Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2020 Jun 8;18(6):e3000723. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000723

Genetic and functional diversification of chemosensory pathway receptors in mosquito-borne filarial nematodes

Nicolas J Wheeler 1, Zachary W Heimark 1, Paul M Airs 1, Alexis Mann 1, Lyric C Bartholomay 1, Mostafa Zamanian 1,*
Editor: Piali Sengupta2
PMCID: PMC7302863  PMID: 32511224

Abstract

Lymphatic filariasis (LF) afflicts over 60 million people worldwide and leads to severe pathological outcomes in chronic cases. The nematode parasites (Nematoda: Filarioidea) that cause LF require both arthropod (mosquito) intermediate hosts and mammalian definitive hosts for their propagation. The invasion and migration of filarial worms through host tissues are complex and critical to survival, yet little is known about the receptors and signaling pathways that mediate directed migration in these medically important species. In order to better understand the role of chemosensory signaling in filarial worm taxis, we employ comparative genomics, transcriptomics, reverse genetics, and chemical approaches to identify putative chemosensory receptor proteins and perturb chemotaxis phenotypes in filarial worms. We find that chemoreceptor family size is correlated with the presence of environmental (extrahost) stages in nematode life cycles, and that filarial worms contain compact and highly diverged chemoreceptor complements and lineage-specific ion channels that are predicted to operate downstream of chemoreceptor activation. In Brugia malayi, an etiological agent of LF, chemoreceptor expression patterns correspond to distinct parasite migration events across the life cycle. To interrogate the role of chemosensation in the migration of larval worms, arthropod and mammalian infectious stage Brugia parasites were incubated in nicotinamide, an agonist of the nematode transient receptor potential (TRP) channel OSM-9. Exposure of microfilariae to nicotinamide alters intramosquito migration, and exposure of L3s reduces chemotaxis toward host-associated cues in vitro. Nicotinamide also potently modulates thermosensory responses in L3s, suggesting a polymodal sensory role for Brugia osm-9. Reverse genetic studies implicate both Brugia osm-9 and the cyclic nucleotide–gated (CNG) channel subunit tax-4 in larval chemotaxis toward host serum, and these ion channel subunits partially rescue sensory defects in Caenorhabditis elegans osm-9 and tax-4 knock-out strains. Together, these data reveal genetic and functional diversification of chemosensory signaling proteins in filarial worms and encourage a more thorough investigation of clade- and parasite-specific facets of nematode sensory receptor biology.


Nematode parasites are a major cause of global human and animal morbidity, but the role of sensory behaviors in the complex life cycles of parasitic nematodes is not well understood. This study uncovers molecular determinants and pathways that control migratory behaviors in mosquito-transmitted filarial nematodes that cause lymphatic filariasis, a neglected tropical disease.

Introduction

Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is a parasitic disease caused by mosquito-borne filarial worms (Nematoda: Filarioidea) belonging to the genera Wuchereria and Brugia. LF is estimated to affect over 60 million people worldwide, particularly in impoverished tropical regions [1]. Infections are associated with chronic disability and physical disfigurement, most commonly resulting from advanced manifestations of lymphedema, hydrocele, and elephantiasis. These conditions yield additional stigmatization and mental health burdens on those suffering, which in turn can prevent individuals from seeking treatment [24]. Currently, chemotherapeutic control of LF is mainly achieved through mass drug administration (MDA) of diethylcarbamazine citrate (DEC), ivermectin (IVM), albendazole, or combinations of these anthelmintic drugs [5,6]. However, the suboptimal efficacy of available drugs against adult parasites, contraindication of DEC and IVM in patients with multiple filarial diseases, and threat of drug resistance underlie efforts to develop new treatment options. A better understanding of the molecular basis of parasite behaviors required for successful transmission and parasitism has the potential to aid LF control efforts.

The filarial worms that cause LF have complex life cycles that require migration through hematophagous arthropod intermediate hosts and mammalian definitive hosts [7]. Microfilariae (mf) released from viviparous females in the human lymphatics must reach the peripheral blood, where they can be ingested through the proboscis of feeding mosquito vectors. In susceptible mosquitoes, larvae burrow out of the midgut, pass through the hemocoel, and invade cells of the thoracic flight muscles. Over the course of approximately 2 weeks, larvae grow and develop to the human-infective third stage larvae (L3) and migrate to the mosquito head region in preparation for transmission to the mammalian host [8,9]. L3s are deposited onto the skin of hosts from the proboscis of feeding mosquitoes and must quickly travel through the bite wound and connective tissues to reach the lymphatic system, where they reach sexual maturity [1012]. Although the life cycle of LF parasites is well described, the molecular basis for stage-specific migratory behaviors is unknown.

There is growing evidence that chemosensation and other sensory modalities play an important role in nematode parasite transmission and intrahost migration [1322]. However, most studies have focused on single-host nematode parasites with direct life cycles, which are phylogenetically distant from the vector-borne filarial parasites of clade III [23]. Recent studies using human-infective Brugia malayi and feline-infective B. pahangi, a model species for human LF, reveal the presence of canonical nematode sensory organs (amphids) and robust chemotaxis responses to host-associated cues in vitro [2427]. Filarial worms also exhibit genus-specific patterns of migration within the same host species [28]. These observations strongly suggest an important role for chemosensation and chemotaxis in LF parasitism and provide motivation to dissect the signaling pathways and mediators of sensory behaviors in these medically important parasites.

Chemosensory signaling pathways in the model nematode Caenorhabditis elegans are well characterized [29]. G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) function as chemoreceptors at the amphid cilia, and activation leads to signaling through cyclic nucleotide–gated (CNG) channels or transient receptor potential (TRP) channels, depending on cell type [3033]. Each amphid neuron expresses a diverse array of GPCRs, in contrast to the one-receptor-per-cell model in vertebrates [3436]. These pathways have likely evolved to reflect the diversity of ancestral nematode life-history traits and environmental cues encountered by different nematode species [14,1921]. Despite superficial conservation of nematode chemosensory pathways, we hypothesized that there are important differences in repertoire, patterns of expression, and function of chemosensory genes among free-living, single-host, and vector-borne parasitic nematodes belonging to diverse clades [23,37].

Here, we investigate nematode chemosensory receptor biology in LF parasites and connect in vitro and in vivo chemotaxis behaviors to chemosensory signaling pathways. We carry out genomic and transcriptomic analyses of putative chemosensory GPCRs (chemoreceptors), CNG channels, and TRP channels in a panphylum context. Using a combination of chemical and reverse genetic approaches, we present the first evidence of Brugia chemotaxis behaviors modulated by specific sensory-associated receptors. Lastly, we explore how these data reveal unique aspects of chemosensory biology in these medically important parasites.

Results

Filarial worms contain a compact and unique repertoire of chemoreceptors

To elucidate the putative chemosensory pathway of mosquito-borne filarial worms and to identify and annotate chemoreceptors, we first performed a panphylum analysis of 39 nematode genomes [38,39], representing all published filarial genomes and high-quality assemblies across four primary nematode clades [23] (S1 Table, S1 Fig). In total, 10,440 putative chemoreceptor genes were identified and confidently classified within superfamilies (Str, Sra, Srg) or “solo” families (srz, sro, srsx, srbc, srxa, sra) (S1 File) [40]. Although the majority of receptors were also annotated at the family level, some clade IIIa/b and clade IV chemoreceptors did not clearly group with the families that were originally described in C. elegans (Fig 1B and 1C, S1 Data). However, each of the 30–100 chemoreceptors found in filarial worm species (clade IIIc) was readily classified into the established 23 nematode chemoreceptor families [40,41]. Within these families, we found no one-to-one orthologs between filarial parasites and species belonging to other clades, demonstrating the divergence of the filarial chemoreceptor subset. Instead, there have been clear paralogous gene radiations that have resulted in enrichment of the srx, srab, srbc, and srsx families (Fig 1B and 1C). Filarial parasites also contain relatively numerous srw receptors, but these likely include neuropeptide receptors in addition to some chemoreceptors of environmental peptides [41,42].

Fig 1. The genomes of filarial worms contain a reduced complement of divergent chemoreceptors.

Fig 1

Chemoreceptors were mined from 39 nematode genomes, and the phylogeny of chemoreceptors from a down-sampled species set was constructed with ML inference. (A) General life cycle of mosquito-transmitted filarial worms. (B) Filarial worm (clade IIIc) genomes contain far fewer chemoreceptors than other nematodes, and they are enriched for srsx, srab, srbc, and srx receptors. Each box in the heatmap is normalized to the total number of chemoreceptors per species. (C) Family and superfamily categorizations from C. elegans were used to annotate the final phylogeny. Clade IIIc chemoreceptors are diverged from C. elegans and other nematodes, without any one-to-one homologs. Filarial worm chemoreceptors are notably diverged in srsx, srab, srbc, and srx. Nodal values represent percent bootstrap support of 1,000 separate replicates. Branches consisting of only C. elegans receptors were collapsed to aid visualization. (D) A decrease in chemoreceptor count is correlated with an increase in extrahost (e.g., terrestrial) stages within nematode life cycles. Completely free-living nematodes such as C. elegans, C. briggsae, Pristionchus pacificus, and Panagrellus redivivus have many more chemoreceptors than parasitic nematodes that are vector transmitted or host contained such as the filarial worms and Trichinella spiralis. Note that the x-axis is categorical, and slight jitter has been added to the points to decrease point/label overlap. ρ was calculated with Spearman’s rank correlation with the null hypothesis that ρ = 0. Raw data for (B) and (D) can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. Raw tree data for (C) can be found in Newick format in S1 Data. L1, first stage larvae; L2, second stage larvae; L3, third stage larvae; L4 fourth stage larvae; mf, microfilaria; ML, maximum-likelihood.

Filarial worm genomes contain a reduced subset of chemoreceptors when compared with other parasitic and free-living nematodes, including C. elegans and C. briggsae (clade V), both of which contain over 1,200 chemoreceptors (Fig 1B) [36,40,41]. Although it is known that many parasitic nematodes contain fewer chemoreceptor genes compared with C. elegans [43,44] and, indeed, often fewer genes in total [45], our panphylum analysis revealed a significant correlation between chemoreceptor gene count and the presence and nature of free-living or environmental stages of each nematode species life cycle (Fig 1D, S2 File). Nematodes that are parasitic and are host contained or lack motile environmental stages exhibit more-compact chemoreceptor repertoires than those that are exclusively free living or contain free-living stages (Spearman’s rank-order correlation, ρ = −0.813, p = 3.24 × 10−10), and this is not a function of genome contiguity or completeness (S2 Fig). This correlation has been observed when comparing smaller numbers of nematodes, and our comprehensive approach confirms this pattern across the phylum [40,43,44,46].

Chromosomal synteny between B. malayi and C. elegans further illustrates the divergence of chemoreceptors in the Filarioidea (Fig 2). The majority of C. elegans chemoreceptors are found on chromosome V (67%), and chemoreceptor genes likely underwent several birth–death cycles that reflect the adaptive needs of encountering new locales [40]. Putative B. malayi chemoreceptors are primarily found on chromosomes II (31%) and IV (35%) and are clustered by family, suggesting lineage-specific gene duplications.

Fig 2. Chemoreceptors are clustered in the B. malayi genome and are enriched in specific life stages and adult tissues.

Fig 2

The chromosomal location of annotated B. malayi and C. elegans chemoreceptor genes are shown with chromosomes in white, and chemoreceptor loci are depicted as black lines. C. elegans chemoreceptors are found throughout the genome but are heavily clustered on chromosome V, and these clusters can be enriched for specific families and superfamilies [40]. Likewise, B. malayi chemoreceptors are clustered on chromosomes II and IV. RNA expression data reveal distinct patterns of chemoreceptor expression across the life cycle and in discrete adult male and female tissues. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. DPI, days postinfection; HPI, hours postinfection; L1, first stage larvae; L2, second stage larvae; L3, third stage larvae; L4, fourth stage larvae; mf, microfilaria; TPM, transcripts per million.

B. malayi chemoreceptors are associated with sensory tissues and display stage-specific expression patterns

These comparative data indicate that arthropod-borne filarial worms rely on a small complement of clade- and species-specific chemoreceptors to interact with and navigate their host environments. Nematode chemosensation is primarily mediated by anterior amphid sensory structures, and many nematodes also possess caudal chemosensory phasmids associated with male sex organs that likely aid in copulation. In C. elegans hermaphrodites and Strongyloides stercoralis, a soil-transmitted helminth, chemoreceptors and sensory pathway effectors have been primarily localized to these anterior and posterior structures but can also be found in other nonneuronal cells [13,36]. We examined the expression of chemoreceptors in structures implicated in adult filarial worm chemosensation [24,47,48] using RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) of anterior and posterior tissues. B. malayi female head, male head, and male tail tissue regions were excised for RNA-seq detection of anterior, posterior, and sex-specific chemoreceptor transcripts. Most chemoreceptor transcripts are preferentially detected in one of these disparate anatomical regions, although a small number show a broader distribution of expression across these regions (Fig 2, S3 Fig).

We further hypothesized that the unique cues encountered by filarial parasites across developmental time points would be reflected by stage-specific chemoreceptor expression patterns. In C. elegans, chemosensory processes coordinate movement toward food or mates and away from pathogens, predators, or noxious substances [4952]. In contrast to the open and less predictable environments navigated by free-living nematodes, filarial worms encounter distinct environmental niches that have strictly patterned transitions. We used staged transcriptomes to analyze the expression of chemoreceptors across the life cycle of B. malayi [53] and identified receptors that correspond to migratory landmarks throughout the parasite life cycle (Fig 2). Expression data show that mf circulating in the bloodstream at 60 days postinfection (DPI) express a larger number of chemoreceptors compared with nonmigratory first stage larvae (L1) and second stage larvae (L2) larvae that are contained within mosquito muscle cells; for instance, only four chemoreceptors during the mf/L1 stage in the mosquito have detectable expression (Fig 2). Interestingly, there is also a large number of chemoreceptors expressed in embryos. It is possible that there is transcript buildup in embryos in preparation for release from the adult female. The similarity between embryo and adult female expression patterns also suggests that there may have been some level of contamination during the difficult isolation of embryos from gravid females. There is an increase in chemoreceptor representation and expression during the migratory and mammalian-infective L3, as well as in later mammalian stages that undergo migration and potentially engage in mate-seeking behaviors. Together, these analyses show that B. malayi expresses distinct sets of chemoreceptors in a sex-, tissue-, and stage-specific manner.

Filarial worms have a divergent subset of downstream chemosensory pathway receptors

In C. elegans, ligand binding to chemoreceptors activates heterotrimeric G proteins that ultimately produce neuronal depolarization via the opening of CNG or TRP channels, depending upon cell type [29,36]. The CNG channels TAX-4 and TAX-2 mediate signaling in amphid neurons ASE, AWC, AWB, ASI, ASG, ASJ, and ASK, whereas the TRPV (vanilloid-type) channels OSM-9 and OCR-2 are necessary for signaling in AWA, ASH, ADF, and ADL [29]. To assess the conservation of these downstream signaling pathways in filarial parasites, we mined TRP and CNG channels across nematode genomes to examine interspecies variation in ion channel complements.

We found that filarial worms contain one-to-one homologs of osm-9 but do not have homologs of ocr-3, ocr-4, trpa-1, pkd-2, trp-1, or gtl-1 (Fig 3A, 3C and 3E, S2 Data). Filarial parasites contain two ocr-1/2–like genes (Bm5691 and Bm14098), but these are more closely related to each other than they are to C. elegans ocr-1 or ocr-2 (Fig 3E). In C. elegans, OSM-9 and OCR-2 are mutually dependent upon each other for intracellular trafficking to sensory cilia [33]. Cell-specific TRP channel expression patterns and TRP subunit interactions are unknown in filarial parasitic species, and it is not clear which filarial parasite subunit might provide a homologous Cel-OCR-2 ciliary targeting function or, indeed, whether such a trafficking function is necessary. Interestingly, we found that Bma-ocr-1/2a (Bm5691) is expressed in the female head (transcripts per million [TPM] > 2.5) but is found in very low abundance in the male head and tails (TPM < 1), whereas the opposite is true for Bma-ocr-1/2b (Bm14098). On the other hand, Bma-osm-9 is found at a relatively high abundance in both male (TPM > 15) and female (TPM > 18) heads. This tissue distribution of transcripts could indicate the potential for sex-specific subunit interactions among these TRPV channels. Although missing in clade IIIc filarial parasites, we found homologs of ocr-3, ocr-4, pkd-2, and trp-1 in other clade III species (e.g., soil-transmitted ascarids), and the most parsimonious explanation of their absence in filarial worms is that these genes were lost sometime after the divergence of Spirurida and Ascarida [37]. Conversely, trpa-1, which functions in C. elegans mechanosensation in QLQ [54], and gtl-1, which functions in ion homeostasis in the C. elegans intestine [55], appear to be specific to clade V.

Fig 3. Filarial worms possess unique complements of broadly conserved nematode TRP and CNG channels.

Fig 3

The phylogenies of (A) TRP and (B) CNG channels were constructed with Bayesian inference. Nodal values represent the posterior probability. (C) osm-9 and (E) ocr-1/2 subtrees were drawn from (A), and (D) tax-4 and (F) tax-2 subtrees were drawn from (B). Filarial worms have one-to-one orthologs of C. elegans osm-9, tax-4, and tax-2. In contrast, the two ocr-1/2–like genes from filarial worms are more closely related to each other than with the homologous Cel-ocr-1 and Cel-ocr-2 and belong to a diverged clade IIIc grouping of OCR-1/2–like channel subunits. Raw tree data for (A) and (B) can be found in S2 Data and S3 Data, respectively. CNG, cyclic nucleotide–gated; TRP, transient receptor potential.

Similarly, filarial worms have one-to-one homologs of tax-4 (α-type) and tax-2 (β-type) CNG channel subunits but lack cng-1 and cng-3 (Fig 3B, 3D and 3F, S3 Data). Filarial worm genomes possess a third CNG (Bm7148) that is related to both cng-2 and che-6, but phylogenetic analysis suggests the divergence of cng-2 and che-6 to have occurred later than the most recent common ancestor of the Filarioidea and C. elegans, making it difficult to ascribe putative function to the cng-2/che-6 homolog in Filarioidea. In C. elegans, TAX-2 and TAX-4 are broadly expressed in amphid sensory neurons and mediate both thermosensory and chemosensory function, whereas other channels, like CNG-2 and CHE-6, have more-restricted expression patterns and modulate these pathways [56]. It is unclear whether Bma-TAX-4 and Bma-TAX-2 coordinate multiple sensory modalities as in C. elegans and whether Bm7148 interacts with these proteins and pathways. Bm7148 is highly expressed in all three tissues that we analyzed (TPM > 20), whereas Bma-tax-4 and Bma-tax-2 have TPM values of less than 2 in all cases.

Treatment with a nematode TRPV agonist inhibits chemoattraction but not chemoaversion of infective-stage Brugia larvae

Our bioinformatic analyses show that filarial worms have evolved divergent sets of chemoreceptors but maintain much of the core structure of the chemosensory pathway as modeled in C. elegans. To test conservation of chemosensory function in TRPV channels of filarial worms, we treated infective-stage Brugia L3s with nicotinamide (NAM), an agonist of the C. elegans OSM-9/OCR-4 heteromeric channel [57], and measured chemotactic responses to host-associated cues. These experiments were performed with B. pahangi, a model Brugia species [24,25,27]. B. pahangi L3s freshly extracted from infected Aedes aegypti Liverpool strain (LVP) mosquitoes are strongly attracted to both fetal bovine serum (FBS) and sodium chloride but are weakly repelled by 3-methyl-1-butanol (a component of human sweat attractive to S. stercoralis and Anopheles gambiae) (8,13,49) (Fig 4B). Treatment of freshly extracted L3s with 250 μM NAM significantly reduced chemoattraction to serum (44.8% reduction) and sodium chloride (73.1% reduction) but had no significant effect on aversion to 3-methyl-1-butanol (Fig 4B). NAM treatment did not impact worms’ overall translational movement on the chemotaxis plates (Fig 4C), indicating that NAM causes a specific defect in chemotaxis rather than a general depression in movement ability.

Fig 4. Treatment with a TRPV agonist dysregulates chemotaxis of B. pahangi infective larvae.

Fig 4

(A) L3 parasites were extracted from mosquitoes and subjected to chemotaxis assays with or without 250 μM NAM treatment. Chemotaxis assays were performed by adding L3s to the middle of a 0.8% agarose plate (M), with either test cue (T) or water (C) added to the opposite sides of the plate. The plate was placed at 37°C for 30 minutes, scored after incubation, and the CI was calculated. (B) NAM dysregulates attraction of freshly extracted L3s to serum and NaCl but has no effect on aversion to 3-methyl-1-butanol. (C) NAM has no effect on translational movement of freshly extracted L3s. (D) Bpa-osm-9 expression is unchanged by in vitro culture at physiological or room temperature 4 HPE. (E) L3s cultured for 1 DPE do not show chemotaxis toward serum and have reduced motility on the chemotaxis plate when compared with untreated freshly extracted parasites (p = 0.028, t test). Data for (A–C) represent the combined results of three independent biological replicates, except for the experiments with 3-methyl-1-butanol, which included two replicates (cohorts of mosquito infections). Data for (E) represent the results of two biological replicates. Each point represents a single chemotaxis plate with 8–10 L3s. Red diamonds and bars indicate the mean and standard error of the mean. Comparisons of means were performed using t tests (**p ≤ 0.01). Raw data for (B) through (E) can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. CI, chemotaxis index; DPE, days postextraction; FBS, fetal bovine serum; HPE, hours postextraction; L3, third stage larvae; NAM, nicotinamide; ns, not significant; TRP, transient receptor potential.

To ensure that the Bpa-osm-9, the putative target of NAM, was expressed during the performance window of our assay and that expression was not altered by the ambient temperatures that L3s experience during assay preparation, we measured the relative expression of Bpa-osm-9 in L3s immediately after extraction from mosquitoes and after 4 hours of in vitro culture at human body temperature (37°C) or ambient temperature (approximately 21°C). The relative expression of Bpa-osm-9 was unchanged over this time frame at either temperature (p = 0.4215, Fig 4D).

Although the expression of Bpa-osm-9 does not change following extraction (Fig 4D), parasites maintained overnight in complete media do not show a chemotactic response to serum, even with preassay incubation in serum-free media, and show a reduced motility on the chemotaxis plate when compared with untreated freshly extracted parasites (Fig 4E). Although it is possible that the specific unknown chemoreceptors involved in serum response are down-regulated by this time point, it is more likely that artificial culture conditions have effects on parasite health that compromise chemotactic potential. These results highlight the importance of using freshly extracted L3s in these assays.

Treatment with a nematode TRPV agonist alters an infective-stage Brugia larvae thermosensory response

L3s that have departed the intermediate mosquito host are challenged with stark temperature shifts from the ambient temperature in the mosquito to warmer temperatures on the definitive host’s skin of approximately 24–34°C [58] to an even warmer host core temperature of 37°C. During in vitro culture, healthy L3 worms elongate and vigorously thrash in warm medium, but thrashing will transition to coiling and reduced motility as the culture medium cools. The coiling and reduction in motility caused by cooling is reversed after returning the parasites to 37°C (S4 Fig), indicating that the phenotype is not a result of general sickness or tissue damage. In the course of performing L3 chemotaxis experiments with NAM, we noticed that treated L3s had a reduced coiling response. To confirm this effect, we performed dose–response experiments and video-recorded parasites exactly 20 minutes after transfer from 37°C to room temperature, the point at which untreated parasites tightly coil. Both blinded manual scoring and a bespoke computer imaging analysis of larval coiling reveal that NAM inhibits this thermosensory response in a dose-dependent manner after 24 and 48 hours (Fig 5B–5D). These data suggest that Brugia OSM-9 plays a polymodal sensory role in L3 parasites, potentially mediating both chemosensory and thermosensory responses.

Fig 5. Treatment with a TRPV agonist impairs the coiling response in cooled B. pahangi infective larvae.

Fig 5

(A) L3s were extracted from mosquitoes and treated with NAM, subjected to a temperature shift, and analyzed for cooling-induced coiling behaviors. (B) Representative images of untreated (control) individuals displaying the coiled phenotype and individuals exposed to 1 mM NAM that are uncoiled and thrashing. (C) Blinded coiling score given to each treatment after 24 hours and 48 hours posttreatment (higher score indicates less coiling). (D) Mean motility calculated by an optical flow algorithm. Red diamonds and bars indicate the mean and standard error of the mean from three biological replicates, each composed of >3 technical replicates scored by three different researchers. Comparisons of means were performed using one-sided t tests (*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001; ****p ≤ 0.0001). Raw data for (C) and (D) can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. L3, third stage larvae; NAM, nicotinamide; ns, not significant; TRP, transient receptor potential.

Pretreatment of mf with NAM reduces L3 burden in infected mosquitoes and alters tissue distribution

Assays with extracted L3s indicated that Bpa-OSM-9 is important for in vitro chemoattraction to salt and serum. We hypothesized that NAM could dysregulate intramosquito chemotaxis of larval stages in vivo. To establish an assay to test this hypothesis, we first investigated whether NAM had any effect on mosquito blood-feeding dynamics. The presence of NAM in defibrinated sheep’s blood altered the feeding behavior of Ae. aegypti when offered ad libitum on a membrane feeder. NAM at concentrations from 0.1 μM to 5 mM acted as a phagostimulant, causing a dose-dependent increase in the proportion of mosquitoes that had fed after 30 minutes. However, concentrations greater than 5 mM began to decrease the proportion of feeding individuals, and blood with 250 mM NAM was completely repulsive to mosquitoes (Fig 6A). We chose 5 mM and 25 mM as initial treatment concentrations for mf, and with replication we found that both 5 mM and 25 mM NAM caused a significant increase in the proportion of mosquitoes that fed (Fig 6B). To ensure that the increase in proportion of fed mosquitoes was not correlated to an increased blood meal size, we measured distended abdomens of mosquitoes after feeding on control blood or blood supplemented with 5 mM or 25 mM NAM (S5 Fig). Mosquito abdomen sizes were unchanged by NAM supplementation, assuring that altered parasite burdens after feeding would not be a function of altered numbers of ingested mf (Fig 6C).

Fig 6. Treatment with a TRPV agonist reduces the ability of mf to establish infection in mosquitoes.

Fig 6

(A) NAM added to blood at up to 50 mM increases the proportion of blood-fed mosquitoes when allowed to feed to repletion but reduces mosquito blood feeding at concentrations greater than 50 mM. Black points represent technical replicates, and gray diamonds represent the mean. (B) Replication of blood-feeding experiments with 5 mM and 25 mM showed a significant increase in the proportion of blood-fed mosquitoes when blood was supplemented with 5 or 25 mM NAM. These concentrations were used for subsequent parasite treatment. Points represent the values from three independent biological replicates (cohorts of mosquitoes). (C) Blood supplemented with 5 or 25 mM NAM does not alter the size of distended mosquito abdomens after blood feeding, indicating an unaltered size of blood meal. Points represent the measured abdomens of individual mosquitoes from a single blood-feeding experiment. (D-E) Pretreatment of B. pahangi mf with NAM prior to mosquito infection causes a dose-dependent reduction in the number of L3s recovered per mosquito. (F) Reduction in L3 recovery was due to a decrease in larval parasites in the mosquito thorax (i.e., the flight muscles, the migratory destination for mf and site of development for L1, L2, and early-L3 parasites). Data from (D-F) represent the combined results of three independent biological replicates (cohorts of mosquito infections); each point represents the parasites recovered from an individual mosquito. Red diamonds and bars indicate the mean and standard error of the mean. Tests of significance for (B), (D), and (F) were performed with Tukey’s post hoc tests and adjusted for multiple comparisons (*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01). Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. L1, first stage larvae; L2, second stage larvae; L3, third stage larvae; mf, microfilaria; NAM, nicotinamide; ns, not significant; TRP, transient receptor potential.

We next supplemented microfilaremic blood with 5 mM and 25 mM NAM and tested for altered infectivity and intramosquito tissue distribution of larvae. Pretreatment with NAM of B. pahangi mf caused a significant, dose-dependent reduction in parasite burden at 14 DPI (Fig 6D and 6E; 5 mM = 21% reduction, 25 mM = 43% reduction) and a significant decrease in the proportion of L3s recovered in the thorax of infected mosquitoes (Fig 6F). The proportion of L3s recovered in the thorax was not correlated to total L3s recovered per mosquito (S6 Fig), suggesting that changes in larval infectivity were not due to differences in blood meal size but, instead, the specific action of NAM upon the parasite. Thus, we postulate that NAM inhibits the initial migration of mf from the blood bolus but that, once across (and presumably relieved of NAM exposure in the midgut), developed L3 larval parasites are able to migrate to the head at the same proportion as untreated controls.

Brugia osm-9 and tax-4 RNA interference inhibits chemoattraction of infective-stage larvae toward host-associated cues

NAM is an agonist of the C. elegans TRPV heteromer OSM-9/OCR-4 and Drosophila orthologs Nanchung/Inactive when expressed in Xenopus oocytes, but not of either C. elegans subunit alone [57]. Given conservation of NAM–receptor interactions across these phyla, we expect Brugia OSM-9 orthologs to also respond to NAM. However, the pharmacology and subunit interactions of Brugia OSM-9 may differ (e.g., filarial parasites do not have a homolog of ocr-4 [Fig 3A]), and NAM is an endogenous metabolite in C. elegans that has pleiotropic effects [57,5963]. This compelled us to use a genetic approach to more directly test whether Brugia OSM-9 and TAX-4 are involved in parasite chemotaxis behavior.

We carried out intramosquito (“in squito”) RNA interference (RNAi) [64] of both Bpa-osm-9 and Bpa-tax-4 in larval stages and measured the effects on L3 in vitro chemotaxis. Infected mosquitoes were injected with double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) targeting transcripts of interest at 9 DPI, corresponding to the expected timeline of the L2-to-L3 transition in the thoracic musculature [8] (Fig 7A). We attempted to confirm knock-down of target transcripts with quantitative PCR (qPCR), but the low target abundance of Bpa-osm-9 and Bpa-tax-4 relative to housekeeping genes, coupled with limited recovery of RNA from a small number of parasites, prevented reliable amplification. Targeting either Bpa-osm-9 or Bpa-tax-4 using the in squito RNAi protocol resulted in the inhibition of B. pahangi L3 in vitro chemotaxis toward serum at 14 DPI (Fig 7B), whereas injection of nonspecific (lacZ) dsRNA had no effect on chemotaxis (control chemotaxis index [CI]: 0.776, Bpa-osm-9(RNAi) CI: 0.360, Bpa-tax-4(RNAi) CI: 0.008). dsRNA treatment did not have any effect on general parasite motility on the assay plate (Fig 7C). To our knowledge, this is the first time that either tax-4 or osm-9 has been shown to have a specific function in chemosensation in a parasitic nematode of animals, though tax-4 has been shown to be involved in chemotaxis in plant-parasitic nematodes [65].

Fig 7. dsRNA treatment of chemosensory pathway receptors causes defective chemotaxis of B. pahangi infective larvae.

Fig 7

(A) Injection of 250 ng dsRNA into B. pahangi-infected Ae. aegypti LVP was performed 9 DPI, and L3 parasites were recovered via dissection at 14 DPI. Recovered parasites were immediately used in chemotaxis experiments. Chemotaxis assays were performed by adding L3s to the middle of a 0.8% agarose plate (M), with either test cue (T) or water (C) added to the opposite sides of the plate. The plate was placed at 37°C for 30 minutes, scored after incubation, and the CI was calculated. Intramosquito developmental dynamics were adapted from [8]. (B) dsRNA treatment of Bpa-osm-9 or Bpa-tax-4 resulted in a reduced ability of L3s to migrate to serum. Control parasites were recovered from mosquitoes injected with lacZ dsRNA. (C) dsRNA exposure does not inhibit general translational motility on the chemotaxis plate. Data represent the combined results of three independent biological replicates (cohorts of mosquito infections); each point represents the CI of an individual plate. Red diamonds and bars indicate the mean and standard error of the mean. Comparisons of means were performed using t tests (*p ≤ 0.05; ****p ≤ 0.0001). Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. CI, chemotaxis index; DPI, days postinfection; dsRNA, double-stranded RNA; L1, first stage larvae; L2, second stage larvae; L3, third stage larvae; LVP, Liverpool strain; mf, microfilaria.

Homologous TRP and CNG channels from B. malayi partially rescue sensory defects in C. elegans

To further explore the sensory functions of Brugia osm-9 and tax-4, we tested whether these genes could rescue behavioral defects in C. elegans strains with loss-of-function mutations in endogenous osm-9 or tax-4. Although the assembled genome of B. malayi is nearly chromosome scale, many of the gene models remain fragmented and unconfirmed, so we performed low-coverage isoform sequencing with long-read RNA-seq on B. malayi adult males and females. This led to the successful capture of Bma-osm-9 full-length transcripts, but it failed to capture Bma-tax-4. Using these data and the predicted gene model of Bma-tax-4, we cloned these genes for functional expression in C. elegans. We also cloned the Bma-ocr-1/2–like gene (Bm5691, or Bma-ocr-1/2a) that has the highest predicted amino acid identity to OCR-2, which functions with OSM-9 in C. elegans to enable a range of sensory behaviors.

The Bma-osm-9 clone and the two full-length isoforms captured by long-read sequencing included a 41-bp insertion that corresponded to a missing splice acceptor site at intron 17 that was not reflected in the original gene prediction (S7 Fig). This insertion caused a frameshift in the predicted amino acid sequence that made the resulting sequence more similar to the Cel-osm-9 sequence than the original prediction (S8 Fig). The consensus Bma-tax-4 transcript we cloned had two differences from the predicted model: a synonymous 694T>C that was found in four out of seven sequenced clones and a 21-bp deletion that was found in all clones and corresponds to a mispredicted splice donor site at intron 2 (S9 Fig). The consensus Bma-ocr-1/2a sequence was a perfect match to the predicted gene model. We used these clones and an array of sensory assays to test for rescue of C. elegans sensory defects by the B. malayi homologs.

These genes were initially expressed in corresponding loss-of-function C. elegans backgrounds (osm-9(ky10) and tax-4(p678)) using Cel-osm-9 and Cel-tax-4 promoter regions [30,32] and the unc-54 3′ UTR, which is commonly used for expression in somatic cells [66,67]. Though transcripts were captured via qPCR of RNA from whole worm homogenates (S10 Fig), all osm-9 transgenes (including the endogenous open reading frame) were unable to rescue chemotaxis (S11 Fig). Coexpression of Bma-ocr-1/2a with Bma-osm-9 also did not enable rescue of chemotaxis (S11 Fig). We subsequently replaced the unc-54 3′ UTRs with 3.2 kb of the Cel-osm-9 downstream region and found that this modification allowed for partial rescue of the avoidance defects but not of chemotaxis defects (Fig 8A and 8B, S12 Fig). Self-rescue with C. elegans osm-9 with the endogenous 3′ UTR also did not rescue the chemotaxis defect, suggesting that there are additional regulatory elements that enable expression in AWA. Bma-tax-4 showed partial rescue of chemotaxis to isoamyl alcohol, which is controlled by the AWC neuron, even without Cel-tax-4 3′ cis-regulatory elements (Fig 9). These results show that Brugia OSM-9 and TAX-4 are able to partially rescue C. elegans sensory defects by functioning as channel subunits in a free-living nematode cell context, suggesting some functional conservation across diverged nematode species.

Fig 8. Heterologous expression of B. malayi osm-9 partially rescues loss-of-function sensory defects in C. elegans.

Fig 8

Bma-osm-9 was cloned and expressed under the control of the endogenous Cel-osm-9 promoter and 3′ UTR [30,32]. The Cel-osm-9 open reading frame was used as a positive control. Avoidance defects (OSM-9 functioning in ASH) to (A) concentrated benzaldehyde or (B) mechanical nose touch were partially rescued by the positive control and by Bma-osm-9. Data represent the combined results of at least three independent biological replicates, each consisting of five technical replicates. Each point represents the recorded value of an individual worm. Comparisons to the loss-of-function strain were performed using t tests (*p ≤ 0.05, ***p ≤ 0.001, ****p ≤ 0.0001). Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms.

Fig 9. Heterologous expression of B. malayi tax-4 partially rescues loss-of-function chemotaxis defects in C. elegans.

Fig 9

Bma-tax-4 was cloned and expressed under the control of the endogenous Cel-tax-4 promoter. The Cel-tax-4 open reading frame was used as a positive control. Both constructs partially rescued the chemotaxis defect to isoamyl alcohol (TAX-4 functioning in AWC). Comparisons to the loss-of-function strain were performed using t tests (*p ≤ 0.05, ****p ≤ 0.0001). Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms.

Discussion

Filarial worms continue to pose a significant threat to human and animal health. The ability of filarial worms to move through and between hosts relies on their ability to sense their environment, evidenced by the diversity of genus-specific niches occupied by different filariae when they migrate within shared arthropod or vertebrate hosts (e.g., Brugia larvae migrate to the thoracic musculature of Ae. aegypti, whereas Dirofilaria migrate to the Malphigian tubules). Despite the importance of sensory behaviors in the evolution and persistence of parasitism, little is known of the receptors and pathways that control such behaviors in parasitic nematodes. Identifying mediators of sensory-associated behaviors can aid our understanding of disease transmission and pathogenesis and may also provide new targets for therapeutic intervention.

We have shown that filarial worms have a greatly reduced and divergent set of chemoreceptors as compared with C. elegans and the rest of the Nematoda but that they retain much of the core downstream chemosensory signaling pathway. Filarial parasites exhibit stage-, tissue-, and sex-specific chemoreceptor patterns that likely correspond to the different vector and host environments encountered throughout the life cycle. We expect that these patterns correspond to landmark migration events, including the migration of larvae within the mosquito host, the transmission of infective larvae (L3s) to the definitive host, the early migration of larvae in the definitive host, and the potential mate-seeking behaviors of dioecious adults.

Historically, it has been difficult to identify endogenous ligands for nematode chemoreceptors. In C. elegans, only a small fraction of chemoreceptors have been linked to activating molecules, some of which are unlikely to be the natural ligand [50,6877]. This is partly a function of the large number of chemoreceptors (>1,400) and the large space of potentially relevant terrestrial cues in free-living clade V nematodes. The smaller complement of chemoreceptors in clade IIIc filarial parasites combined with the stark temporal receptor expression patterns overlayed with possible host-derived molecules present at intrahost sites of parasite migration may facilitate a comparatively easier path to chemoreceptor deorphanization. Efforts are underway to develop new heterologous expression platforms for deorphanization that may be more amenable to the expression of nematode GPCRs, which have often been recalcitrant to expression in single-cell mammalian or yeast systems.

As in C. elegans, TRP and CNG channels in filarial worms likely function downstream of chemoreceptors expressed on the cilia of sensory amphids. We show that a TRPV chemical agonist inhibits in vitro chemotaxis of infective Brugia larvae toward host-associated cues and compromises the ability of mf to establish mosquito infections. RNAi experiments implicate both Brugia OSM-9 and TAX-4 as necessary for larval chemotaxis to serum. In C. elegans, OSM-9 and TAX-4 function as sensory transducers in distinct sensory cells that can respond to distinct cues. It is interesting that both OSM-9 and TAX-4 mediate responses to serum in Brugia. FBS is a complex heterogeneous mixture of macromolecules, amino acids, and ions, and it is conceivable that different components of this mixture activate distinct chemoreceptors, chemosensory neurons, and downstream pathways in Brugia. Little is known about the neuronal architecture of filarial worms, and it is also possible that OSM-9 and TAX-4 are coexpressed and have homologous function in the same cells. A map of the filarial worm connectome and the ability to produce transcriptional reporters would help resolve this question and will be hastened by technologies to more easily dissect filarial worm neuroanatomy and neurogenetics [78]. Furthermore, fractionation of serum into pure chemicals for chemotaxis experiments could illuminate whether multiple cells are involved in Brugia chemotactic responses to serum or other crude preparations.

CNG and TRP channels are polymodal in C. elegans and function in sensory neurons responsible for aerosensation, mechanosensation, chemosensation, noxious avoidance, and thermosensation, among others [3032,7981]. Our data suggest a similar polymodal deployment of these channels in mosquito-borne filarial worms, though the pattern of neuronal expression may differ. Although OSM-9 in C. elegans is involved in noxious heat avoidance in the nociceptive ASH neuron [80], it is TAX-4 and TAX-2 that function in the sensation of precise thermal gradients via the AFD neuron. Whether filarial worms have cooperative thermal sensory programs is unknown, but given the range of temperatures experienced by these parasites (from ambient temperatures while in mosquitoes to physiological temperatures in mammalian hosts) and the unlikelihood of experiencing or being able to avoid noxious heat or cold, the sensory program in filarial worms is likely more simple than their free-living counterparts. Our data suggest that OSM-9 is involved in this program, but CNG channels like TAX-4/TAX-2 cannot be ruled out.

Questions remain as to the stoichiometry and subunit interactions of TRP and CNG channels that function in Brugia chemosensation. Both Bma-osm-9 and Bma-tax-4 were able to rescue sensory defects in C. elegans without coexpression of putative subunits (e.g., ocr-2 and tax-2), so it is possible that the parasite subunits were able to form heteromeric channels with their free-living counterparts or that the parasite subunits were able to form homomeric channels. Regardless, the clade IIIc loss of CNG channels involved in olfactory plasticity (cng-1, cng-3) and TRP channels that are expressed in the mechanosensory labial QLQ neurons of C. elegans (ocr-4, trpa-1) demonstrate imperfect conservation of all sensory modalities and pathways between C. elegans and filarial worms, and it is possible that filarial worm TRP and CNG channels have evolved subunit interactions or primary functions that are not conserved in C. elegans [33,54,82,83].

Deeper knowledge of chemotaxis has been achieved in clade IV and V nematodes, which are more amenable than filarial worms to in vitro culture and manipulation [16,84]. Continued development of genetic tools [64,78,85] and sensory assays would help to further elucidate the molecular basis for sensory behaviors in clade III LF parasites. The in vitro chemotactic capacity of filarial worm L3s was transitory under our assay conditions. Adults, which are healthy in culture much longer than larval parasites, and mf, which can be generated in greater numbers, could offer additional platforms for sensory pathway dissection. Exploration of other sensory modalities, such as thermosensation and mechanosensation, is essential to develop a more thorough model of how filarial worms integrate sensory data in order to successfully invade, infect, and migrate within the host.

Materials and methods

Parasite and mosquito maintenance

mf, L3, and adult-stage FR3 strains of B. malayi and B. pahangi from the NIH/NIAID Filariasis Research Reagent Resource Center (FR3) [86] were maintained in RPMI 1640 culture media (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) with penicillin/streptomycin (0.1 mg/mL; Gibco, Gaithersburg, MD) and FBS (10% v/v; Gibco) unless otherwise stated. For local production of L3 B. pahangi, mf were incubated in defibrinated sheep’s blood (Hemostat, Dixon, CA) at a density of 120–160 mf per 20 μL at 37°C provided via a membrane feeder [87]. mf were exposed to groups of 250 adult female (1–3 days postemergence) Ae. aegypti LVP mosquitoes, which had been starved 1 day prior to feeding. Infected mosquitoes were maintained in double-caged cartons in a Percival Scientific incubator (I-36NL, Perry, IA) at 26°C with 85% humidity and a 12-hour light/dark cycle and provided 10% sucrose throughout.

At 14 DPI, L3 parasites were extracted into warm Aedes saline [88] or RPMI 1640 via microdissection of cold-anesthetized mosquitoes or bulk isolation as previously described [9]. Prevalence and locality of L3s were determined by separating head, thorax, and abdominal tissues during dissection with all L3s counted per mosquito. B. malayi adults used for RNA-seq were received from the FR3 and were immediately washed and placed in new complete media. Adult parasites were allowed to equilibrate at 37°C for 24 hours before any further experimentation.

C. elegans strains

C. elegans strains were maintained at 20°C on NGM plates seeded with Escherichia coli strain OP50 and routinely picked to fresh plates at the L4 stage. Transgenic strains were created as described [89] by microinjecting 50 ng/μL of parasite transgene, combined with either unc-122p::GFP or myo-2p::GFP as coinjection markers and an empty vector to achieve a final concentration of 100 ng/uL. Three independently derived lines were created for each transgenic strain and maintained separately. Genotypes used include osm-9(ky10) IV, tax-4(p678) III, ZAM13: osm-9(ky10) IV, mazEx13[osm-9p::Bma-osm-9::unc-54 3′UTR; unc-122p::GFP], ZAM14: tax-4(p678) III, mazEx14[tax-4p::Bma-tax-4::unc-54 3′UTR; myo-2p::GFP], ZAM17: osm-9(ky10) IV, mazEx13[osm-9p::Bma-osm-9::unc-54 3′UTR; unc-122p::GFP], mazEx17[osm-9p::Bma-ocr-1/2a::unc-54 3′UTR; myo-2p::GFP], ZAM18: osm-9(ky10) IV, mazEx18[osm-9p::Cel-osm-9::unc-54 3′UTR; unc-122p::GFP], ZAM21: tax-4(p678) III, mazEx19[tax-4p::Cel-tax-4::unc-54 3′UTR; myo-2p::GFP], ZAM22: osm-9(ky10) IV, mazEx20[osm-9p::Bma-osm-9::osm-9 3′UTR; myo-2p::GFP], ZAM24: osm-9(ky10) IV, and mazEx21[osm-9p::Cel-osm-9::osm-9 3′UTR; myo-2p::GFP].

mRNA expression of some B. malayi genes in transgenic C. elegans was confirmed with qPCR (S10 Fig; primer sequences are included in S4 File). A 20-μL qPCR reaction was optimized using 2× PowerUp SYBR Green MasterMix (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and 10 ng of RNA isolated from mixed populations from two to three chunked plates as described [90] converted to cDNA with SuperScript III using an equal amount of random hexamer and oligo(dT) primers. Reactions were run in duplicate on a StepOnePlus real-time PCR system (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, Massachusetts). CT values were calculated with the system’s automatic threshold, and relative expression was calculated with the ΔΔCT method [91]. Parasite transcripts in negative controls (knock-out C. elegans strains) were undetected in all cases, and CT was set to 40 to calculate a ΔΔCT for data visualization.

Comparative genomics

Chemosensory GPCRs

The chemoreceptor mining and annotation strategy is charted in S1 Fig. Briefly, all filarial worm predicted proteomes in WormBase ParaSite version 9 [39] and a selected list of high-quality genomes that included representatives from the four major nematode clades (39 total species, S1 Table) were searched (hmmsearch [92]) against a database of profile hidden Markov models (HMMs) curated by Pfam, consisting of primary metazoan GPCR families and the nematode chemoreceptor families [93]. Predicted proteins were filtered such that each that had a best-hit to a nematode chemoreceptor HMM was retained. Surviving predicted proteins were then used in a reciprocal search (hmmsearch) against the entire Pfam HMM database. Predicted proteins that had a best-hit to a nematode chemoreceptor HMM were retained. Surviving predicted proteins were then searched (blastp [94]) against the C. elegans predicted proteome (N2, WBPS9), and predicted proteins that had a best-hit to a C. elegans chemoreceptor (S4 Data) were retained (C. elegans chemoreceptors were obtained by downloading all named chemoreceptors from WormBase and their paralogues via the WormBase ParaSite API).

TRP and CNG receptors

Predicted protein sequences of annotated TRP and CNG channels from C. elegans were downloaded from WormBase [95] and used as seeds in blastp searches against all predicted proteomes included in S1 Table. Hits with an E-value < 0.01 were reciprocally searched against the C. elegans predicted proteome, and any hit that was not most similar to a C. elegans TRP or CNG channel was removed. Because there were clade and species-specific gene losses in the CNG family, C. elegans seeds were also used in a tblastn search against parasite genomes to account for missing gene models and possible errors in gene predictions.

Phylogenetics

Chemosensory GPCRs

Predicted protein sequences belonging to C. elegans chemoreceptor families [40] were aligned by family with MAFFT [96]. The resulting family profile HMMs were sequentially aligned with MUSCLE [97] to create a master C. elegans chemoreceptor alignment. Predicted chemoreceptors from 19 selected species underwent transmembrane (TM) domain prediction with HMMTOP [98], and only those that contained exactly 7 predicted TMs were aligned to the master alignment. This final multiple sequence alignment was trimmed with trimAl [99] such that columns with greater than 30% gaps were removed, and sequences that did not have at least 70% of residues that aligned to columns supported by 70% of the sequences were removed.

The trimmed, filtered alignment was subjected to maximum-likelihood phylogenetic inference with IQ-TREE [100] and ModelFinder [101] with ultrafast bootstrapping [102], using the VT substitution matrix [103] with empirical base frequencies and a free-rate substitution model [104,105] with 10 categories. Bootstrap values from 1,000 replicates were drawn as nodal support onto the maximum-likelihood tree.

TRP and CNG receptors

Putative TRP sequences underwent TM prediction, and any sequence with ≥1 predicted TM was retained. TRP and CNG sequences were separately aligned and trimmed such that columns with greater than 25% gaps were removed, and CNG sequences that did not have at least 70% of residues that aligned columns supported by 70% of the sequences were removed. For both datasets, fragments with large gaps or putative isoforms were manually removed. Alignments were subjected to Bayesian phylogenetic inference with MrBayes [106]. The MCMC chain was run for 10,000,000 generations, with a sample taken every 1,000 generations. Eight separate chains were run, with two hot chains and the temperature set to 0.05. Consensus trees were drawn using the 50% majority rule, with all compatible groups added, and posterior probabilities were drawn as nodal support. All trees were annotated with ggtree [107].

B. malayi transcriptomic analyses

Anterior and posterior B. malayi transcripts

One millimeter of the anterior and posterior ends of 19 adult male and 18 adult female B. malayi were cut from live parasites and immediately transferred to Trizol (Ambion, Waltham, MA). Tissue in Trizol was homogenized with a plastic pestle, and RNA was extracted with Direct-zol RNA miniprep kit (Zymo, Irvine, CA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and was eluted in RNase-free water. RNA was DNase treated on the column, and the quality of purified RNA was assessed with Qubit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and Bioanalyzer Pico chip (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA). RNA was rRNA depleted with Ribo-Zero ScriptSeq Complete Gold (Blood) (Illumina, San Diego, CA), and sequencing libraries were constructed using the TruSeq Stranded Total RNA kit (Illumina). All samples were sequenced at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Biotechnology Center with an Illumina HiSeq 2500 with a single-end 100-bp read setting. Reads were adapter and quality trimmed using Trimmomatic [108]. HISAT2 [109] and StringTie [110] were used to align reads to the B. malayi reference genome (WormBase ParaSite [39], release 12 version 4) and to produce TPM counts for annotated genes. The RNA-seq pipeline was implemented using Nextflow [111] and is publicly available (https://github.com/zamanianlab/Bmalayi_HTRNAseq-nf). Custom R scripts were used for profiling, hierarchical clustering, and visualization of putative chemosensory gene expression across anterior and posterior samples.

Stage-specific expression of B. malayi chemosensory genes

Public stage-specific RNA-seq data [53] were acquired from NCBI SRA. Reads were aligned to version 4 of the B. malayi genome, which was downloaded from version 12 of WormBase ParaSite [39]. Reads were aligned with HISAT2 [109] and StringTie [110]. Custom R scripts were used for profiling, hierarchical clustering, and visualization of putative chemosensory gene expression across life stages. Heatmaps of life stage expression were drawn according to chromosomal location. The RNA-seq pipeline was implemented using Nextflow [111] and is publicly available (https://github.com/zamanianlab/BmalayiRNAseq-nf). Locus information was extracted from GTF files from WormBase ParaSite[39][112].

Brugia chemotaxis assays

All chemotaxis assays were performed immediately after extraction of L3s from in-house infections and following previously published protocols [2527]. For NAM (DOT Scientific, Burton, MI) treatment experiments, extracted parasites were first sorted from warm RPMI 1640 into room temperature RPMI 1640, and half of the parasites were placed in media supplemented with a final concentration of 250 μM NAM and incubated for 30 minutes. Heat-inactivated FBS (Gibco), 1 M NaCl (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and 1:1 3-methyl-1-butanol (Thermo Fisher Scientific) in mineral oil were used as cues. A curved platinum worm pick was used to remove L3s from warm media and place them on 0.8% agarose plates; plates were transferred to a 37°C incubator with 5% atmospheric CO2; and parasites were allowed to migrate for 30 minutes, after which the plates were removed and scored. Eight to ten parasites were added per plate. The CI of each plate was calculated as follows: CI = (T − C) / (T + C + O), where T is the number of parasites that migrated to the test cue, C is the number that migrated to the control cue, and O is the number that migrated outside of the designated cue areas. To account for parasite injury in transfer, only plates that had C + T + O ≥ 5 were used for statistical analysis and plotting. Experiments using FBS and NaCl as cues included three biological replicates, and experiments with 3-methyl-1-butanol included two biological replicates. Biological replicates are defined as groups of larvae originating from separate cohorts of mosquito infections (approximately 250 infected mosquitoes) and separate cohorts of mf extractions. L3 parasites were subsequently extracted and assayed on different days. Technical variation was accounted for on each assay day by performing at least three assays (i.e., chemotaxis plates) per biological replicate.

Larval coiling assay

NAM treatment of B. pahangi L3s was performed with parasites from in-house infections or received from the FR3. After extraction or receipt, parasites were washed with fresh RPMI 1640 and suspended in complete media (RPMI 1640 + 10% FBS + penicillin/streptomycin) at a density of one parasite per 2 μL. A 96-well plate was arranged with 50 μL of complete media with 2× NAM in each well, and parasites were pipetted into each individual well to create a density of 10–25 parasites per well in a final volume of 100 μL. Plates were immediately transferred to a 37°C incubator with 5% atmospheric CO2 and were left untouched until videos were recorded at 24 and 48 hours posttreatment. Care was taken not to disturb parasites while transferring the plates from the incubator to the recording stage. Parasites were allowed to cool at room temperature for 20 minutes on the recording stage, after which each well was recorded for 10 seconds at 16 FPS. Recording was performed at 2.5× on a Zeiss Stemi 508 with a K LAB stand and oblique light with a monochrome CMOS camera (DMK 33UX178, The Imaging Source). Parasites were returned to the incubator immediately after recording.

Coiling experiments included three biological replicates, defined as groups of larvae originating from separate cohorts of mosquito infections (approximately 250 infected mosquitoes) and separate cohorts of mf extractions. L3 parasites were extracted and assayed on different days. An entire dose–response curve was performed for each replicate (100 nM to 1 mM), and at least four technical replicates (wells) of 10–25 parasites were included in each biological replicate.

Videos were manually scored and analyzed with a bespoke optical flow algorithm implemented in Python that calculates mean motility units (mmu) and has similarities to previous implementations [113,114]. Relevant differences include the utilization of a dense flow algorithm that analyzes every pixel in the image instead of focusing on a sparse set of features, post hoc analysis rather than real-time tracking to allow for greater quality control, and image segmentation to calculate worm area to enable interwell normalization. Source code and a recommended Conda environment can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaMotilityAnalysis.

For manual scoring of larval coiling, videos were assigned randomized file names and distributed to three researchers. Researchers blindly rated each well on a scale of 0–5, where 0 is the most coiling and 5 is the least coiling (the template with scoring instructions is provided in S3 File). Scores were collated, and data were blindly analyzed and plotted with the tidyverse package [115] and custom R scripts.

Ae. aegypti feeding and engorgement assays

At 2–3 days postemergence, pools of 25–50 adult female Ae. aegypti LVP strain mosquitoes were starved for 24 hours and then provided with a blood meal for 30 minutes via a glass membrane feeder [87]. Immediately after feeding, groups were cold anesthetized and visually inspected for distended abdomens to measure the proportion of feeding mosquitoes. Blood meal size was measured by calculating the ratio of the mosquito length (abdomen tip to thorax) to width (dorsoventral width at the fifth abdominal segment) using Fiji [116](S5 Fig).

Larval temperature-shift assay and qPCR

B. pahangi L3s were extracted in bulk and separated into three treatment groups: immediate storage in Trizol LS (Ambion); 1 mL RPMI 1640 + 10% FBS + penicillin/streptomycin at room temperature; or 1 mL RPMI 1640 + 10% FBS + penicillin/streptomycin in a 37°C heat block. Parasites were incubated in media for 4 hours. After incubation, medium was removed, and parasites were washed once in fresh RPMI 1640 and stored in Trizol LS at −80°C until processing. To extract RNA, samples were thawed on ice, and the volume was adjusted to a final ratio of 3:1 Trizol LS:RNase-free water. Samples were lysed with a TissueLyser LT (Qiagen, Venlo, The Netherlands). One 5-mm stainless steel bead was added to each tube, which then underwent two cycles of 3 minutes of shaking at 30 Hz. Tubes were cooled on ice for 2 minutes in between cycles. RNA was extracted with the Direct-zol RNA miniprep kit (Zymo) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, including an on-column DNase treatment, and RNA was eluted in 15 μL of RNase-free water. RNA samples were quantified with a NanoDrop 1000 and immediately used for first-strand cDNA synthesis with SuperScript III (Thermo Fisher Scientific) using random hexamers and normalizing RNA input. cDNA was stored at −20°C until further use.

For qPCR, GAPDH control primers [117] and osm-9 primers (designed with Primer3 [118], F: CCCGCTGATCCAAACATTG, R: TGCACTACACGTCATATCACTG) were optimized with B. pahangi L3 RNA from the FR3 with cDNA synthesized using the same SuperScript III master mix as the experimental RNA samples. A 20-μL reaction was used with 2× PowerUp SYBR Green MasterMix, 800 nM primers, and 5.2 ng RNA. Reactions were run in duplicate on a StepOnePlus real-time PCR system. CT values were calculated with the system’s automatic threshold, and relative expression was calculated with the ΔΔCT method [91].

In squito exposure of infective larva to Bpa-osm-9 and Bpa-tax-4 dsRNAs

Primers were designed to amplify 200- to 600-bp regions from cloned Bma-tax-4 and Bma-osm-9, which had >95% identity with their B. pahangi orthologs, and T7 recognition sequences were appended to the 5′ end of each primer. Cloned genes (below) were used as template DNA for PCRs with Phusion polymerase (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA). Complete dsRNA synthesis protocols, including primer sequences and thermocycler programs, can be found in S4 File. PCR product was cleaned (Qiagen MinElute PCR Purification Kit) and resuspended in water at a desired concentration of 1–2 μg/μL as measured by a Qubit 3.0 dsDNA assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific). This product was subsequently used as the template for a dsRNA synthesis reaction (MegaScript RNAi, Thermo Fisher Scientific). dsRNA was RNase and DNase treated, purified with phenol/chloroform, precipitated in cold isopropanol, and resuspended in nuclease-free water at a concentration of 1–4 μg/μL. The concentrations and purity of 1:20 dilutions of dsRNA were measured with a NanoDrop 1000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific).

Ae. aegypti LVP strain mosquitoes were infected in batches of 250 with B. pahangi mf as described above. After blood feeding, 25 mosquitoes were organized into small cardboard cartons in preparation for injection. Injections of dsRNA were carried out by delivering the dose via a glass microcapillary needle to the cervical membrane at the junction between the head and thorax, avoiding puncture of any sclerotized cuticle, and with the following modifications of an established protocol [64]. Prior to injection, infected mosquitoes were starved by removing sucrose pads 8 DPI. At 9 DPI, infected mosquitoes were injected with 250 μL of 1 μg/μL dsRNA, coinciding with the L2-to-L3 molt in the thoracic musculature [8]. Mosquitoes were injected in cohorts of 25, cohorts were immediately returned to 26°C, and sucrose pads were replaced. Dead mosquitoes were removed daily until time of assay at 14 DPI, at which point mosquitoes were dissected to extract L3s for use in chemotaxis assays.

Long-read sequencing in B. malayi adult males and females

Total RNA from B. malayi adult males and females was obtained from the FR3. RNA quality was assessed by a 2100 Bioanalyzer, converted to single-stranded cDNA and amplified using the SMARTer PCR cDNA Synthesis Kit (Takara Bio, Kusatsu, Japan), and Iso-Seq libraries were constructed with equimolar cDNA fractions (0.5× and 1×) with the SMRTbell Template Prep Kit 1.0 (Pacific Biosciences, Menlo Park, CA). Library quantity and quality were assessed by Qubit HS DNA (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and 2100 Bioanalyzer. Isoforms were clustered and polished from subreads with IsoSeq2, visualized with IGV [119], and annotated with BLAST [120].

Cloning of osm-9 and tax-4 homologs

Primers directed toward the ATG start codon, stop codon, or 3′ UTR region of the Iso-Seq–generated gene model of Bma-osm-9 and the predicted gene model of Bma-tax-4 and Bma-ocr-1/2a (the B. malayi gene with the highest amino acid identity to Cel-ocr-2) were designed with Primer3 [118]. A full-length amplicon was produced with Phusion or Q5 polymerases (New England Biolabs). Amplicons were A-tailed with GoTaq Flexi (Promega, Madison, WI) and cloned into pGEM-T in JM109 competent cells (Promega). C. elegans N2 genomic DNA was extracted with the Qiagen DNeasy kit. An approximately 1.6-kb portion upstream of Cel-osm-9 [32] and an approximately 3-kb portion upstream of Cel-tax-4 [30] were amplified and cloned into pGEM-T as above. Final expression constructs were assembled with the HiFi Assembly kit (New England Biolabs) using amplicons generated with Q5 polymerase from the promoter and gene as two fragments and pPD95.75 (a gift from Andrew Fire [Addgene plasmid # 1494; http://n2t.net/addgene:1494; RRID: Addgene_1494]) double-digested with XbaI and EcoRI as the backbone. A BamHI restriction site was added between the promoter and open reading frames. C. elegans osm-9 and tax-4 open reading frames were amplified from plasmids (gifts from Shawn Xu [121] and Cornelia Bargmann [122], respectively) with Q5 polymerase. Each C. elegans gene was assembled into previously created expression vectors by replacing B. malayi genes with BamHI/EcoRI double digestions. The unc-54 3′ UTR of the pPD95.75 backbone was replaced in all constructs containing osm-9 homologs by double-digesting final constructs with EcoRI/BsiWI or PCR amplifying the entire plasmid without the unc-54 3′ UTR and assembling the resulting fragments with the Cel-osm-9 3′ UTR amplicon. Complete cloning protocols, including primer sequences and thermocycler programs, can be found in S4 File. All products were verified by Sanger sequencing. Expression vectors were injected into C. elegans hermaphrodites as described, and transgenic strains were used for rescue experiments.

C. elegans sensory assays

Population chemotaxis assays were performed as described [123]. For each strain, five L4 worms from three independently derived lines were picked to each of five seeded NGM plates 5 days before the assay date. On assay day, worms from independent lines were washed off plates and pooled with M9 into a single tube per strain, washed with M9 three times, and washed once with water. For each of five 10-cm chemotaxis plates (2% agar, 5 mM KH2PO4/K2HPO4 [pH 6.0], 1 mM CaCl2 and 1 mM MgSO4) per strain, 1 μL of 1 M sodium azide was place on opposite sides of the plate and allowed to soak in with the plate lids removed. Once dry, 1 μL of cue and diluent were then placed at the same location as the sodium azide on opposing sides of the plate. Diacetyl (1:1,000; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA) and isoamyl alcohol (1:10; Thermo Fisher Scientific) in ethanol were used as cues for the osm-9 and tax-4 experiments, respectively. After the addition of cues, 100–200 worms were quickly pipetted to the center of assay plates. Excess water was removed with a Kimwipe (Kimberly-Clark, Irving, TX), and worms were gently spread with a platinum worm pick. Plates were left untouched on a benchtop for 60 minutes at room temperature (approximately 21°C), after which animals were counted in total and at each cue and control region. The CI of each plate was calculated as follows: CI = (T − C) / (T + C + O), where T is the number of worms that were paralyzed at the test cue, C is the number at the control, and O is the number that had migrated to neither the test nor the control.

Benzaldehyde avoidance assays were performed as described [32,124]. Young adult animals were transferred to unseeded NGM plates, and 2 μL of benzaldehyde (Sigma-Aldrich) in a 20-μL borosilicate capillary was held in front of the animal’s nose while the time to reversal was recorded. Five animals per strain were exposed a single time for each replicate, and a minimum of three replicates were performed.

Nose-touch reversal assays were performed as described [125]. Young adult animals were transferred to unseeded NGM plates and observed for reversal movement after colliding head-on with an eyelash. For each replicate, five animals per strain were observed for reversal after 10 successive collisions, and a minimum of three replicates were performed.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Spreadsheet of species included in the comparative analysis, clade designation, genome BioProject, and whether or not each species is represented in the trees.

(XLSX)

S1 Data. Chemoreceptor IQ-TREE consensus tree in Newick format.

(TXT)

S2 Data. TRP MrBayes consensus tree in Nexus format.

TRP, transient receptor potential.

(TXT)

S3 Data. CNG MrBayes consensus tree in Nexus format.

CNG, cyclic nucleotide–gated.

(TXT)

S4 Data. List of C. elegans chemoreceptor IDs. ID, identifier.

(TXT)

S1 Fig. Flow chart of comparative genomics pipeline as described in Materials and methods.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Total chemoreceptor count as a function of genome contiguity.

The number of chemoreceptors in a given genome is not correlated to genome contiguity as measured by N50 (Spearman’s rank-order correlation, ρ = 0.182, p = 0.268). Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms.

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Alternative plot of B. malayi head/tail RNA-seq (Fig 2).

Chemoreceptors are colored by superfamily annotation. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. RNA-seq, RNA sequencing.

(PDF)

S4 Fig. Motility analysis of L3 parasites after cooling and warming.

Worms move less after being cooled to room temperature, and motility subsequently increases after returning to 37°C. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. L3, third stage larvae.

(PDF)

S5 Fig. Representative images of measured mosquito abdomens.

(A) Unfed. (B) Fed with unsupplemented blood. (C) Fed with blood supplemented with 5 mM NAM. (D) Fed with blood supplemented with 25 mM NAM. NAM, nicotinamide.

(PDF)

S6 Fig. L3 recovery correlation plot.

The proportion of L3s recovered in the mosquito thorax does not correlate with the total L3s recovered per mosquito. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. L3, third stage larvae.

(PDF)

S7 Fig. osm-9 nucleotide alignment.

The missing splice acceptor in the predicted gene model (Bm-osm-9_Bm1711.1) can be seen on the line starting with nucleotide 2,401.

(PDF)

S8 Fig. osm-9 amino acid alignment, including Inactive from Drosophila melanogaster.

The missing splice acceptor in the predicted gene model (Bm-osm-9_Bm1711.1), which led to a frameshift in the predicted amino acid sequence, can be seen on the line starting with amino acid 781.

(PDF)

S9 Fig. tax-4 amino acid alignment.

The mispredicted splice donor in the predicted gene model (Bm-tax-4_Bm7343.1), which led to a 7-aa deletion, can be seen on the line starting with amino acid 131.

(PDF)

S10 Fig. qPCR results for knock-out and transgenic strains.

All transgenic strains had detectable RNA levels of the transgenes. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. ND, not determined; qPCR, quantitative PCR.

(PDF)

S11 Fig. Sensory assay data for osm-9 strains with unc-54 3′ UTR.

Strains with the unc-54 3′ UTR were unable to rescue (A) defects in chemotaxis to diacetyl, (B) avoidance of concentrated benzaldehyde, or (C) reversal after light nose touch. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms.

(PDF)

S12 Fig. Chemotaxis assay data for osm-9 strains with osm-9 3′ UTR.

Strains with the osm-9 3′ UTR were unable to rescue defects in chemotaxis to diacetyl. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms.

(PDF)

S1 File. List of all identified chemoreceptors with family and superfamily annotations.

Raw data can also be filtered and downloaded at https://zamanianlab.shinyapps.io/ChemoR/.

(CSV)

S2 File. List of nematode species included in Fig 1D with assigned category and justification.

(XLSX)

S3 File. Template with instructions for assigning L3 coiling scores.

L3, third stage larvae.

(XLSX)

S4 File. Complete protocols for all cloning efforts.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

Some C. elegans strains were provided by the CGC. Parasite materials were provided by the NIH/NIAID Filariasis Research Reagent Resource Center (www.filariasiscenter.org). Sanger sequencing and RNA-seq were carried out at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Biotechnology Center. The authors would like to thank Tran To and Elena Garncarz for their assistance with the C. elegans behavioral assays, as well as members of the Zamanian laboratory for critical comments on the manuscript.

Abbreviations

CI

chemotaxis index

CNG

cyclic nucleotide–gated

DEC

diethylcarbamazine citrate

DPE

days postextraction

DPI

days postinfection

dsRNA

double-stranded RNA

FBS

fetal bovine serum

GPCR

G protein–coupled receptor

HPE

hours postextraction

IVM

ivermectin

L1

first stage larvae

L2

second stage larvae

L3

third stage larvae

L4

fourth stage larvae

LF

lymphatic filariasis

LVP

Liverpool strain

MDA

mass drug administration

mf

microfilaria

NAM

nicotinamide

qPCR

quantitative PCR

RNAi

RNA interference

RNA-seq

RNA sequencing

TRP

transient receptor potential

TPM

transcripts per million

Data Availability

All raw data and scripts used for comparative genomics, phylogenetics, data analysis, and data visualization are publicly available at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. The optical flow algorithm for motility analysis is available at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaMotilityAnalysis. Short-read and long-read sequencing data has been deposited into NIH BioProjects PRJNA548881 and PRJNA548902, respectively. An interactive version of Fig 1 and S2 Fig is available at https://zamanianlab.shinyapps.io/ChemoR/, where chemoreceptor annotation and amino acid sequence data is available for download.

Funding Statement

Funding for MZ is provided by NIH NIAID K22 (K22AI125473, NIH.gov) and R01 (R01AI151171,NIH.gov) grants, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF, warf.org), and the National Center for Veterinary Parasitology (NCVP, ncvetp.org). Funding for LCB is provided by an NIH NIAID grant (R21AI117204). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.James SL, Abate D, Abate KH, Abay SM, Abbafati C, Abbasi N, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392: 1789–1858. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Krishna Kumari A, Harichandrakumar KT, Das LK, Krishnamoorthy K. Physical and psychosocial burden due to lymphatic filariasis as perceived by patients and medical experts. Trop Med Int Health. 2005;10: 567–573. 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2005.01426.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Weiss MG. Stigma and the social burden of neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2: e237 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ton TGN, Mackenzie C, Molyneux DH. The burden of mental health in lymphatic filariasis. Infect Dis Poverty. 2015;4: 34 10.1186/s40249-015-0068-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.World Health Organization. Weekly epidemiological record. 2018 Nov [cited 2019 Feb 16]. Report No. 44. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/275719/WER9344.pdf?ua=1.
  • 6.King CL, Suamani J, Sanuku N, Cheng Y-C, Satofan S, Mancuso B, et al. A Trial of a Triple-Drug Treatment for Lymphatic Filariasis. N Engl J Med. 2018;379: 1801–1810. 10.1056/NEJMoa1706854 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Anderson RC, Anderson RC. Nematode Parasites of Vertebrates: Their Development and Transmission. Wallingford, UK: CABI Pub.; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Erickson SM, Xi Z, Mayhew GF, Ramirez JL, Aliota MT, Christensen BM, et al. Mosquito infection responses to developing filarial worms. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3: e529 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lindsay SW. The migration of infective larvae of Brugia pahangi within the mosquito, Aedes aegypti. Parasitology. 1986;92: 369–378. 10.1017/s0031182000064131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Denham DA, McGreevy PB. Brugian filariasis: epidemiological and experimental studies. Adv Parasitol. 1977;15: 243–309. 10.1016/s0065-308x(08)60530-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bartholomay LC. Infection barriers and responses in mosquito—filarial worm interactions. Current Opinion in Insect Science. 2014;3: 37–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kilarski WW, Martin C, Pisano M, Bain O, Babayan SA, Swartz MA. Inherent biomechanical traits enable infective filariae to disseminate through collecting lymphatic vessels. Nat Commun. 2019;10: 2895 10.1038/s41467-019-10675-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bryant AS, Ruiz F, Gang SS, Castelletto ML, Lopez JB, Hallem EA. A Critical Role for Thermosensation in Host Seeking by Skin-Penetrating Nematodes. Curr Biol. 2018;28: 2338–2347.e6. 10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Castelletto ML, Gang SS, Okubo RP, Tselikova AA, Nolan TJ, Platzer EG, et al. Diverse host-seeking behaviors of skin-penetrating nematodes. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10: e1004305 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gang SS, Castelletto ML, Bryant AS, Yang E, Mancuso N, Lopez JB, et al. Targeted mutagenesis in a human-parasitic nematode. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13: e1006675 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006675 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gang SS, Hallem EA. Mechanisms of host seeking by parasitic nematodes. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2016;208: 23–32. 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2016.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tsubokawa D, Hatta T, Kikuchi T, Maeda H, Mikami F, Alim MA, et al. Venestatin, a Ca++-binding protein from the parasitic nematode Strongyloides venezuelensis, is involved in the larval migration process. Int J Parasitol. 2017;47: 501–509. 10.1016/j.ijpara.2017.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ruiz F, Castelletto ML, Gang SS, Hallem EA. Experience-dependent olfactory behaviors of the parasitic nematode Heligmosomoides polygyrus. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13: e1006709 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Baiocchi T, Lee G, Choe D-H, Dillman AR. Host seeking parasitic nematodes use specific odors to assess host resources. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 6270 10.1038/s41598-017-06620-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dillman AR, Guillermin ML, Lee JH, Kim B, Sternberg PW, Hallem EA. Olfaction shapes host–parasite interactions in parasitic nematodes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109: E2324–E2333. 10.1073/pnas.1211436109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hallem EA, Dillman AR, Hong AV, Zhang Y, Yano JM, DeMarco SF, et al. A sensory code for host seeking in parasitic nematodes. Curr Biol. 2011;21: 377–383. 10.1016/j.cub.2011.01.048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bryant AS, Hallem EA. Terror in the dirt: Sensory determinants of host seeking in soil-transmitted mammalian-parasitic nematodes. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2018;8: 496–510. 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2018.10.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Blaxter M, Koutsovoulos G. The evolution of parasitism in Nematoda. Parasitology. 2015;142 Suppl 1: S26–39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fraser LM, Isai Madriz R, Srinivasan D, Zamanian M, Bartholomay LC, Kimber MJ. Chemosensory structure and function in the filarial nematode, Brugia malayi. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2018. p. 427229 10.1101/427229 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gunawardena NK, Fujimaki Y, Aoki Y. Chemotactic response of Brugia pahangi infective larvae to jird serum in vitro. Parasitol Res. 2003;90: 337–342. 10.1007/s00436-003-0838-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kusaba T, Fujimaki Y, Vincent AL, Aoki Y. In vitro chemotaxis of Brugia pahangi infective larvae to the sera and hemolymph of mammals and lower animals. Parasitol Int. 2008;57: 179–184. 10.1016/j.parint.2007.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mitsui Y, Miura M, Bome DA, Aoki Y. In vitro chemotactic responses of Brugia pahangi infective larvae to sodium ions. J Helminthol. 2012;86: 406–409. 10.1017/S0022149X11000605 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Taylor AE. The development of Dirofilaria immitis in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. J Helminthol. 1960;34: 27–38. 10.1017/s0022149x00020307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bargmann CI. Chemosensation in C. elegans In: The C. elegans Research Community, editor. WormBook, WormBook; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Komatsu H, Mori I, Rhee J-S, Akaike N, Ohshima Y. Mutations in a Cyclic Nucleotide–Gated Channel Lead to Abnormal Thermosensation and Chemosensation in C. elegans. Neuron. 1996;17: 707–718. 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80202-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Coburn CM, Bargmann CI. A Putative Cyclic Nucleotide–Gated Channel Is Required for Sensory Development and Function in C. elegans. Neuron. 1996;17: 695–706. 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80201-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Colbert HA, Smith TL, Bargmann CI. OSM-9, a novel protein with structural similarity to channels, is required for olfaction, mechanosensation, and olfactory adaptation in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Neurosci. 1997;17: 8259–8269. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-21-08259.1997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tobin DM, Madsen DM, Kahn-Kirby A, Peckol EL, Moulder G, Barstead R, et al. Combinatorial expression of TRPV channel proteins defines their sensory functions and subcellular localization in C. elegans neurons. Neuron. 2002;35: 307–318. 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00757-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ressler KJ, Sullivan SL, Buck LB. A zonal organization of odorant receptor gene expression in the olfactory epithelium. Cell. 1993;73: 597–609. 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90145-g [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vassar R, Ngai J, Axel R. Spatial segregation of odorant receptor expression in the mammalian olfactory epithelium. Cell. 1993;74: 309–318. 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90422-m [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Vidal B, Aghayeva U, Sun H, Wang C, Glenwinkel L, Bayer EA, et al. An atlas of Caenorhabditis elegans chemoreceptor expression. PLoS Biol. 2018;16: e2004218 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Blaxter ML, De Ley P, Garey JR, Liu LX, Scheldeman P, Vierstraete A, et al. A molecular evolutionary framework for the phylum Nematoda. Nature. 1998;392: 71 10.1038/32160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.International Helminth Genomes Consortium. Comparative genomics of the major parasitic worms. Nat Genet. 2019;51: 163–174. 10.1038/s41588-018-0262-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Howe KL, Bolt BJ, Shafie M, Kersey P, Berriman M. WormBase ParaSite—a comprehensive resource for helminth genomics. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2017;215: 2–10. 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2016.11.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Thomas JH, Robertson HM. The Caenorhabditis chemoreceptor gene families. BMC Biol. 2008;6: 42 10.1186/1741-7007-6-42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Robertson HM, Thomas JH. The putative chemoreceptor families of C. elegans In: The C. elegans Research Community, editor. WormBook; WormBook; 2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Krishnan A, Almén MS, Fredriksson R, Schiöth HB. Insights into the origin of nematode chemosensory GPCRs: putative orthologs of the Srw family are found across several phyla of protostomes. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e93048 10.1371/journal.pone.0093048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cotton JA, Bennuru S, Grote A, Harsha B, Tracey A, Beech R, et al. The genome of Onchocerca volvulus, agent of river blindness. Nat Microbiol. 2016;2: 16216 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.216 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Desjardins CA, Cerqueira GC, Goldberg JM, Dunning Hotopp JC, Haas BJ, Zucker J, et al. Genomics of Loa loa, a Wolbachia-free filarial parasite of humans. Nat Genet. 2013;45: 495–500. 10.1038/ng.2585 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Jackson AP. Preface. The evolution of parasite genomes and the origins of parasitism. Parasitology. 2015;142 Suppl 1: S1–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Srinivasan J, Dillman AR, Macchietto MG, Heikkinen L, Lakso M, Fracchia KM, et al. The draft genome and transcriptome of Panagrellus redivivus are shaped by the harsh demands of a free-living lifestyle. Genetics. 2013;193: 1279–1295. 10.1534/genetics.112.148809 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.McLaren DJ. Ultrastructural and cytochemical studies on the sensory organelles and nervous system of Dipetalonema viteae (Nematoda: Filarioidea). Parasitology. 1972;65: 507–524. 10.1017/s0031182000044127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mclaren DJ. Nematode Sense Organs In: Dawes B, editor. Advances in Parasitology. London: Academic Press; 1976. pp. 195–265. 10.1016/s0065-308x(08)60515-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Liu Z, Kariya MJ, Chute CD, Pribadi AK, Leinwand SG, Tong A, et al. Predator-secreted sulfolipids induce defensive responses in C. elegans. Nat Commun. 2018;9: 1128 10.1038/s41467-018-03333-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tran A, Tang A, O’Loughlin CT, Balistreri A, Chang E, Coto Villa D, et al. C. elegans avoids toxin-producing Streptomyces using a seven transmembrane domain chemosensory receptor. Elife. 2017;6 10.7554/eLife.23770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Shtonda BB, Avery L. Dietary choice behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Exp Biol. 2006;209: 89–102. 10.1242/jeb.01955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Barrios A, Nurrish S, Emmons SW. Sensory regulation of C. elegans male mate-searching behavior. Curr Biol. 2008;18: 1865–1871. 10.1016/j.cub.2008.10.050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Chung M, Teigen L, Libro S, Bromley RE, Kumar N, Sadzewicz L, et al. Multispecies Transcriptomics Data Set of Brugia malayi, Its Wolbachia Endosymbiont wBm, and Aedes aegypti across the B. malayi Life Cycle. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2018;7 10.1128/MRA.01306-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kindt KS, Viswanath V, Macpherson L, Quast K, Hu H, Patapoutian A, et al. Caenorhabditis elegans TRPA-1 functions in mechanosensation. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10: 568–577. 10.1038/nn1886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Xing J, Yan X, Estevez A, Strange K. Highly Ca2+-selective TRPM channels regulate IP3-dependent oscillatory Ca2+ signaling in the C. elegans intestine. J Gen Physiol. 2008;131: 245–255. 10.1085/jgp.200709914 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Smith HK, Luo L, O’Halloran D, Guo D, Huang X-Y, Samuel ADT, et al. Defining specificity determinants of cGMP mediated gustatory sensory transduction in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 2013;194: 885–901. 10.1534/genetics.113.152660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Upadhyay A, Pisupati A, Jegla T, Crook M, Mickolajczyk KJ, Shorey M, et al. Nicotinamide is an endogenous agonist for a C. elegans TRPV OSM-9 and OCR-4 channel. Nat Commun. 2016;7: 13135 10.1038/ncomms13135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Frim J, Livingstone SD, Reed LD, Nolan RW, Limmer RE. Body composition and skin temperature variation. J Appl Physiol. 1990;68: 540–543. 10.1152/jappl.1990.68.2.540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Vrablik TL, Huang L, Lange SE, Hanna-Rose W. Nicotinamidase modulation of NAD+ biosynthesis and nicotinamide levels separately affect reproductive development and cell survival in C. elegans. Development. 2009;136: 3637–3646. 10.1242/dev.028431 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wang W, McReynolds MR, Goncalves JF, Shu M, Dhondt I, Braeckman BP, et al. Comparative Metabolomic Profiling Reveals That Dysregulated Glycolysis Stemming from Lack of Salvage NAD+ Biosynthesis Impairs Reproductive Development in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Biol Chem. 2015;290: 26163–26179. 10.1074/jbc.M115.662916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Hashimoto T, Horikawa M, Nomura T, Sakamoto K. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide extends the lifespan of Caenorhabditis elegans mediated by sir-2.1 and daf-16. Biogerontology. 2010;11: 31–43. 10.1007/s10522-009-9225-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Schmeisser K, Parker JA. Nicotinamide-N-methyltransferase controls behavior, neurodegeneration and lifespan by regulating neuronal autophagy. PLoS Genet. 2018;14: e1007561 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007561 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Schmeisser K, Mansfeld J, Kuhlow D, Weimer S, Priebe S, Heiland I, et al. Role of sirtuins in lifespan regulation is linked to methylation of nicotinamide. Nat Chem Biol. 2013;9: 693–700. 10.1038/nchembio.1352 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Song C, Gallup JM, Day TA, Bartholomay LC, Kimber MJ. Development of an in vivo RNAi protocol to investigate gene function in the filarial nematode, Brugia malayi. PLoS Pathog. 2010;6: e1001239 10.1371/journal.ppat.1001239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Shivakumara TN, Dutta TK, Chaudhary S, von Reuss SH, Williamson VM, Rao U. Homologs of Caenorhabditis elegans Chemosensory Genes Have Roles in Behavior and Chemotaxis in the Root-Knot Nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2019;32: 876–887. 10.1094/MPMI-08-18-0226-R [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Merritt C, Rasoloson D, Ko D, Seydoux G. 3′ UTRs Are the Primary Regulators of Gene Expression in the C. elegans Germline. Curr Biol. 2008;18: 1476–1482. 10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Hunt-Newbury R, Viveiros R, Johnsen R, Mah A, Anastas D, Fang L, et al. High-throughput in vivo analysis of gene expression in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Biol. 2007;5: e237 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Sengupta P, Chou JH, Bargmann CI. odr-10 encodes a seven transmembrane domain olfactory receptor required for responses to the odorant diacetyl. Cell. 1996;84: 899–909. 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81068-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kim K, Sato K, Shibuya M, Zeiger DM, Butcher RA, Ragains JR, et al. Two chemoreceptors mediate developmental effects of dauer pheromone in C. elegans. Science. 2009;326: 994–998. 10.1126/science.1176331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Taniguchi G, Uozumi T, Kiriyama K, Kamizaki T, Hirotsu T. Screening of odor-receptor pairs in Caenorhabditis elegans reveals different receptors for high and low odor concentrations. Sci Signal. 2014;7: ra39 10.1126/scisignal.2005136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.McGrath PT, Xu Y, Ailion M, Garrison JL, Butcher RA, Bargmann CI. Parallel evolution of domesticated Caenorhabditis species targets pheromone receptor genes. Nature. 2011;477: 321–325. 10.1038/nature10378 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Dennis EJ, Dobosiewicz M, Jin X, Duvall LB, Hartman PS, Bargmann CI, et al. A natural variant and engineered mutation in a GPCR promote DEET resistance in C. elegans. Nature. 2018;562: 119–123. 10.1038/s41586-018-0546-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Zhang C, Zhao N, Chen Y, Zhang D, Yan J, Zou W, et al. The Signaling Pathway of Caenorhabditis elegans Mediates Chemotaxis Response to the Attractant 2-Heptanone in a Trojan Horse-like Pathogenesis. J Biol Chem. 2016;291: 23618–23627. 10.1074/jbc.M116.741132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Park D, O’Doherty I, Somvanshi RK, Bethke A, Schroeder FC, Kumar U, et al. Interaction of structure-specific and promiscuous G-protein–coupled receptors mediates small-molecule signaling in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109: 9917–9922. 10.1073/pnas.1202216109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Greene JS, Dobosiewicz M, Butcher RA, McGrath PT, Bargmann CI. Regulatory changes in two chemoreceptor genes contribute to a Caenorhabditis elegans QTL for foraging behavior. Elife. 2016;5 10.7554/eLife.21454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Wan X, Zhou Y, Chan CM, Yang H, Yeung C, Chow KL. SRD-1 in AWA neurons is the receptor for female volatile sex pheromones in C. elegans males. EMBO Rep. 2019;20 10.15252/embr.201846288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Kadam NY, Behera S, Kumar S, Ghosh-Roy A, Babu K. The G-protein coupled receptor SRX-97 is required for concentration dependent sensing of Benzaldehyde in Caenorhabditis elegans. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2020. p. 2020.01.04.894824. 10.1101/2020.01.04.894824 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Liu C, Mhashilkar AS, Chabanon J, Xu S, Lustigman S, Adams JH, et al. Development of a toolkit for piggyBac-mediated integrative transfection of the human filarial parasite Brugia malayi. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12: e0006509 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Gray JM, Karow DS, Lu H, Chang AJ, Chang JS, Ellis RE, et al. Oxygen sensation and social feeding mediated by a C. elegans guanylate cyclase homologue. Nature. 2004;430: 317–322. 10.1038/nature02714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Glauser DA, Chen WC, Agin R, Macinnis BL, Hellman AB, Garrity PA, et al. Heat avoidance is regulated by transient receptor potential (TRP) channels and a neuropeptide signaling pathway in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 2011;188: 91–103. 10.1534/genetics.111.127100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Hilliard MA, Apicella AJ, Kerr R, Suzuki H, Bazzicalupo P, Schafer WR. In vivo imaging of C. elegans ASH neurons: cellular response and adaptation to chemical repellents. EMBO J. 2005;24: 63–72. 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.He C, Altshuler-Keylin S, Daniel D, L’Etoile ND, O’Halloran D. The cyclic nucleotide gated channel subunit CNG-1 instructs behavioral outputs in Caenorhabditis elegans by coincidence detection of nutritional status and olfactory input. Neurosci Lett. 2016;632: 71–78. 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.08.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.O’Halloran DM, Altshuler-Keylin S, Zhang X-D, He C, Morales-Phan C, Yu Y, et al. Contribution of the cyclic nucleotide gated channel subunit, CNG-3, to olfactory plasticity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 169 10.1038/s41598-017-00126-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Haas W. Parasitic worms: strategies of host finding, recognition and invasion. Zoology. 2003;106: 349–364. 10.1078/0944-2006-00125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Zamanian M, Andersen EC. Prospects and challenges of CRISPR/Cas genome editing for the study and control of neglected vector-borne nematode diseases. FEBS J. 2016;283: 3204–3221. 10.1111/febs.13781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Michalski ML, Griffiths KG, Williams SA, Kaplan RM, Moorhead AR. The NIH-NIAID Filariasis Research Reagent Resource Center. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5: e1261 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Rutledge LC, Ward RA, Gould DJ. Studies on the feeding response of mosquitoes to nutritive solutions in a new membrane feeder. Mosquito News. 1964;24: 407–419. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Hayes RO. Determination of a Physiological Saline Solution for Aedes aegypti (L.). J Econ Entomol. 1953;46: 624–627. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Mello C, Fire A. Chapter 19 DNA Transformation In: Epstein HF, Shakes DC, editors. Methods in Cell Biology. London: Academic Press; 1995. pp. 451–482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Zamanian M, Cook DE, Zdraljevic S, Brady SC, Lee D, Lee J, et al. Discovery of genomic intervals that underlie nematode responses to benzimidazoles. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12: e0006368 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006368 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Schmittgen TD, Livak KJ. Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative C(T) method. Nat Protoc. 2008;3: 1101–1108. 10.1038/nprot.2008.73 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Mistry J, Finn RD, Eddy SR, Bateman A, Punta M. Challenges in homology search: HMMER3 and convergent evolution of coiled-coil regions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41: e121 10.1093/nar/gkt263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Punta M, Coggill PC, Eberhardt RY, Mistry J, Tate J, Boursnell C, et al. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40: D290–301. 10.1093/nar/gkr1065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, et al. BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10: 421 10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Harris TW, Antoshechkin I, Bieri T, Blasiar D, Chan J, Chen WJ, et al. WormBase: a comprehensive resource for nematode research. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38: D463–7. 10.1093/nar/gkp952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30: 772–780. 10.1093/molbev/mst010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32: 1792–1797. 10.1093/nar/gkh340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Tusnády GE, Simon I. The HMMTOP transmembrane topology prediction server. Bioinformatics. 2001;17: 849–850. 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.9.849 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics. 2009;25: 1972–1973. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Nguyen L-T, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2014;32: 268–274. 10.1093/molbev/msu300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods. 2017;14: 587–589. 10.1038/nmeth.4285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Hoang DT, Chernomor O, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ, Vinh LS. UFBoot2: Improving the Ultrafast Bootstrap Approximation. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35: 518–522. 10.1093/molbev/msx281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Müller T, Vingron M. Modeling amino acid replacement. J Comput Biol. 2000;7: 761–776. 10.1089/10665270050514918 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Yang Z. A space-time process model for the evolution of DNA sequences. Genetics. 1995;139: 993–1005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Soubrier J, Steel M, Lee MSY, Der Sarkissian C, Guindon S, Ho SYW, et al. The influence of rate heterogeneity among sites on the time dependence of molecular rates. Mol Biol Evol. 2012;29: 3345–3358. 10.1093/molbev/mss140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, et al. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol. 2012;61: 539–542. 10.1093/sysbio/sys029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Yu G, Smith DK, Zhu H, Guan Y, Lam TT-Y. ggtree: an r package for visualization and annotation of phylogenetic trees with their covariates and other associated data. McInerny G, editor. Methods Ecol Evol. 2017;8: 28–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30: 2114–2120. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Kim D, Langmead B, Salzberg SL. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat Methods. 2015;12: 357–360. 10.1038/nmeth.3317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Pertea M, Pertea GM, Antonescu CM, Chang T-C, Mendell JT, Salzberg SL. StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33: 290–295. 10.1038/nbt.3122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Di Tommaso P, Chatzou M, Floden EW, Barja PP, Palumbo E, Notredame C. Nextflow enables reproducible computational workflows. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35: 316–319. 10.1038/nbt.3820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Krzywinski M, Schein J, Birol I, Connors J, Gascoyne R, Horsman D, et al. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res. 2009;19: 1639–1645. 10.1101/gr.092759.109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Storey B, Marcellino C, Miller M, Maclean M, Mostafa E, Howell S, et al. Utilization of computer processed high definition video imaging for measuring motility of microscopic nematode stages on a quantitative scale: “The Worminator.” Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2014;4: 233–243. 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2014.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Marcellino C, Gut J, Lim KC, Singh R, McKerrow J, Sakanari J. WormAssay: a novel computer application for whole-plate motion-based screening of macroscopic parasites. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6: e1494 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Wickham H, Grolemund G. R for Data Science: Import, Tidy, Transform, Visualize, and Model Data. Boston: O’Reilly Media, Inc.; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9: 676–682. 10.1038/nmeth.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Ballesteros C, Tritten L, O’Neill M, Burkman E, Zaky WI, Xia J, et al. The Effect of In Vitro Cultivation on the Transcriptome of Adult Brugia malayi. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10: e0004311 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Untergasser A, Cutcutache I, Koressaar T, Ye J, Faircloth BC, Remm M, et al. Primer3—new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40: e115 10.1093/nar/gks596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Thorvaldsdóttir H, Robinson JT, Mesirov JP. Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV): high-performance genomics data visualization and exploration. Brief Bioinform. 2013;14: 178–192. 10.1093/bib/bbs017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215: 403–410. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Wang X, Li G, Liu J, Liu J, Xu XZS. TMC-1 Mediates Alkaline Sensation in C. elegans through Nociceptive Neurons. Neuron. 2016;91: 146–154. 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.05.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Macosko EZ, Pokala N, Feinberg EH, Chalasani SH, Butcher RA, Clardy J, et al. A hub-and-spoke circuit drives pheromone attraction and social behaviour in C. elegans. Nature. 2009;458: 1171–1175. 10.1038/nature07886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Bargmann CI, Hartwieg E, Horvitz HR. Odorant-selective genes and neurons mediate olfaction in C. elegans. Cell. 1993;74: 515–527. 10.1016/0092-8674(93)80053-h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Troemel ER, Chou JH, Dwyer ND, Colbert HA, Bargmann CI. Divergent seven transmembrane receptors are candidate chemosensory receptors in C. elegans. Cell. 1995;83: 207–218. 10.1016/0092-8674(95)90162-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Kaplan JM, Horvitz HR. A dual mechanosensory and chemosensory neuron in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90: 2227–2231. 10.1073/pnas.90.6.2227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Lauren A Richardson

22 Jul 2019

Dear Dr Zamanian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Genetic and functional diversification of chemosensory pathway receptors in mosquito-borne filarial nematodes" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

**Important**: Please also see below for further information regarding completing the MDAR reporting checklist. The checklist can be accessed here: https://plos.io/MDARChecklist

Please re-submit your manuscript and the checklist, within two working days, i.e. by Jul 24 2019 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Lauren A Richardson, Ph.D

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

==================

INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTING CHECKLIST:

PLOS Biology is pleased to support the "minimum reporting standards in the life sciences" initiative (https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/9sm4x/). This effort brings together a number of leading journals and reproducibility experts to develop minimum expectations for reporting information about Materials (including data and code), Design, Analysis and Reporting (MDAR) in published papers. We believe broad alignment on these standards will be to the benefit of authors, reviewers, journals and the wider research community and will help drive better practise in publishing reproducible research.

We are therefore participating in a community pilot involving a small number of life science journals to test the MDAR checklist. The checklist is intended to help authors, reviewers and editors adopt and implement the minimum reporting framework.

IMPORTANT: We have chosen your manuscript to participate in this trial. The relevant documents can be located here:

MDAR reporting checklist (to be filled in by you): https://plos.io/MDARChecklist

**We strongly encourage you to complete the MDAR reporting checklist and return it to us with your full submission, as described above. We would also be very grateful if you could complete this author survey:

https://forms.gle/seEgCrDtM6GLKFGQA

Additional background information:

Interpreting the MDAR Framework: https://plos.io/MDARFramework

Please note that your completed checklist and survey will be shared with the minimum reporting standards working group. However, the working group will not be provided with access to the manuscript or any other confidential information including author identities, manuscript titles or abstracts. Feedback from this process will be used to consider next steps, which might include revisions to the content of the checklist. Data and materials from this initial trial will be publicly shared in September 2019. Data will only be provided in aggregate form and will not be parsed by individual article or by journal, so as to respect the confidentiality of responses.

Please treat the checklist and elaboration as confidential as public release is planned for September 2019.

We would be grateful for any feedback you may have.

Decision Letter 1

Lauren A Richardson

9 Aug 2019

Dear Dr Zamanian,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Genetic and functional diversification of chemosensory pathway receptors in mosquito-borne filarial nematodes" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

As you will read, the reviewers appreciated the potential impact of your work. However, they do raise some concerns that will need to be addressed in a revision. In particular, they request additional controls to validate the knockdown experiments and to show that the channels are properly expressed and localized.

In light of the reviews (below), we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome resubmission of a much-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit a file detailing your responses to the editorial requests and a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments that indicates the changes you have made to the manuscript. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type. You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

Before you revise your manuscript, please review the following PLOS policy and formatting requirements checklist PDF: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/file?id=9411/plos-biology-formatting-checklist.pdf. It is helpful if you format your revision according to our requirements - should your paper subsequently be accepted, this will save time at the acceptance stage.

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements.

Upon resubmission, the editors will assess your revision and if the editors and Academic Editor feel that the revised manuscript remains appropriate for the journal, we will send the manuscript for re-review. We aim to consult the same Academic Editor and reviewers for revised manuscripts but may consult others if needed.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two months. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) to discuss this if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not wish to submit a revision and instead wish to pursue publication elsewhere, so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

When you are ready to submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Lauren A Richardson, Ph.D

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

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

Reviews

Reviewer #1:

These authors report their findings studying chemosensory signaling in filarial nematodes; an important yet vastly understudied area. Using a variety of techniques they perform a broad study of chemoreceptive behaviors in filarial nematodes. They find that the chemoreceptor family size is correlated with free-living life stages and they describe the complement of putative chemoreceptors in filarial nematodes. They examine the expression of putative chemoreceptors in Brugia using different stages of the nematodes, and they also examined this expression in different regions of the nematodes. They then begin to explore mechanistic level detail of chemoreception in these nematodes, with a focus on the TRP channel OSM-9 and the CNG channel subunit TAX-4. Most of the claims made are novel and are well supported. Overall the experiments performed are elegant and have proper controls, and I appreciated the care and restraint used by the authors in interpreting their data. There are several findings that I thought were especially exciting and I look forward to seeing these ideas further developed in future studies. The paper contains a large amount of work, but I have suggested the inclusion of an additional control experiment that I think would strengthen their findings regarding the role of osm-9 and tax-4 in chemotaxis. I think the paper is outstanding in its discipline because: 1) the pan-phylum level of chemoreceptor analysis is the largest and most inclusive yet reported, and 2) the multi-tiered approach employing comparative genomics, transcriptomics, reverse genetics, and pharmacology to studying the behavior of filarial nematodes is powerful and unlike anything else published in this field. It sets a new standard for research in filarial nematodes and provides some important tools for enhancing future research. The findings are of broad interest and would serve to shape future studies on host-seeking behavior among parasitic helminths and the specific role of CNG and TRP channels in these behaviors. I do have a few concerns and suggestions, but overall this is very nice work addressing an important and understudied field.

Major Issues:

1) The authors performed a great intra-mosquito RNAi experiment. I appreciated the disclosure that while they attempted to confirm knockdown by qPCR they were unable to measure expression for reasons they provided. While a nonspecific RNAi control was good to include, I think the authors should include knockdown of a chemoreceptor not thought to be involved in this process, as is a common practice in C. elegans research. This would illustrate that the behavior is specific to the knockdown of osm-9 and tax-4 rather than successful knockdown of a channel receptor in the microfilariae.

I appreciated that the authors included a nice control when examining the effect of treating with nicotinamide by measuring the relative expression of Bp-osm-9 in L3s under different conditions up to 4 hours after being removed from the mosquito host. In the subsequent paragraph of the results the authors discuss the loss of chemotactic response of nematodes that were maintained overnight under standard culture conditions. I also appreciated their interpretation of the loss of chemotaxis toward serum after an overnight culture.

Minor issues

There are some minor issues scattered throughout the manuscript that need to be fixed.

1) The figures should be reassessed for correct numbering. The results section on “Treatment with a nematode TRPV agonist inhibits chemoattraction…” erroneously refers to incorrect panels of figure 4. The current reference to Figure 4A should refer to Figure 4B. The current reference to Figure 4B should probably be moved to the previous sentence and a new reference to Figure 4C should be put in its place. The current reference to Figure 4C should be changed to figure 4D. The current references to Figure 4D should be switched to reference Figure 4E.

There are also some modifications that could be made to the figures to facilitate each of interpretation. One suggestion is that the authors could include a gene name title for Figure 3 panels C-F (e.g. osm-9 for panel C) that would allow readers to immediately identify the gene trees without having to bounce between the legend and the figure. The little diagram regarding the chemotaxis assay setup used in figure 4 and figure 7 should be explained in the legend. I realize that it is explained in the methods section, but it should also be explained in the legends of these figures.

2) The references need to be evaluated and corrected. For example, there are many references with “[internet]” in them. For example, references 5, 18, 21, 34, 46, 49, 76, and 77 have this error. There are also several places in the manuscript where instead of using numbers the last names of authors are used. This occurs in several places including in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction and at the end of the 4th paragraph of the introduction, and again in the last paragraph of the discussion. PLoS formatting style requires that numbers be used throughout the text rather than author names.

3) In the 2nd page of the results section the authors discuss how their pan-phylum analysis revealed a significant correlation between chemoreceptor gene count and the presence and nature of free-living or environmental stages of each nematode species life cycle. While the analysis in this paper includes more genomes than previous studies, and is more thorough and quantitative in their analysis, other researchers have previously reported this finding and have hypothesized that species with fewer environmental stages have a more compact repertoire of chemoreceptors. That the current study supports this previously reported hypothesis is interesting, and these authors should cite the previous studies [1, 2].

References:

1. Srinivasan, J., Dillman, A.R., Macchietto, M.G., Heikkinen, L., Lakso, M., Fracchia, K.M., Antoshechkin, I., Mortazavi, A., Wong, G., and Sternberg, P.W. (2013). The draft genome and transcriptome of Panagrellus redivivus are shaped by the harsh demands of a free-living lifestyle. Genetics 193, 1279-1295.

2. Thomas, J.H., and Robertson, H.M. (2008). The Caenorhabditis chemoreceptor gene families. BMC biology 6, 42.

--------------------

Reviewer #2:

This is a well-written manuscript that opens promising new avenues in research on the the basic biology of host-parasite interactions. It is highly innovative and is based on an intriguing set of hypotheses that are pertinent to answering questions about how filarial parasites detect and respond to chemical cues as they develop in two different hosts. It certainly is worth publishing in PLoS-Biology.

I have only minor concerns. Most importantly, the failure to detect functional expression of the two Brugia proteins in complementation experiments in C. elegans is not really conclusive. The analysis would be strengthen by the inclusion of the respective positive control (the C. elegans gene) to demonstrate success of the technique in the authors laboratory.

More minor concerns:

1. The text is sprinkled with references cited by name instead of number, an oversight that needs to be cleaned up (renumbering may be necessary). Please also ensure appropriate italicization in the journal titles.

2. Reference 18 seems to incomplete

3. Page 14: How do you know that NAM was restricted to the midgut and did not distribute throughout the mosquito body?

4. Page 19: How many 1 mm segments were pooled for these analyses? Were independent biological replicates analyzed?

--------------------

Reviewer #3:

Review of manuscript #PBIOLOGY-19-02073R1 by Wheeler, Zamanian, et al. entitled “Genetic and functional diversification of chemosensory pathway receptors in mosquito-borne filarial nematodes”.

The authors report a thorough phylogenetic study of chemoreceptors and downstream signaling elements in Brugia malayi. Considering the need for novel interventions in human filariasis, their finding of a reduced and highly diverged repertoire of chemoreceptors compared to free-living nematodes represents a significant contribution to the literature on lymphatic filariasis and is consistent with the life history of this lymphatic dwelling filaria that inhabits either a mammalian or a mosquito host with only a brief transitional exposure to the external environment during the transition between emergence from the labial sheath of the mouthparts and invasion of the mosquito bite wound. Notably, the authors have discovered changes in expression patterns of B malayi chemoreceptors that coincide with key migratory events and transitions between host and vector body compartments. Intriguingly, exposure to nicotinamide, an agonist of the sensory neuronal TRP channel OSM-9, suppresses outward migration of microfilariae from the midgut, suggesting that OSM-9-dependent chemotaxis is required for this vital migratory transition by the parasite. This is a testable hypothesis that could form the basis for future studies. Significantly, they also show that worms exposed to dsRNAs with sequence homology to the TRP channel encoding gene Bm-osm-9 and the CNG channel encoding gene Bm-tax-4 are impaired in their ability to execute diacetyl- and isoamyl alcohol-stimulated chemotaxis.

This is a well written paper with many positive aspects. The phylogenetic study of B. malayi chemoreceptors and downstream channels involved in signaling is very well done insofar as I can judge it. Also, the chemotactic and behavioral assays are careful and well thought out. In particular, the conduct of the coiling/uncoiling assay, which could be somewhat subjective in its interpretation, was done in blinded fashion to eliminate bias. Also, studies on the anatomical distribution of B. malayi larvae within susceptible Aedes aegypti were well designed and revealed a decrement in thoracic muscle burdens of L3 resulting from nicotinamide exposure, which supports a hypothesis that OSM-9 function is essential for outward migration of microfilariae from the vector midgut.

There are however instances (the RNAi study and the heterologous complementation studies) in which some rather important control data were not or could not be gathered, and these detract from an otherwise excellent study. These are listed as substantive issues below.

As stated, the paper is very well written and was generally an easy read. I only noted a few minor editing issues for the authors’ attention.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES: (Note: I believe that addressing substantive points 2 and 3 is essential to support the current conclusions)

1. Pg. 1, line 11 of main text: It might be worth noting here that there are also constraints on the use of ivermectin in onchocerciasis patients where the risk of Onchocerca volvulus and Loa loa co-infection is present.

2. I can absolutely understand the difficulty in confirming knockdown of Bm-osm-9- and Bm-tax-4-specific messages within the experimental context of the RNAi studies, given the small numbers of L3 present and the imperative to recover sufficient numbers of them for chemotaxis assay. However, I still think it is crucial to provide data, even data gathered outside of the experimental context, that confirms knockdown efficiency and specificity of the protocol used. As a second-best approach, couldn’t some “in squito” dsRNA exposures, without the constraint of gathering L3 for chemotaxis assay, be dedicated to gathering this important control data for each target gene and the control lacZ?

3. Similarly, the negative findings of the heterologous complementation studies would be bolstered by inclusion of a positive control involving C. elegans osm-9(ky10) and Tax4(p768) mutants transformed with homologous (C. elegans-derived) coding sequences under their respective promoters. Given the negative results of the heterologous rescue attempts, it seems essential to prove that rescue with homologous sequences is possible before concluding divergence of function of the parasite elements.

4. The paper would be improved by a more detailed account in Materials and Methods of how the transgenic lines used in the heterologous complementation studies were derived. For example, were several independently derived lines of C. elegans transformed with the parasite sequences assessed for rescuing ability? Given the stochastic process of forming episomal transgene arrays in C. elegans, it is generally considered essential to base conclusions on studies of at least three independently derived lines. This shouldn’t be burdensome as independent lines can be derived from hermaphrodites that are singled after microinjection with their progeny grown in isolation.

MINOR EDITING ISSUES:

Note: Numbered lines and pages would greatly facilitate review of the revised ms.

5. Pg. 4 of main text, line 26: suggest deleting “worms”. It’s redundant.

6. Pg. 4, line 31: suggest “repelled” instead of “repulsed”.

7. Pg. 4, line 36: suggest “…specific defect in chemotaxis…”.

8. Pg. 4, line 37: suggest inserting “that” after “ensure”.

9. Pg. 5, lines 1-3: suggest moving the reference “(Figure 4D)” in line 3 to come after “extraction” in line 1 and adding a reference to Figure 4E after “serum-free media” in line 3.

10. Pg. 8, line 18 and elsewhere in the paper: the word “data” is plural, so make it “Our data suggest”. Same in line 25 and several other places (eg. caption to Fig. 11).

--------------------

Reviewer #4:

In this study, Wheeler et al. provide some of the first insights into the mechanisms of chemosensation in filarial nematodes. While there is now extensive evidence that mammalian-parasitic nematodes with an environmental infective stage actively chemotax to host and environmental cues, much less is known about the chemosensory behaviors of vector-transmitted parasitic nematodes. This study identifies putative chemoreceptors in Brugia (and also provides a much more thorough analysis of putative chemoreceptors across nematode species than was provided in previous studies), and shows that their expression varies across life stages. The authors then implicate Brugia osm-9 and tax-4 is larval chemotaxis, providing the first insights into chemosensory signaling pathways in these parasites. Together, these results represent an important first step in understanding chemosensation in filarial parasites. In addition, the detailed chemoreceptor annotations in this paper will be a valuable resource for those interested in nematode chemosensation in general.

Major comments:

1. In Figure 1c, I’m not clear on how it was determined which species have more environmental exposure for some of the categories. For example, among the EPNs, skin-penetrating nematodes, and passively ingested nematodes such as H. contortus, why are some considered to have more environmental exposure than others, when these worms have a similar third-larval stage in the environment. A bit more justification is needed for how some of the worms were ordered within each subcategory.

2. Are all the parasite genomes equally complete? Could some of the differences in numbers of predicted receptors be due to the quality of the available genomes?

3. In Figure 2a and 2b, the colors that indicate the superfamilies are a bit confusing. Is it possible to put dividing lines between the genes, so that it’s clear how many genes are represented by each colored region?

4. For the RNASeq analysis shown in Figure 2b, did the authors also perform RNASeq analysis on the middle region of the worm, where chemoreceptor expression is not expected (or should be lower)? It would be nice to have this data as a control.

5. Figure 4: What is the scale for the chemotaxis assays? It looks like the worms would hardly need to move to get to the C or T regions. How motile are the worms? For the motility assay, can the authors provide data on the extent to which the worms disperse across the plate? They can clearly move out of the center region, but it’s not clear how far they are capable of moving.

6. Regarding Figure 5:

a) Is the coiling response reversable, for example if the worm is put back at 37C? If it’s not reversible, isn’t it possible the response results from muscle or tissue damage, or some other more general response?

b) Does adding NAM to L3s that have adapted to RT cause them to become more active by mimicking the effect of heat?

c) I don’t understand the description of sample sizes. Did the authors test only 3 worms per condition? Or does each biological and technical replicate involve multiple worms? If only 3 worms were used, this seems very low. Did the authors perform power analysis to get a sense of how many worms they should be testing?

d) The coiling score seems like it could be made more rigorous. First, it’s not explicitly stated how the coiling score is being determined. What are the criteria for rating worms on a scale of 0 to 5? The descriptions in the methods section is really vague. Also, the data would be more convincing if a more quantitative measure were used. If there are videos of the worms anyway, isn’t it straightforward to measure curvature quantitatively?

7. Figure 8: I’m not sure what can be concluded from this experiment. Is there any evidence the channels are actually being expressed in C. elegans? It doesn’t look like they were expressed using an SL2::GFP, making it difficult to determine whether the channels are non-functional in C. elegans or are not being expressed sufficiently. Given that it’s hard to conclude much from this data, perhaps this figure can be moved to supplemental?

Minor comments:

1. Starting off with a diagram of the life cycle of Brugia would be helpful for the non-expert.

2. Bottom of p. 9: Should this say, “These pathways have likely evolved to reflect the diversity of nematode life-history traits and environmental cues encountered by different *nematode* species” (i.e., “nematode” instead of “parasite”)?

3. The expression data in Figure 2a is difficult to interpret. Is there a legend for the purple shading? Also, it’s hard to see the purple shading when it’s inside the circle, and it’s confusing the way Figure 2b is discussed before this part of Figure 2a in the main text. It might be nice to separate out the life-stage expression data into a separate figure.

4. Is there expression data for the signaling proteins (tax-2, tax-4, osm-9, etc.) showing whether they are expressed in the head region (like what is shown in Figure 2b for the chemoreceptors)? This would provide some additional information about which of these genes is likely to have a chemosensory function in filarial nematodes.

5. For Figure 3c-f, it would be helpful to indicate at the top of each figure which gene is shown.

6. Figure 4: How many worms were typically used for each chemotaxis assay? Also, in Figure 4b, why is the mean given only for the untreated condition and not the NAM condition? For Figure 4e, are there untreated controls with freshly extracted parasites that were performed in parallel? It would be nice to have data for freshly extracted parasites and 1 DPE parasites that were tested in parallel shown side-by-side.

7. Figure 6a: Is there a reason not to label every point along the x-axis?

8. Throughout the manuscript, it’s not clear exactly how many worms were tested for each assay. Also, are the biological replicates different groups of mosquitoes and the technical replicates different trials? Were the different trials performed on the same day or separate days? How many mosquitoes were used for each biological replicate? Are the data points shown the means from each biological replicate?

Decision Letter 2

Gabriel Gasque

4 Mar 2020

Dear Dr Zamanian,

Thank you very much for submitting a revised version of your manuscript "Genetic and functional diversification of chemosensory pathway receptors in mosquito-borne filarial nematodes" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. This revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors and by the original Academic Editor and reviewers 2, 3, and 4.

In light of the reviews (below), we are positive about your manuscript and are thus pleased to offer you the opportunity to address the remaining points from the reviewers in a revised version that we anticipate should not take you very long. We will then assess your revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments and we may consult the reviewers again.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 month.

Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Having discussed these comments with the Academic Editor, we think you should address the points raised either experimentally or, if these are too challenging, textually. In other words, the inconclusive rescue results should be moved to supplemental and extreme care should be taken in their interpretation in the text.

Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point by point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type.

*Resubmission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this resubmission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Gasque, Ph.D.,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

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

REVIEWS:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Reviewer #2: The authors have responded constructively and positively to my concerns. I think this is an important contribution to the literature and recommend that it now be processed for publication.

Reviewer #3: Review of manuscript #PBIOLOGY-19-02073R2 by Wheeler, Zamanian, et al. entitled "Genetic and functional diversification of chemosensory pathway receptors in mosquito-borne filarial nematodes".

This second revision is significantly improved and remains a thorough phylogenetic study of chemoreceptors and downstream signaling elements in Brugia malayi. Considering the need for novel interventions in human filariasis, their finding of a reduced and highly diverged repertoire of chemoreceptors compared to free-living nematodes represents a significant contribution to the literature on lymphatic filariasis and is consistent with the life history of this lymphatic dwelling filaria that inhabits either a mammalian or a mosquito host with only a brief transitional exposure to the external environment during the transition between emergence from the labial sheath of the mouthparts and invasion of the mosquito bite wound. Notably, the authors have discovered changes in expression patterns of B malayi chemoreceptors that coincide with key migratory events and transitions between host and vector body compartments. Intriguingly, exposure to nicotinamide, an agonist of the sensory neuronal TRP channel OSM-9, suppresses outward migration of microfilariae from the midgut, suggesting that OSM-9-dependent chemotaxis is required for this vital migratory transition by the parasite. This is a testable hypothesis that could form the basis for future studies. Significantly, they also show that worms exposed to dsRNAs with sequence homology to the TRP channel encoding gene Bm-osm-9 and the CNG channel encoding gene Bm-tax-4 are impaired in their ability to execute diacetyl- and isoamyl alcohol-stimulated chemotaxis.

In this second revision, I believe that the authors have satisfactorily addressed most of the substantive issues that I noted in my review. In reading the rejoinder to other reviewers' comments it appears that they have similarly addressed substantive issues to the extent that this very challenging filarial system allows. I have only one substantive and one minor editing point to list with regard to this second revision.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE

The issue I raised about confirming efficient knock-down of target transcripts remains, as the authors were unable to collect sufficient parasite material either in the context of their experiments involving Bm-osm-9- and Bm-tax-4-specific knockdown or in the context of additional supporting experiments to accurately confirm suppression of target transcripts. I can accept that this technical hurdle is insurmountable at this time but urge the authors to consider devising approaches to addressing it in future projects and publications.

MINOR EDITIORIAL ISSUE

Strictly speaking the word "data" is plural, so issues with subject-verb agreement arising from its use as a singular are commonplace. The authors carefully addressed points in the main text relating to this. However, a few lapses are still seen in the figure captions in the second revision. Captions to Figures 4, 6, 7 and 8 all contain some variation on "Data….represents". It should be "Data…..represent". It might be a good idea to check any captions to supplemental figures along this line.

Reviewer #4: Overall, the authors have done a thorough job in addressing the reviewers' comments and the revised manuscript is much improved. I expect this paper will soon be a landmark in the field. While it would have been nice to see RNAi for another endogenous gene as a control to increase confidence in the RNAi data, I understand that these experiments are not feasible at this time. I have only a few remaining comments which I think should be addressed prior to publication.

Major comments:

1. In my opinion, the biggest issue remaining with the revised paper is with the rescue data shown in Figures 8 and 9.

First, I would suggest removing some of the inconclusive rescue data from the paper. Since using the unc-54 3' UTR didn't work, I don't think anything useful is gained by including this data. Also, for the diacetyl experiment, you still can't conclude anything since the C. elegans rescue didn't work. I don't think having this data in the paper is informative, and if it is included, I might at least move it to a supplemental figure.

Second, it looks like the B. malayi cDNA was used directly for the rescue experiment. However, expression of cDNA from other nematodes in C. elegans often requires the placement of internal syntrons in the cDNA. A syntron before the gene is sufficient for C. elegans cDNA expression, but often not for the expression of cDNA from distantly related nematodes. I would strongly suggest repeating this experiment using synthesized cDNA with internal introns, or at least using this approach going forward. From the data shown, I don't think anything can be concluded other than that partial rescue is possible in some cases.

Third, if the C. elegans osm-9 promoter fragment being used is the issue with the diacetyl experiment, there are AWA-specific promoters that could be used instead.

If it's not possible to repeat these experiments at this point - I do realize these experiments are extremely difficult and time-consuming - I would at least be very careful about concluding anything beyond the fact that partial rescue occurred. In particular, I would remove the sentence about how partial rescue may suggest subfunctionalization, or at least qualify that this could be due to issues with transgene expression.

2. The methods section states that for the chemotaxis assays, assays were counted if C + T > 2. This seems very low. I doubt the CI is very meaningful when only two worms are involved in the calculation. I would suggest investigating this possible issue by repeating the calculations using only assays where C + T > 5 to see if the data look similar.

Minor comments:

1. In the legend for Figure 1, panels B and C appear to be switched.

2. Line 137: Change to, "that likely aid in copulation."

3. Fig. 2: Can the authors speculate as to why there are so many chemoreceptors expressed in embryos?

4. Figure 4E: axis label says "Indexi" instead of "Index."

5. Figure 5B: The text (lines 237-238) doesn't seem consistent with the figure and figure legend. The text makes it sound like the images in 5B show wild-type phenotypes at different temperatures, whereas the figure looks like it's showing control vs. NAM-treated.

6. Figure 5: Why were one-sided t-tests used instead of two-sided t-tests?

7. Figure 6B and F: Why were t-tests used instead of ANOVAs? It looks like 3 groups are being compared.

8. If there's any way to get Figure 7 to fit in the normal orientation, that would be preferable.

9. Is there a reason not to use violin plots in Figure 7? I think the violin plots used elsewhere in the manuscript are a really nice way of representing the data.

10. Line 295-296: "To our knowledge, this is the first time that tax-4 or osm-8 have been shown to have a specific function in chemotaxis in a parasitic nematode." This is not quite correct. A recent paper showed a role for tax-4 in plant-parasitic nematodes using an RNAi approach:

Nagendrappa, S.K.T., Dutta, T.K., Chaudhary, S., von Reuss, S.H., Williamson, V., and Rao, U. (2019) Homologs of Caenorhabditis elegans chemosensory genes have roles in behaviour and chemotaxis in the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Mol Plant Microbe Interact, e-pub ahead of print.

11. Line 305 needs proof-reading.

12. Line 330: change "addition" to "additional"

Decision Letter 3

Gabriel Gasque

27 Mar 2020

Dear Dr Zamanian,

Thank you for submitting your revised Research Article entitled "Genetic and functional diversification of chemosensory pathway receptors in mosquito-borne filarial nematodes" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now discussed your new version with the Academic Editor, and we're delighted to let you know that we're editorially satisfied with your manuscript.

However before we can formally accept your paper and consider it "in press", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication. Please also make sure to address the data requests noted at the end of this email.

*Copyediting*

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

*Submitting Your Revision*

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include a cover letter, a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable), and a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Gasque, Ph.D.,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATA POLICY:

We note that you have stated, in your Data Availability Statement, that ““All comparative genomics, phylogenetics, data analysis, and data visualization pipelines are publicly available at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. Short-read and long-read sequencing data has been deposited into NIH BioProjects PRJNA548881 and PRJNA548902, respectively. All other data are contained with the paper and/or Supporting Information files.”

However, we also ask that you provide all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper. These data can be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels: Fig. 4 B, C, D and E, Fig. 5 C and D, Fig. 6 A, B, C, D, E and F, Fig. 7 A, B and C, Fig. 8 A, B and C, Fig. 9, Fig. S2, Fig. S3, Fig. S4, Fig. S6 and Fig. S10.

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

Please also ensure that the figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLOT AND GEL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare and upload them now. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements.

Decision Letter 4

Gabriel Gasque

20 May 2020

Dear Dr Zamanian,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Piali Sengupta, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Research Article in PLOS Biology.

The files will now enter our production system. You will receive a copyedited version of the manuscript, along with your figures for a final review. You will be given two business days to review and approve the copyedit. Then, within a week, you will receive a PDF proof of your typeset article. You will have two days to review the PDF and make any final corrections. If there is a chance that you'll be unavailable during the copy editing/proof review period, please provide us with contact details of one of the other authors whom you nominate to handle these stages on your behalf. This will ensure that any requested corrections reach the production department in time for publication.

Early Version

The version of your manuscript submitted at the copyedit stage will be posted online ahead of the final proof version, unless you have already opted out of the process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Vita Usova

Publication Assistant,

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Gabriel Gasque,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Spreadsheet of species included in the comparative analysis, clade designation, genome BioProject, and whether or not each species is represented in the trees.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Data. Chemoreceptor IQ-TREE consensus tree in Newick format.

    (TXT)

    S2 Data. TRP MrBayes consensus tree in Nexus format.

    TRP, transient receptor potential.

    (TXT)

    S3 Data. CNG MrBayes consensus tree in Nexus format.

    CNG, cyclic nucleotide–gated.

    (TXT)

    S4 Data. List of C. elegans chemoreceptor IDs. ID, identifier.

    (TXT)

    S1 Fig. Flow chart of comparative genomics pipeline as described in Materials and methods.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Total chemoreceptor count as a function of genome contiguity.

    The number of chemoreceptors in a given genome is not correlated to genome contiguity as measured by N50 (Spearman’s rank-order correlation, ρ = 0.182, p = 0.268). Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms.

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. Alternative plot of B. malayi head/tail RNA-seq (Fig 2).

    Chemoreceptors are colored by superfamily annotation. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. RNA-seq, RNA sequencing.

    (PDF)

    S4 Fig. Motility analysis of L3 parasites after cooling and warming.

    Worms move less after being cooled to room temperature, and motility subsequently increases after returning to 37°C. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. L3, third stage larvae.

    (PDF)

    S5 Fig. Representative images of measured mosquito abdomens.

    (A) Unfed. (B) Fed with unsupplemented blood. (C) Fed with blood supplemented with 5 mM NAM. (D) Fed with blood supplemented with 25 mM NAM. NAM, nicotinamide.

    (PDF)

    S6 Fig. L3 recovery correlation plot.

    The proportion of L3s recovered in the mosquito thorax does not correlate with the total L3s recovered per mosquito. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. L3, third stage larvae.

    (PDF)

    S7 Fig. osm-9 nucleotide alignment.

    The missing splice acceptor in the predicted gene model (Bm-osm-9_Bm1711.1) can be seen on the line starting with nucleotide 2,401.

    (PDF)

    S8 Fig. osm-9 amino acid alignment, including Inactive from Drosophila melanogaster.

    The missing splice acceptor in the predicted gene model (Bm-osm-9_Bm1711.1), which led to a frameshift in the predicted amino acid sequence, can be seen on the line starting with amino acid 781.

    (PDF)

    S9 Fig. tax-4 amino acid alignment.

    The mispredicted splice donor in the predicted gene model (Bm-tax-4_Bm7343.1), which led to a 7-aa deletion, can be seen on the line starting with amino acid 131.

    (PDF)

    S10 Fig. qPCR results for knock-out and transgenic strains.

    All transgenic strains had detectable RNA levels of the transgenes. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. ND, not determined; qPCR, quantitative PCR.

    (PDF)

    S11 Fig. Sensory assay data for osm-9 strains with unc-54 3′ UTR.

    Strains with the unc-54 3′ UTR were unable to rescue (A) defects in chemotaxis to diacetyl, (B) avoidance of concentrated benzaldehyde, or (C) reversal after light nose touch. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms.

    (PDF)

    S12 Fig. Chemotaxis assay data for osm-9 strains with osm-9 3′ UTR.

    Strains with the osm-9 3′ UTR were unable to rescue defects in chemotaxis to diacetyl. Raw data can be found at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms.

    (PDF)

    S1 File. List of all identified chemoreceptors with family and superfamily annotations.

    Raw data can also be filtered and downloaded at https://zamanianlab.shinyapps.io/ChemoR/.

    (CSV)

    S2 File. List of nematode species included in Fig 1D with assigned category and justification.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. Template with instructions for assigning L3 coiling scores.

    L3, third stage larvae.

    (XLSX)

    S4 File. Complete protocols for all cloning efforts.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer_Responses.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer_Responses.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw data and scripts used for comparative genomics, phylogenetics, data analysis, and data visualization are publicly available at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaChemo-ms. The optical flow algorithm for motility analysis is available at https://github.com/zamanianlab/BrugiaMotilityAnalysis. Short-read and long-read sequencing data has been deposited into NIH BioProjects PRJNA548881 and PRJNA548902, respectively. An interactive version of Fig 1 and S2 Fig is available at https://zamanianlab.shinyapps.io/ChemoR/, where chemoreceptor annotation and amino acid sequence data is available for download.


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES