effector in host-pathogen interactions. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:574067. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.574067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gwee XWS, Chua PEY, Pang J. Global dengue importation: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):1078. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06740-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dey SK, Rahman MM, Howlader A, Siddiqi UR, Uddin KMM, Borhan R, et al. Prediction of dengue incidents using hospitalized patients, metrological and socio-economic data in Bangladesh: A machine learning approach. PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0270933. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270933 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nakgoi K, Nitatpattana N, Wajjwalku W, Pongsopawijit P, Kaewchot S, Yoksan S, et al. Dengue, Japanese encephalitis and Chikungunya virus antibody prevalence among captive monkey (Macaca nemestrina) colonies of Northern Thailand. Am J Primatol. 2014;76(1):97–102. doi: 10.1002/ajp.22213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Regato M, Recarey R, Moratorio G, de Mora D, Garcia-Aguirre L, Gónzalez M, et al. Phylogenetic analysis of the NS5 gene of dengue viruses isolated in Ecuador. Virus Res. 2008;132(1–2):197–200. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2007.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kayesh MEH, Tsukiyama-Kohara K. Mammalian animal models for dengue virus infection: a recent overview. Arch Virol. 2022;167(1):31–44. doi: 10.1007/s00705-021-05298-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kularatne SA, Dalugama C. Dengue infection: Global importance, immunopathology and management. Clin Med (Lond). 2022;22(1):9–13. doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2021-0791 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Masyeni S, Wardhana IMW, Nainu F. Cytokine profiles in dengue fever and dengue hemorrhagic fever: A study from Indonesia. Narra J. 2024;4(1):e309. doi: 10.52225/narra.v4i1.309 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sabir MJ, Al-Saud NBS, Hassan SM. Dengue and human health: A global scenario of its occurrence, diagnosis and therapeutics. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021;28(9):5074–80. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.05.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.WHO. Dengue - Global situation. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brady OJ, Gething PW, Bhatt S, Messina JP, Brownstein JS, Hoen AG, et al. Refining the global spatial limits of dengue virus transmission by evidence-based consensus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(8):e1760. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tsheten T, Clements ACA, Gray DJ, Adhikary RK, Furuya-Kanamori L, Wangdi K. Clinical predictors of severe dengue: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Dis Poverty. 2021;10(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s40249-021-00908-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shepard DS, Undurraga EA, Halasa YA, Stanaway JD. The global economic burden of dengue: a systematic analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(8):935–41. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00146-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Morrison AC, Zielinski-Gutierrez E, Scott TW, Rosenberg R. Defining challenges and proposing solutions for control of the virus vector Aedes aegypti. PLoS Med. 2008;5(3):e68. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wang E, Ni H, Xu R, Barrett AD, Watowich SJ, Gubler DJ, et al. Evolutionary relationships of endemic/epidemic and sylvatic dengue viruses. J Virol. 2000;74(7):3227–34. doi: 10.1128/jvi.74.7.3227-3234.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wolfe ND, Kilbourn AM, Karesh WB, Rahman HA, Bosi EJ, Cropp BC, et al. Sylvatic transmission of arboviruses among Bornean orangutans. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2001;64(5–6):310–6. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2001.64.310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wang E, Ni H, Xu R, Barrett AD, Watowich SJ, Gubler DJ, et al. Evolutionary relationships of endemic/epidemic and sylvatic dengue viruses. J Virol. 2000;74(7):3227–34. doi: 10.1128/jvi.74.7.3227-3234.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Vasilakis N, Shell EJ, Fokam EB, Mason PW, Hanley KA, Estes DM, et al. Potential of ancestral sylvatic dengue-2 viruses to re-emerge. Virology. 2007;358(2):402–12. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2006.08.049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vasilakis N, Cardosa J, Hanley KA, Holmes EC, Weaver SC. Fever from the forest: prospects for the continued emergence of sylvatic dengue virus and its impact on public health. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9(7):532–41. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Azami MNA, Takasaki T, Kurane I, Moi ML. Non-human primate models of dengue virus infection: a comparison of viremia levels and antibody responses during primary and secondary infection among old world and new world monkeys. Pathogens. 2020;9(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lavinder C, Francis EJT. The etiology of dengue: an attempt to produce the disease in the rhesus monkey by the inoculation of defibrinated blood. J Infect Dis. 1914;1914:341–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Koraka P, Benton S, van Amerongen G, Stittelaar KJ, Osterhaus ADME. Characterization of humoral and cellular immune responses in cynomolgus macaques upon primary and subsequent heterologous infections with dengue viruses. Microbes Infect. 2007;9(8):940–6. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2007.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ito M, Mukai R, Takasaki T, Kotaki A, Kurane I. Antibody-dependent enhancement of dengue virus infection in vitro by undiluted sera from monkeys infected with heterotypic dengue virus. Arch Virol. 2010;155(10):1617–24. doi: 10.1007/s00705-010-0741-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Abegg C, Thierry B. Macaque evolution and dispersal in insular south-east Asia. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2002;75(4):555–76. doi: 10.1046/j.1095-8312.2002.00045.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ruengket P, Roytrakul S, Tongthainan D, Boonnak K, Taruyanon K, Sangkharak B. Analysis of the serum proteome profile of wild stump-tailed macaques (Macaca arctoides) seropositive for Zika virus antibodies in Thailand. 2024;11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 26.Ruengket P, Roytrakul S, Tongthainan D, Taruyanon K, Sangkharak B, Limudomporn P, et al. Serum proteomic profile of wild stump-tailed macaques (Macaca arctoides) infected with malaria parasites in Thailand. PLoS One. 2023;18(11):e0293579. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Murthy JMK. Neurological complication of dengue infection. Neurol India. 2010;58(4):581–4. doi: 10.4103/0028-3886.68654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chan KC, Lucas DA, Hise D, Schaefer CF, Xiao Z, Janini GM, et al. Analysis of the human serum proteome. Clin Proteom. 2004;1(2):101–225. doi: 10.1385/cp:1:2:101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ray S, Reddy PJ, Jain R, Gollapalli K, Moiyadi A, Srivastava S. Proteomic technologies for the identification of disease biomarkers in serum: advances and challenges ahead. Proteomics. 2011;11(11):2139–61. doi: 10.1002/pmic.201000460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ward MJ, Alger J, Berrueta M, Bock H, Buekens P, Cafferata ML, et al. Zika virus and the world health organization criteria for determining recent infection using plaque reduction neutralization testing. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018;99(3):780–2. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zika virus infection: global update on epidemiology and potentially associated clinical manifestations. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2016;91(7):73–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tongthainan D, Mongkol N, Jiamsomboon K, Suthisawat S, Sanyathitiseree P, Sukmak M, et al. Seroprevalence of dengue, zika, and chikungunya viruses in wild monkeys in Thailand. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020;103(3):1228–33. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem. 1951;193(1):265–75. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9258(19)52451-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Johansson C, Samskog J, Sundström L, Wadensten H, Björkesten L, Flensburg J. Differential expression analysis of Escherichia coli proteins using a novel software for relative quantitation of LC-MS/MS data. Proteomics. 2006;6(16):4475–85. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200500921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Thorsell A, Portelius E, Blennow K, Westman-Brinkmalm A. Evaluation of sample fractionation using micro-scale liquid-phase isoelectric focusing on mass spectrometric identification and quantitation of proteins in a SILAC experiment. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2007;21(5):771–8. doi: 10.1002/rcm.2898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Belyadi HHA. Machine learning guide for oil and gas using Python: a step-by-step breakdown with data, algorithms, codes, and applications. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bertin GI, Sabbagh A, Argy N, Salnot V, Ezinmegnon S, Agbota G, et al. Proteomic analysis of Plasmodium falciparum parasites from patients with cerebral and uncomplicated malaria. Sci Rep. 2016;6:26773. doi: 10.1038/srep26773 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chen Q-Y, Li X-H, Lu J-S, Liu Y, Lee J-HA, Chen Y-X, et al. NMDA GluN2C/2D receptors contribute to synaptic regulation and plasticity in the anterior cingulate cortex of adult mice. Mol Brain. 2021;14(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s13041-021-00744-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hansen KB, Yi F, Perszyk RE, Menniti FS, Traynelis SF. NMDA receptors in the central nervous system. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1677:1–80. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7321-7_1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Carvajal FJ, Mattison HA, Cerpa W. Role of NMDA receptor-mediated glutamatergic signaling in chronic and acute neuropathologies. Neural Plast. 2016;2016:2701526. doi: 10.1155/2016/2701526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Reinicke AT, Laban K, Sachs M, Kraus V, Walden M, Damme M, et al. Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1) loss causes neurodegeneration by altering protein turnover in the first postnatal weeks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(16):7963–72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1812413116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wang KK, Yang Z, Sarkis G, Torres I, Raghavan V. Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) as a therapeutic and diagnostic target in neurodegeneration, neurotrauma and neuro-injuries. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2017;21(6):627–38. doi: 10.1080/14728222.2017.1321635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Long HT, Hibberd ML, Hien TT, Dung NM, Van Ngoc T, Farrar J, et al. Patterns of gene transcript abundance in the blood of children with severe or uncomplicated dengue highlight differences in disease evolution and host response to dengue virus infection. J Infect Dis. 2009;199(4):537–46. doi: 10.1086/596507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Stadelmann C, Timmler S, Barrantes-Freer A, Simons M. Myelin in the central nervous system: structure, function, and pathology. Physiol Rev. 2019;99(3):1381–431. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00031.2018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Glushakova OY, Glushakov AV, Mannix R, Miller ER, Valadka AB, Hayes RL. The use of blood-based biomarkers to improve the design of clinical trials of traumatic brain injury. Handbook of Neuroemergency Clinical Trials. Elsevier. 2018. p. 139–66. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-804064-5.00008-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Radons J. The human HSP70 family of chaperones: where do we stand? Cell Stress Chaperones. 2016;21(3):379–404. doi: 10.1007/s12192-016-0676-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kim MY, Oglesbee M. Virus-heat shock protein interaction and a novel axis for innate antiviral immunity. Cells. 2012;1(3):646–66. doi: 10.3390/cells1030646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Howe MK, Speer BL, Hughes PF, Loiselle DR, Vasudevan S, Haystead TAJ. An inducible heat shock protein 70 small molecule inhibitor demonstrates anti-dengue virus activity, validating Hsp70 as a host antiviral target. Antiviral Res. 2016;130:81–92. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2016.03.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mariappan V, Adikari S, Shanmugam L, Easow JM, Balakrishna Pillai A. Differential expression of interferon inducible protein: Guanylate binding protein (GBP1 & GBP2) in severe dengue. Free Radic Biol Med. 2023;194:131–46. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2022.11.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ezelle HJ, Malathi K, Hassel BA. The Roles of RNase-L in Antimicrobial Immunity and the Cytoskeleton-Associated Innate Response. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(1):74. doi: 10.3390/ijms17010074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Takeuchi O, Akira S. Innate immunity to virus infection. Immunol Rev. 2009;227(1):75–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2008.00737.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Wang CH, Wei YH. Roles of mitochondrial sirtuins in mitochondrial function, redox homeostasis, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020;21(15). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Han Y, Zhou S, Coetzee S, Chen A. SIRT4 and its roles in energy and redox metabolism in health, disease and during exercise. Front Physiol. 2019;10:1006. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kratz EM, Sołkiewicz K, Kubis-Kubiak A, Piwowar A. Sirtuins as important factors in pathological states and the role of their molecular activity modulators. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(2):630. doi: 10.3390/ijms22020630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Meuren LM, Prestes EB, Papa MP, de Carvalho LRP, Mustafá YM, da Costa LS. Infection of endothelial cells by dengue virus induces ROS production by different sources affecting virus replication, cellular activation, death and vascular permeability. 2022;13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 56.Jung H-J, Park S-H, Cho K-M, Jung KI, Cho D, Kim TS. Threonyl-tRNA synthetase promotes T helper Type 1 cell responses by inducing dendritic cell maturation and IL-12 production via an NF-κB pathway. Front Immunol. 2020;11:571959. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.571959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Harapan Harapan

17 Nov 2025

Dear Dr. Fungfuang,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 01 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 plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Thailand Research Fund, Thailand (Grant No. MRG 6080260).”

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

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

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

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“W.F. was in receipt of grants from the Thailand Research Fund, Thailand (Grant No. MRG 6080260). The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”

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

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

“Thailand Research Fund, Thailand (Grant No. MRG 6080260).”

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

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data 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. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This manuscript explores the serum proteomic characterization of wild stump-tailed macaques with and without dengue virus neutralizing antibodies in Thailand. The study identifies differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) potentially linked to antiviral responses and neurodegenerative processes. The findings may provide preliminary insights into host responses in natural dengue reservoirs. However, there are several major comments that need to be addressed:

Major Comments:

1. Infection with flaviviruses can induce cross-reactive antibodies. The authors need to provide PRNT90 data for other flaviviruses, such as the Zika virus, to confirm that the serum samples are specific to DENV and not influenced by cross-reactivity. The manuscript should clearly state the criteria used to rule out cross-reactivity from other flavivirus infections.

2. The manuscript does not fully explain the rationale for examining serum proteomic profiles in monkeys. Please clarify the benefits of this study and how it contributes to the understanding of the disease. This rationale should be clearly stated in the introduction and reinforced in the conclusion.

3. The differential expression analysis was performed to compare between naive and seropositive monkeys. However, it is a significant limitation that the seropositive group was not further stratified. Could the authors analyze whether there are any differential expressions between monotypic and multitypic seropositive monkeys? The distinct immune responses to monotypic vs multitypic dengue infections might influence host protein profiles.

4. The phrase “sequelae of dengue infection” is used, but the macaques were not clinically characterized. Without longitudinal or clinical follow-up, it is difficult to conclude on sequelae. The wording should be revised to accurately reflect this limitation.

5. The use of 1.2- and 1.5-fold thresholds appears arbitrary. Please justify the selection of these specific thresholds. Please clarify why the 1.5-fold threshold was not used for the initial analysis.

6. The criteria for selecting the nine interesting proteins expressed in seropositive monkeys are unclear. The author states that 582 DEPs were identified, with 560 of these shared between the naive and seropositive groups. Please give a clear explanation of the

“shared between” proteins. Additionally, the rationale for focusing on the nine proteins after filtered methods needs to be explained.

7. The author focuses mainly on upregulated proteins. Downregulated proteins and those uniquely DEPs expressed in naïve macaques also need to be analyzed and discussed.

8. While the discussion provides extensive descriptions of the nine proteins, some interpretations seem speculative. For example, the link between upregulated proteins and neurological complications in macaques is overstated, as no clinical data of macaques were collected. The text should be revised to focus on observed associations.

9. In Figure 6, it is unclear whether the PELs correspond to the results shown in Table 4, especially since naïve samples are shown as 0. The bar graph in Figure 6 does not clearly show whether a significant difference exists between the naive and seropositive samples

Minor Comments:

1. Please add the reference “Additionally, the so-called sylvatic isolate of DENV-1 is not phylogenetically distinct from human-derived lineages, leading to uncertainty about its origins”

2. Please provide specific details about the DENV strains used in the study.

3. Line 262: “Affinity propagation” should be briefly explained.

4. Line 273 The “three filter-based methods” should be briefly stated to clarify the methods applied.

5. The statistical data, such as fold-change values, should be added to Table 4

6. Ensure consistent formatting of gene/protein names (e.g., CDK4, TARS2).

7. Please ensure in how research teams are referenced throughout the manuscript, following conventional citation styles, for example, the format 'Tongthainan, Mongkol (21)' should be revised to a conventional style such as 'Tongthainan D, et al.

8. Line 377 “HS-72” should be briefly explained.

9. Figures should be provided in higher resolution.

10. I cannot access the data deposited from the link https://repository.jpostdb.org/preview/851514434663b785894b48. Please check the access code.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer Comments

Overall

The human serum proteomic profiling in dengue is well-studied, corresponding analyses in non-human primates remain limited. This manuscript investigates the serum proteomic profiles of wild macaques with (seropositive) and without (naive) dengue virus-neutralizing antibodies. However, the grouping of wild macaques with seropositive sera for testing is not presented.

The following points may improve the manuscript:

Introduction

Could you please provide more information on the DENV infections in non-human primates, in term of disease manifestation (Symptomatic/Asymptomatic), ADE, viral transmission?

Methods

Could you please describe more on the locations of baited cages or provide the map, and sex and estimated age of all macaques in the study?

In serum protein preparation section, did you use each serum sample (individual macaque) or the pooled of serum sample (naïve, and seropositive groups)?

Results

In Neutralizing antibody against DENV section, could you please describe more on the sex (confounding factors in proteomic profiles) and estimated age (naïve/monotypic/multipletypic may relate to age) in the study?

In Differential protein identification between two macaque groups, could you please classify more on the naïve/monotypic/multipletypic and the low/moderate/high NT subgroup analysis?

Discussion

Could you please explain why these nine proteins represent potential biomarkers in wild macaques for any aspect (transmission, or severity)?

Reviewer #3: 1. (Introduction): Please strengthen the explanation of the immune response against the dengue virus. Please check and cite the following article: https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v4i1.309.

2. Please explicitly explain the rationale for choosing a sample size of 32 macaques. Is this sample size sufficient, or is it relatively small? If it is indeed relatively small, you must acknowledge this as a limitation and suggest that these findings should be validated with a larger sample size in the future.

3. Please perform a thorough proofread of the entire manuscript to avoid typos such as "mornitor," "temporaty," and others.

4. Please check the manuscript for the correct formatting of 'p-value'; it should be written in lowercase, not with a capital 'P'.

5. (Materials and Methods, Line 138): Please provide a stronger explanation for why the PRNT90 ≥20 criterion was used as the threshold for seropositivity.

6. Consider adding a table containing the characteristics of the two study groups, such as estimated age, sex, and physical condition. This table is necessary to ensure that the two sample groups are comparable.

7. Please explain explicitly the process used to select only 9 proteins for further analysis from the total of 86 upregulated proteins.

8. The statement that GRIN2C, UCHL1, and MBP proteins indicate neurodegenerative damage is too strong and speculative without direct supporting evidence. This interpretation should be presented as a hypothesis, not a conclusion, as these proteins can originate from various sources (such as peripheral nerves or immune cells).

**********

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

**********

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

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

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

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

PLoS One. 2026 Feb 23;21(2):e0341312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341312.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Dec 2025

Response to reviewers

Reviewer #1: This manuscript explores the serum proteomic characterization of wild stump-tailed macaques with and without dengue virus neutralizing antibodies in Thailand. The study identifies differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) potentially linked to antiviral responses and neurodegenerative processes. The findings may provide preliminary insights into host responses in natural dengue reservoirs. However, there are several major comments that need to be addressed:

Major Comments:

1. Infection with flaviviruses can induce cross-reactive antibodies. The authors need to provide PRNT90 data for other flaviviruses, such as the Zika virus, to confirm that the serum samples are specific to DENV and not influenced by cross-reactivity. The manuscript should clearly state the criteria used to rule out cross-reactivity from other flavivirus infections.

Response: Thank you for your concern and nice recommendation. We concur with the reviewers that cross-reactivity among flaviviruses is evident, particularly when assessing neutralizing antibodies between dengue and Zika viruses. Consequently, to distinguish ZIKV infection from other flavivirus infections using PRNT90 antibody titers, we interpreted the PRNT90 test results according to WHO criteria (PMID: 29943723, PMID: 26897760, PMID: 32588813). According to these criteria, ZIKV infection is classified in samples with PRNT90 titer values greater than 20 and a 4-fold difference between ZIKV and DENV PRNT90 titers. We have incorporated this information to clarify the cross-reactivity issues in the revised manuscript, specifically in lines 174-177.

2. The manuscript does not fully explain the rationale for examining serum proteomic profiles in monkeys. Please clarify the benefits of this study and how it contributes to the understanding of the disease. This rationale should be clearly stated in the introduction and reinforced in the conclusion.

Response: Thank you for your review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion in the Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion (Red letters).

3. The differential expression analysis was performed to compare between naive and seropositive monkeys. However, it is a significant limitation that the seropositive group was not further stratified. Could the authors analyze whether there are any differential expressions between monotypic and multitypic seropositive monkeys? The distinct immune responses to monotypic vs multitypic dengue infections might influence host protein profiles.

Response: Thank you for your advice. The issue of separating monotypic and multitypic seropositive groups is an interesting and important point. However, our study has limitations in sample size and homogeneity of each group that may affect the statistical reliability, so we cannot analyze the groups separately. However, we have added these limitations at the end of the discussion section as per your suggestion in lines 467-478.

4. The phrase "sequelae of dengue infection" is used, but the macaques were not clinically characterized. Without longitudinal or clinical follow-up, it is difficult to conclude on sequelae. The wording should be revised to accurately reflect this limitation.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have adjusted the wording to reduce the chance of misunderstanding in line 49.

5. The use of 1.2- and 1.5-fold thresholds appears arbitrary. Please justify the selection of these specific thresholds. Please clarify why the 1.5-fold threshold was not used for the initial analysis.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the choice of fold-change thresholds. Selection criteria are inherently flexible and should be aligned with the specific objectives of the study. In this work, we aimed to generate a serum proteomic profile to identify potential biomarker candidates. Thresholds set too low would yield an excessively large number of proteins, whereas overly stringent thresholds would substantially limit the dataset. Accordingly, we evaluated both 1.2- and 1.5-fold cutoffs to balance sensitivity and stringency, ensuring that neither an overabundance nor an insufficiency of proteins was included.

6. The criteria for selecting the nine interesting proteins expressed in seropositive monkeys are unclear. The author states that 582 DEPs were identified, with 560 of these shared between the naive and seropositive groups. Please give a clear explanation of the "shared between" proteins. Additionally, the rationale for focusing on the nine proteins after filtering needs to be explained.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We have added information about using the filter-based method in the discussion section to highlight its importance in lines 377-387.

7. The author focuses mainly on upregulated proteins. Downregulated proteins and those uniquely DEPs expressed in naïve macaques also need to be analyzed and discussed.

Response: Thank you for your review and lovely comments. The objective of this study was to identify candidate proteins suitable for development as serum biomarkers. Our analysis up-regulated proteins whose abundance increased in response to infection. Serum proteins originate from tissues or cells that actively secrete proteins or release them following cellular damage; consequently, they cannot be readily attributed to specific cell or tissue sources. Prioritizing up-regulated proteins enhances their potential detectability and applicability in diagnostic assays. Although the investigation of down-regulated proteins is scientifically valuable, their translational utility as biomarkers is comparatively limited, making them less practical for further development as biomarkers in lines 377-387.

8. While the discussion provides extensive descriptions of the nine proteins, some interpretations seem speculative. For example, the link between upregulated proteins and neurological complications in macaques is overstated, as no clinical data of macaques were collected. The text should be revised to focus on observed associations.

Response: Thank you for your lovely and valuable advice. We have been more careful with our wording and emphasized the limitations of our study in the abstract, discussion, and conclusion.

9. In Figure 6, it is unclear whether the PELs correspond to the results shown in Table 4, especially since naïve samples are shown as 0. The bar graph in Figure 6 does not clearly show whether a significant difference exists between the naive and seropositive samples

Response: Thank you for your lovely comments and reminders. From Table 4, we have presented the PELs values with the median value, since the statistic we used is the Mann-Whitney U test, which uses the median value in statistical analysis, while the graph in Figure 6 shows the median value at zero; however, we have edited the image to make it clearer with a scatter dot plot.

Minor Comments:

1. Please add the reference "Additionally, the so-called sylvatic isolate of DENV-1 is not phylogenetically distinct from human-derived lineages, leading to uncertainty about its origins"

Response: Thank you for your review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion in lines 85-87.

2. Please provide specific details about the DENV strains used in the study.

Response: Thank you for your strict and kind review. We have listed the dengue strain information in Table 2.

3. Line 262: "Affinity propagation" should be briefly explained.

Response: Thank you for your review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion.

4. Line 273 The "three filter-based methods" should be briefly stated to clarify the methods applied.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We have added information about using the filter-based method in the discussion section to highlight its importance in lines 377-387.

5. The statistical data, such as fold-change values, should be added to Table 4

Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. We have incorporated the additional information in accordance with your recommendations in Table 4.

6. Ensure consistent formatting of gene/protein names (e.g., CDK4, TARS2).

Response: Thank you for your lovely comments and reminders. We have rechecked and confirmed.

7. Please ensure that in how research teams are referenced throughout the manuscript, following conventional citation styles, for example, the format 'Tongthainan, Mongkol (21)' should be revised to a conventional style such as 'Tongthainan D, et al.

Response: Thank you for your review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion in line 117.

8. Line 377 "HS-72" should be briefly explained.

Response: Thank you for your review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion in line 429-434.

9. Figures should be provided in higher resolution.

Response: Thank you for your review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion.

10. I cannot access the data deposited from the link

https://repository.jpostdb.org/preview/851514434663b785894b48. Please check the access code.

Response: Thank you for your review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion in PXD052111(https://proteomecentral.proteomexchange.org/cgi/GetDataset?ID=PXD052111).

Reviewer #2: Reviewer Comments

Overall

The human serum proteomic profiling in dengue is well-studied, corresponding analyses in non-human primates remain limited. This manuscript investigates the serum proteomic profiles of wild macaques with (seropositive) and without (naive) dengue virus-neutralizing antibodies. However, the grouping of wild macaques with seropositive sera for testing is not presented.

The following points may improve the manuscript:

Introduction

Could you please provide more information on the DENV infections in non-human primates, in term of disease manifestation (Symptomatic/Asymptomatic), ADE, viral transmission?

Response: Thank you for your review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion in lines 95-108.

Methods

Could you please describe more on the locations of baited cages or provide the map, and sex and estimated age of all macaques in the study? In serum protein preparation section, did you use each serum sample (individual macaque) or the pooled of serum sample (naïve, and seropositive groups)?

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have added the GPS data, sex, and age of the macaques in the methods section as per your suggestion in lines 141-143. For the protein analysis section, we used the serum proteins of each macaque for the analysis.

Results

In the Neutralizing antibody against DENV section, could you please describe more on the sex (confounding factors in proteomic profiles) and estimated age (naïve/monotypic/multipletypic may relate to age) in the study?

In Differential protein identification between two macaque groups, could you please classify more on the naïve/monotypic/multipletypic and the low/moderate/high NT subgroup analysis?

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have added the GPS data, sex, and age of the macaques in the methods section as per your suggestion in lines 141-143. For the protein analysis section, we used the serum proteins of each macaque for the analysis. The issue of separating monotypic and multitypic seropositive groups is an interesting and important point. However, our study has limitations in sample size and homogeneity of each group that may affect the statistical reliability, so we cannot analyze the groups separately. However, we have added these limitations at the end of the discussion section as per your suggestion in lines 467-478.

Discussion

Could you please explain why these nine proteins represent potential biomarkers in wild macaques for any aspect (transmission, or severity)?

Response: Thank you for your review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion in lines 460-464.

Reviewer #3:

1. (Introduction): Please strengthen the explanation of the immune response against the dengue virus. Please check and cite the following article: https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v4i1.309.

Response: Thank you for your concern and nice recommendation. We have edited according to your suggestion in line 66-68.

2. Please explicitly explain the rationale for choosing a sample size of 32 macaques. Is this sample size sufficient, or is it relatively small? If it is indeed relatively small, you must acknowledge this as a limitation and suggest that these findings should be validated with a larger sample size in the future.

Response: Thank you for your nice comment. We also noted the limitations of the small sample size in the discussion in lines 467-478.

3. Please perform a thorough proofread of the entire manuscript to avoid typos such as "mornitor," "temporaty," and others.

Response: Thank you for your concern and nice recommendation. We have edited according to your suggestion in lines 145 and 151.

4. Please check the manuscript for the correct formatting of 'p-value'; it should be written in lowercase, not with a capital 'P'.

Response: Thank you for your concern and nice recommendation. We have edited according to your suggestion.

5. (Materials and Methods, Line 138): Please provide a stronger explanation for why the PRNT90 ≥20 criterion was used as the threshold for seropositivity.

Response: Thank you for your concern and nice recommendation. We applied WHO criteria to determine DENV seropositivity, considering neutralizing antibody titers of 1:20 or higher as positive ( PMID: 29943723, PMID: 26897760, PMID: 32588813). We have incorporated this information, along with the cited reference, into the Methods section of the revised manuscript (Lines 174-177).

6. Consider adding a table containing the characteristics of the two study groups, such as estimated age, sex, and physical condition. This table is necessary to ensure that the two sample groups are comparable.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have added the GPS data, sex, and age of the macaques in the methods section as per your suggestion in lines 141-143. For the protein analysis section, we used the serum proteins of each macaque for the analysis.

7. Please explain explicitly the process used to select only 9 proteins for further analysis from the total of 86 upregulated proteins.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We have added information about using the filter-based method in the discussion section to highlight its importance in lines 377-387.

8. The statement that GRIN2C, UCHL1, and MBP proteins indicate neurodegenerative damage is too strong and speculative without direct supporting evidence. This interpretation should be presented as a hypothesis, not a conclusion, as these proteins can originate from various sources (such as peripheral nerves or immune cells).

Response: Thank you for your lovely and valuable advice. We have been more careful with our wording and emphasized the limitations of our study in the abstract, discussion, and conclusion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewers.docx

pone.0341312.s001.docx (31KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Harapan Harapan

29 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. Fungfuang,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 12 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 plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Overall, The revision is mostly satisfactory, but there are a few minor points that should be addressed.

1. Please check and correct Table 2, as the row for DENV-1/DENV-3 is repeated.

2. Please ensure consistent formatting of gene/protein names throughout the manuscript (e.g., Line 453 refers to Threonyl-tRNA synthetase (TRS), whereas Table 4 uses TARS2; Line 488 uses CDK instead of CDK4)

3. Please ensure in how research teams are referenced throughout the manuscript, following conventional citation styles (Line 451Meuren, Prestes, and Line 455,Jung Park)

Reviewer #2: Serum proteomic characterization of Stump-tailed Macaques (Macaca arctoides) with neutralizing antibodies against Dengue virus in Thailand

Reviewer Comments

This manuscript investigates the serum proteomic profiles of wild macaques with (seropositive) and without (naive) dengue virus-neutralizing antibodies. Unfortunately, the grouping of wild macaques with seropositive sera for testing is not presented.

**********

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.]

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

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

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

PLoS One. 2026 Feb 23;21(2):e0341312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341312.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


2 Jan 2026

Dear Editor

We would like to express our appreciation for your assistance and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript titled “Serum proteomic characterization of Stump-tailed Macaques (Macaca arctoides) with neutralizing antibodies against Dengue virus in Thailand” (PONE-D-25-34021R1). All opinions are valuable and will help us revise and improve our manuscript. We carefully reviewed all comments, made adjustments, and highlighted the changed section in red in the manuscript. We are hopeful that our updated text will be satisfactory and approved.

Reviewer #1:

Overall, the revision is mostly satisfactory, but there are a few minor points that should be addressed.

1. Please check and correct Table 2, as the row for DENV-1/DENV-3 is repeated.

Response: Thank you for your strict review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion.

2. Please ensure consistent formatting of gene/protein names throughout the manuscript (e.g., Line 453 refers to Threonyl-tRNA synthetase (TRS), whereas Table 4 uses TARS2; Line 488 uses CDK instead of CDK4)

Response: Thank you for your strict review and lovely comments. We have revised the manuscript on your suggestion.

3. Please ensure in how research teams are referenced throughout the manuscript, following conventional citation styles (Line 451Meuren, Prestes, and Line 455, Jung Park)

Response: Thank you for your strict review and lovely comments. We have revised all references in the manuscript on your suggestion.

Reviewer #2:

Serum proteomic characterization of Stump-tailed Macaques (Macaca arctoides) with neutralizing antibodies against Dengue virus in Thailand

Reviewer Comments

This manuscript investigates the serum proteomic profiles of wild macaques with (seropositive) and without (naive) dengue virus-neutralizing antibodies. Unfortunately, the grouping of wild macaques with seropositive sera for testing is not presented.

Response: Thank you for your lovely and valuable advice.

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Decision Letter 2

Harapan Harapan

6 Jan 2026

Serum proteomic characterization of Stump-tailed Macaques (Macaca arctoides) with neutralizing antibodies against Dengue virus in Thailand

PONE-D-25-34021R2

Dear Dr. Fungfuang,

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Harapan Harapan, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Harapan Harapan

PONE-D-25-34021R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Fungfuang,

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

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

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Harapan Harapan

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewers.docx

    pone.0341312.s001.docx (31KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the jPOST, PXD052111 (https://proteomecentral.proteomexchange.org/cgi/GetDataset?ID=PXD052111) and the data sets supporting the conclusions of this article are included with the article and its additional files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES