Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2021 Jan 26;19(1):e3000796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000796

Repurposing the orphan drug nitisinone to control the transmission of African trypanosomiasis

Marcos Sterkel 1,*,#, Lee R Haines 2,#, Aitor Casas-Sánchez 2, Vincent Owino Adung’a 3,4, Raquel J Vionette-Amaral 2, Shannon Quek 5, Clair Rose 2, Mariana Silva dos Santos 6, Natalia García Escude 2, Hanafy M Ismail 2, Mark I Paine 2, Seth M Barribeau 7, Simon Wagstaff 5, James I MacRae 6, Daniel Masiga 3, Laith Yakob 8,*, Pedro L Oliveira 9,10, Álvaro Acosta-Serrano 2,5,*
Editor: Nora J Besansky11
PMCID: PMC7837477  PMID: 33497373

Abstract

Tsetse transmit African trypanosomiasis, which is a disease fatal to both humans and animals. A vaccine to protect against this disease does not exist so transmission control relies on eliminating tsetse populations. Although neurotoxic insecticides are the gold standard for insect control, they negatively impact the environment and reduce populations of insect pollinator species. Here we present a promising, environment-friendly alternative to current insecticides that targets the insect tyrosine metabolism pathway. A bloodmeal contains high levels of tyrosine, which is toxic to haematophagous insects if it is not degraded and eliminated. RNA interference (RNAi) of either the first two enzymes in the tyrosine degradation pathway (tyrosine aminotransferase (TAT) and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)) was lethal to tsetse. Furthermore, nitisinone (NTBC), an FDA-approved tyrosine catabolism inhibitor, killed tsetse regardless if the drug was orally or topically applied. However, oral administration of NTBC to bumblebees did not affect their survival. Using a novel mathematical model, we show that NTBC could reduce the transmission of African trypanosomiasis in sub-Saharan Africa, thus accelerating current disease elimination programmes.


This study shows that tsetse flies, vectors of African trypanosomiasis, are highly susceptible to killing by nitisinone, a tyrosine catabolism inhibitor currently used to treat human metabolic diseases; this environment-friendly drug could facilitate elimination of African trypanosomiasis and other diseases transmitted by blood feeding insects.

Introduction

Human African trypanosomiasis (HAT), also known as sleeping sickness, is a parasitic disease caused predominantly by the parasite Trypanosoma brucei gambiense. These parasites are transmitted to a vertebrate host when infected tsetse flies (Glossina spp.) blood feed. HAT currently affects 3,500 people/year; most patients live in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and an estimated 70 million people remain at risk of infection in sub-Saharan Africa [1]. Tsetse also spread animal African trypanosomiasis (AAT), which causes high mortality rates in livestock and consequently severely limits animal production [2]. As no vaccine for either HAT or AAT exist, and drug treatments are often difficult to obtain, tsetse population control remains essential to limit the spread of trypanosomiasis. In the last decades, tsetse control tools such as aerial spraying of insecticides (pyrethroids), visual- and odour-baited tsetse traps, insecticide-treated livestock, live traps, insecticide-impregnated traps and targets, and sterile male releases have been employed [37]. Despite such efforts, because AAT and HAT persist in these endemic areas, both economic development and public health continue to be jeopardised [8]. Consequently, a novel complementary strategy to control these parasitic diseases is highly desired.

Tsetse, like other blood-feeding arthropods, ingest large quantities of blood and often exceed twice their body weight in a single meal [9]. Since more than 85% of blood dry weight consists of proteins, large quantities of amino acids are released in the midgut during bloodmeal digestion [10]. Previously, we showed that blocking tyrosine catabolism after a bloodmeal is lethal in mosquitoes, ticks, and kissing bugs due to the accumulation of toxic quantities of tyrosine [11]. However, inhibiting tyrosine catabolism in non-blood-feeding insects is harmless, which further provides evidence for the essentiality of this pathway for haematophagy [11]. In the present work, we evaluated how tsetse physiology was controlled by two enzymes in the tyrosine catabolism pathway: tyrosine aminotransferase (TAT) and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD). The drug nitisinone (2-(2-nitro-4-trifluoromethylbenzoyl)-1,3cyclohexanedione; NTBC), also known as Orfadin, is an HPPD inhibitor currently used to treat patients with the genetic disease hypertyrosinemia type I (HT-1) [12], and is under clinical evaluation for the treatment of alkaptonuria [13]. NTBC was lethal to blood-fed tsetse flies. NTBC treatment, either administered orally as an endectocide or topically to the insect cuticle, causes the accumulation of tyrosine and 4-hydroxyphenyl lactic acid (HPLA) metabolites, which leads to initial fly paralysis followed by tissue destruction within 18 hours of the bloodmeal. Our results provide evidence that NTBC could be used as an eco-friendly synergistic strategy alongside current tsetse control practices.

Results

Tyrosine detoxification is essential in tsetse

Tyrosine catabolism is a highly conserved pathway (Fig 1A) in most eukaryote and prokaryote species with only a few exceptions such as the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum [14], and trypanosome parasites [15]. The genes encoding TAT and HPPD proteins were identified in five Glossina species [16], as well as in all hematophagous arthropod species with sequenced genomes (S1 Fig). RNA interference (RNAi), of either TAT or HPPD genes, was lethal to flies once they fed on blood. However, 100% mortality was not observed, which may be explained by incomplete knockdown (Fig 1B and S2 Fig). This lethality was further validated by feeding flies with blood supplemented with mesotrione, an HPPD inhibitor widely used as a selective herbicide on corn crops under the brand name Callistro, Syngenta (S3A Fig). The mesotrione concentration that killed 50% of the insects 24 hours after administration (LC50) was 357.7 μM (95% CI: 222.5 to 512.4) (S3A and S3C Fig). This lethal concentration of mesotrione is approximately 30× higher than the drug concentration detected in human plasma (4 μg/ml (11.78 μM)) after volunteers received an oral dose of 4 mg/kg body weight [17]. No differences in susceptibility to mesotrione (or NTBC) were observed between fly sex (S4 Fig).

Fig 1. Inhibiting tyrosine catabolism is lethal for tsetse, but not for bees.

Fig 1

(A) Tyrosine catabolism pathway. (B) Survival of Glossina morsitans morsitans when injected with dsRNA to knockdown TAT or HPPD. Two independent experiments were performed, each with n = 10–13, 12–16, and 12–14 for dsGFP (CTRL), dsTAT, and dsHPPD, respectively. Five insects from each group were dissected three days after a bloodmeal (PBM) to assess gene knockdown efficiency (S2 Fig). (C) Survival of G. m. morsitans fed with horse blood supplemented with NTBC or PBS (Control. 9:1; v/v). Three to six independent experiments were performed for different doses, each with n = 10–25 insects. The total number of flies (male and female) used was 914 (All doses applied are shown in S3B Fig). (D) Dose-response curves for G. m. morsitans survival 24 hours PBM: NTBC feeding and topical application assays (mean ± SEM). (E) Male Glossina pallidipes survival after feeding on PBS- or NTBC-treated rats. Doses are presented as mg of NTBC per kg of rat body weight. Three independent experiments were performed per dose, each with n = 12–15 flies. The total number of male flies used was 86. (F) Survival of NTBC-treated (topically) G. m. morsitans after a bloodmeal. Three independent experiments were performed for each dose, each with n = 10–20 insects. The total number of male flies used was 449. (G) Bee survival when maintained on a 50% sugar solution supplemented with NTBC (or PBS) and pollen. Two independent experiments were performed, each with n = 25 insects. The total number of bees used was 200. The underlying data for this figure can be found in S1 Data. CTRL, control; dsGFP, double-stranded green fluorescence protein; dsRNA, double-stranded RNA; FAH, fumarylacetoacetase; HgD, homogentisate 1,2-dioxygenase; HPPD, 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; MAAI, maleylacetoacetate isomerase; NTBC, nitisinone; PAH, phenylalanine hydroxylase; PBM, post-blood meal; TAT, tyrosine aminotransferase.

Ingestion of NTBC is lethal to tsetse

HT-1 is a severe human genetic disease caused by a mutation in the gene encoding for the last enzyme of the tyrosine catabolism pathway, fumarylacetoacetase (FAH). This mutation causes the accumulation of toxic metabolites in blood and tissues. The only drug available to minimise the effect of HT-1 is the orphan drug NTBC. As an HPPD inhibitor, NTBC prevents the buildup of toxic products derived from fumarylacetoacetate accumulation [18]. NTBC is remarkably safe to use with few reported side effects in <1% of patients [19,20]. When NTBC was fed to tsetse flies in an artificial bloodmeal, it was approximately 173 times more potent than mesotrione with a LC50 = 2.07 μM (95% CI: 0.709 to 4.136) (Fig 1C and 1D). This lethal concentration is approximately 12 times lower than the concentration of NTBC persisting in human plasma (8 μg/ml (24.3 μM)) after administering a standard therapeutic oral dose (1 mg/kg) [17]. The NTBC half-life in human plasma is 54 hours [17], so assuming linear drug degradation, human blood would remain toxic to tsetse for at least a week after a single therapeutic dose. These results suggest that NTBC used as endectocide (here defined as a drug or insecticide that is administered to humans or animals to control parasites) [2123] could be used to decrease tsetse populations as part of a drug-based vector control strategy. Furthermore, it did not matter if the tsetse flies were infected with T. brucei; NTBC lethality remained unaltered in infected flies (S5 Fig) suggesting that, unlike proline metabolism [24], the tsetse tyrosine degradation pathway does not seem to be affected during trypanosome infection.

Tsetse fed on NTBC-treated mice die

To evaluate the potential of using NTBC as an endectocide, the in vivo efficacy of NTBC was assessed. Colony-reared tsetse were allowed to feed on rats that had been orally treated with different NTBC concentrations. We observed that after 26 hours of feeding on rats receiving an oral dose of NTBC equal to 1 mg/kg (therapeutic dose recommended for humans with HT- I), approximately 90% of the flies died, as reflected in our previous data (Fig 1E). Furthermore, compared to control flies, tsetse fed on NTBC-treated rats showed the same phenotypic characteristics (including darkness of the abdomen (S6 Fig)) as those fed on NTBC-blood in artificial membrane feedings (see below). Together, these data provide direct evidence that NTBC could be used as an endectocide for tsetse control.

NTBC ingestion causes insect paralysis and systemic tissue destruction

Treatment of tsetse with either mesotrione- or NTBC-supplemented blood presented the same unique physiological changes, which has two distinct phases we classified as “early stage” and “death” phenotype. The early stage phenotype was observed 8 to 10 hours after NTBC (or mesotrione) ingestion in the bloodmeal, i.e., the flies remained alive (evidenced by red eyes) but were unable to fly (often upside down; S1 Video, S7 Fig). Exposure to bright light or tarsal stimulation often produced only a short burst of leg waving. Small, white, rhomboidal crystals (previously identified as tyrosine crystals [11]) were observed on the outside surface of the midgut epithelium against the body wall cuticle. Also, dark brown melanin-like deposits had formed in different tissues, such as the fat body, salivary glands, and flight muscle (Fig 2A and 2B). Disorganisation of tissues in the digestive tract such as the proventriculus and midgut was evident (Fig 2C) and likely contributed to intestinal fragility, compromised digestion, and leaking of the midgut content into the haemocoel. Reproductive and other non-digestive abdominal tissues remained intact.

Fig 2. Tsetse phenotypes observed upon NTBC treatment.

Fig 2

(A) Fat body. Scale bars = 100 μm (control) and 80 μm (treated). (B) Flight muscle. Scale bars = 1 mm. (C) Bright field (left) and fluorescence 3D-reconstructed (middle) overviews of the anterior midgut (AM), proventriculus (PV), crop (C), and oesophagus (E) from tsetse fed either without (Control) or with NTBC. Fluorescence channels merge SiR-actin staining (yellow) and DAPI (magenta). Scale bars = 200 μm (100×). Detailed sections (right) of transversal muscular fibres from the outer muscular tissues in the anterior midgut region. Scale bars = 20 μm (630×). (D) and (E) Death phenotype. Scale bars = 1 mm. Flies are already dead and the abdomens are “liquified”, black and filled with undigested blood. BF, brightfield; NTBC, nitisinone.

The death phenotype was observed between 15 to 18 hours after treatment and was characterised by a prolonged shift in eye colour from red to golden brown (Fig 2D). NTBC-treated tsetse showed extreme cuticular thinning and complete loss of abdominal elasticity. The abdomen was strikingly distended, dark, and filled with blood that had leaked into the haemocoel due to damage of the gut epithelium (Fig 2E). The ingested blood was blackened as though it had been oxidised. Most of the internal tissues and organs (e.g., gut, testes, ovaries, salivary glands, and Malpighian tubules) were completely destroyed and could not even be recognised in the abdomen during dissection, suggesting extensive autolysis (S8 Fig); only the hindgut, rectum, and trachea remained identifiable. Furthermore, the fat body also disappeared and only lipid droplets could be seen floating in the haemocoel. From the outside, the thorax appeared normal, but upon dissection, we observed the flight muscles had detached from the thorax and become melanised, which explains why tsetse quickly lost the ability to fly.

NTBC leads to an accumulation of free tyrosine and 4-hydroxyphenyl lactic acid

To better understand the metabolic changes in tsetse exposed to NTBC, haemolymph from NTBC-treated (and control) flies was collected at different time points. Metabolomic analysis revealed increased levels of tyrosine and HPLA (Fig 3). The knockdown of TAT gene, which is expected to reduce levels of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate (HPPA) and, in consequence, produce less HPLA, caused the same lethal phenotype observed upon HPPD inhibition. Collectively, this suggests that tyrosine accumulation is the likely cause of the flies’ death. Furthermore, feeding the flies with blood supplemented with HPLA or the injection of HPLA into the fly haemocoel did not affect their survival (S1 Table). In contrast to tyrosine and phenylalanine, the level of all other detected amino acids was reduced (Fig 3C and 3D), which may reflect a lower digestion rate in NTBC-treated flies.

Fig 3. Metabolomic analysis of tsetse haemolymph upon NTBC treatment at different times post-bloodmeal (0, 5, and 10 hours).

Fig 3

Five samples (in each group and for each time point) collected from two independent experiments were processed for and analysed by mass spectrometry. (A) Schematic representation of the tyrosine catabolic pathway highlights the main metabolites accumulated and the decreased production of final products. (B) Peak area normalised to internal standards of differentially regulated metabolites in the tyrosine catabolism pathway. ns = P > 0.05, * = P ≤ 0.05, ** = P ≤ 0.01, *** = P ≤ 0.001, **** = P ≤ 0.0001. (C) A heat map graphically presents the metabolites identified. (D) Schematic representation of the metabolic pathways indicates metabolites that were differentially regulated in NTBC-treated flies. The underlying data for this figure can be found in S1 Data. HPLA, 4-hydroxyphenyl lactic acid; HPPD, 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; NTBC, nitisinone; TAT, tyrosine aminotransferase.

Toxicity associated to insect HPPD inhibition depends on the protein concentration in the bloodmeal and not haem

A potential cause of toxicity among tyrosine catabolism inhibition could be haem. Haem is a product of blood (haemoglobin) digestion that becomes toxic by amplifying reactive oxygen species [25]. To investigate if haem contributed to the lethal phenotype, flies were fed with horse serum (red blood cells were removed to reduce haemoglobin) supplemented with mesotrione. Fly mortality remained high even in the absence of haemoglobin, which suggested haem was not involved in the toxicity of HPPD inhibitors. Furthermore, this experiment demonstrated that the protein content in horse serum (51 to 72 mg/ml) [26] is high enough to produce toxic levels of tyrosine (Fig 4A).

Fig 4. NTBC-associated toxicity depends on the concentration of protein in the bloodmeal.

Fig 4

(A) Percent survival of flies fed with horse serum supplemented with PBS (control) or different mesotrione concentrations. Three independent experiments were performed: n = 10–25 tsetse per treatment (355 insects in total). (B) Tsetse mortality (percentage) was calculated after feeding flies with different concentrations of BSA as a protein source alongside a lethal concentration (0.001 mg/ml) of NTBC. A protein concentration of 12 to 15 mg/ml is required to induce NTBC lethality (dotted horizonal line, LC50). Four independent experiments were performed; each BSA concentration tested used n = 10–80 flies (788 insects in total). Data are shown as mean ± SEM. The underlying data for this figure can be found in S1 Data. BSA, bovine serum albumin; NTBC, nitisinone; PBM, post-blood meal.

In order to assess the quantity of protein necessary to cause the lethal phenotype, flies were fed with PBS or sugar supplemented with a fixed concentration of NTBC (lethal when added to bloodmeal) and different concentrations of bovine serum albumin (BSA) as the sole protein source. As expected, flies that fed on NTBC-supplemented diluent (protein-free) did not die, whereas NTBC toxicity showed a clear dependence on the protein content of the meal. The observed LC50 was 12.5 mg/ml of protein (95% CI: 11.09 to 13.67) (Fig 4B). Only a small percentage (approximately 6%) of flies died 24 hours after feeding with either PBS-BSA (34 mg/ml) or fructose-BSA without NTBC (S9 Fig), indicating that the 24-hour mortality was due to the addition of NTBC.

Topical application of NTBC kills tsetse

To investigate if NTBC-induced mortality was restricted to ingestion, we tested if the drug could be absorbed through the insect cuticle. Topically applying NTBC to the fly thorax caused high mortalities after tsetse took a bloodmeal, with an LD50 of 39 picomoles/fly (95% CI: 9 to 90) (Fig 1D and 1F), 24 hours after bloodmeal ingestion. We compared this NTBC dose against a standard pyrethroid insecticide (deltamethrin) that tsetse are highly susceptible to, and the LD50 was 0.116 picomoles/fly (95% CI: 0.093 to 0.145) (S10 Fig), which means that deltamethrin is approximately 336 times more potent than topically delivered NTBC.

In the field situation where HPPD inhibitors could be absorbed through the insect cuticle, fly contact with the drug could occur either before or after a bloodmeal. Thus, it is important to know how long NTBC activity persists in insects, particularly if tsetse feed after cuticular exposure. High fly mortality was observed even when a tsetse ingested a bloodmeal six days following a single topical application of NTBC (S11 Fig). To address the opposite situation where blood-feeding precedes topical exposure to NTBC, the drug was topically applied at different times post-bloodmeal. NTBC reduced tsetse survival up to 48 hours after a bloodmeal (S12 Fig), which implies that bloodmeal proteins were digested after two days (as predicted for tsetse) and excess tyrosine had been catabolised. In contrast to NTBC, topical application of mesotrione was not lethal to tsetse, which could be due to reduced penetration through the insect cuticle (S13 Fig).

NTBC is not metabolised by insect P450 enzymes

Metabolic resistance due to increased rates of insecticide metabolism by P450s can cause resistance liabilities for new compounds. However, NTBC appears to only be moderately metabolised by CYP3A4 in humans [27], with little oxidative metabolism by other liver CYP enzymes [28]. We have incubated NTBC with microsomes extracted from tsetse, Aedes, and Anopheles and failed to detect evidence of metabolism as measured by substrate depletion/turnover (S2 Table). Furthermore, we find no obvious metabolism by recombinant Anopheles gambiae CYP6P3, a P450 with broad substrate specificity similar to CYP3A4, and associated with cross-resistance to pyrethroids and other insecticides [29]. Overall, this suggests that NTBC may be a weak substrate for P450 metabolism in these insects. This does not preclude the evolution of metabolic resistance, but suggests it may be less likely to emerge rapidly.

NTBC is highly stable under environmental conditions

Considering uses for NTBC in the field, we examined several stressors that could degrade drug activity and reduce its toxicity. An NTBC solution was subjected to 10 freeze–thaw cycles, prolonged ambient temperature storage (5 weeks), or different exposures to light (S3 Table). These NTBC test samples (final concentration in blood 3 μM = 1 μg/ml) were screened for activity by adding them into a tsetse bloodmeal as a type of activity bioassay. In all cases, the fly mortality resulting from the stressed samples matched that of freshly made NTBC, thus indicating NTBC does not quickly degrade and is stable under simple, room temperate storage conditions. In agreement with our results, Barchanska and colleagues [30] recently demonstrated that NTBC shows considerable stability under different experimental conditions such as pH of solution, temperature, time of incubation, and ultraviolet radiation.

NTBC is not toxic to the insect pollinator, Bombus terrestris

Bees are the world's most important pollinators of food crops [31], and several reports have shown that bee populations are directly and indirectly affected by insecticides [32]. To determine the environmental impact of NTBC on off-target species (non-bloodfeeders), we investigated the mortality of phytophagous pollinators when exposed to NTBC. Colony-reared Bombus terrestris (the buff-tailed bumblebee) were fed ad libitum with NTBC-supplemented sugar as a sole hydration source; bee mortality was assessed over 10 days. Mortality rates did not differ between NTBC-treated and control bees during this sustained exposure, despite feeding NTBC at doses as high as 50 μg/ml (152 μM) and providing pollen as a protein source (Fig 1G).

A mathematical model supports the use of NTBC for tsetse control

To illustrate the impact that NTBC may have in controlling African trypanosomiasis, we include human and livestock treatment in an epidemiological model and simulate the resulting reduction in transmission (details in S1 Methods). Fig 5 shows what NTBC treatment regime is required to interrupt transmission for systems with diverse vector biting ecologies. The temporal dynamics associated with control are shown in S14 Fig. Fig 5 is generated by averaging the disease control achieved over the time between doses. When both livestock and humans receive treatment (at 80% coverage), monthly dosing can control disease spread if at least 20% of bites are on humans. If fewer bites are on humans, this only becomes a feasible stand-alone control strategy when employed at higher frequencies (e.g., every 10 days). When wildlife (preferred host for some tsetse species) comprises a substantial blood source, treatment regimens become less tenable. At the current plasma efficacy half-life, NTBC will be most useful as part of an integrated disease control strategy. Simulations were also repeated for a transmission system in which animal reservoirs play a negligible role such as in many regions endemic for trypanosomiasis (T. b. gambiense) where humans are the primary reservoir. Here, absence of the animal reservoir facilitated disease control when humans comprised at least 20% of tsetse fly bloodmeals and NTBC dosing was monthly (S15 Fig).

Fig 5. Impact of NTBC application on the effective reproduction number of T. brucei, (Re > 1 in brown and Re < 1 in purple).

Fig 5

Top row: NTBC applied to livestock only; Middle row: Only humans are treated with NTBC; Bottom row: Simultaneous treatment of both livestock and humans with NTBC. Treatments are modelled with NTBC application every 10 days (left column), every 30 days (middle column), or every 90 days (right column). The axes denote the proportional split of bloodmeals taken by local tsetse populations when humans, livestock, and wildlife are potential hosts (where proportion of bites on wildlife are 1 - (bites on humans + bites on livestock)). NTBC, nitisinone.

Discussion

When blood-sucking insects digest a bloodmeal, large amounts of tyrosine are produced, which would be potentially toxic if it were not for the first two enzymes in the tyrosine degradation pathway, TAT and HPPD [11]. Here we provide evidence that tyrosine detoxification is essential for tsetse survival post-bloodmeal and have further investigated the possible mechanisms underlying this lethal phenotype. Furthermore, two commercially available HPPD inhibitors were evaluated as novel tsetse control interventions: mesotrione and NTBC. We concluded that NTBC is the best candidate for future field trials due to its low-dose efficacy and environmental sustainability. This drug presents unique features when compared with current insecticides as it specifically targets blood-feeding insects, has low toxicity to mammals, and can be used effectively against tsetse via two delivery routes. NTBC kills tsetse upon cuticular application, and it can be safely administered to a mammalian host as an endectocide to kill Glossina upon bloodfeeding (and other hematophagous arthropods feeding on the treated mammal [11]). In agreement with our results on tsetse, a recent preprint article from the Oliveira’s group has shown evidence that NTBC is more potent than mesotrione and isoxaflutole against Aedes aegypti mosquitoes [33]. Moreover, NTBC was also found to be lethal against Anopheles and Culex as well as Ae. aegypti strains resistant to neurotoxic insecticides [33], indicating that cross-resistance between these compounds and NTBC is unlikely.

Our mathematical model indicates that when both livestock and humans are treated with NTBC as an endectocide (at 80% coverage), drug administration every 30 days would control the spread of African trypanosomiasis so long as >20% of the tsetse were feeding on humans. In the absence of an animal reservoir, as it is the case for T. b. gambiense, facilitated control could also be achieved with monthly dosing. Transmission of gambiense HAT has been effectively reduced over the last decade with the deployment of tiny targets in many disease endemic areas [34]. However, disease reactivation remains a concern due to the potentially high number of asymptomatic individuals carrying tsetse-transmissible parasites in the skin [3538]. Nevertheless, before mass treatment of humans with NTBC is considered, caution should be exercised; it should only be used in regions where trypanosomiasis transmission continues despite best efforts in case management.

Mass drug administration (MDA) for vector control has shown great promise in reducing disease burden [22]. However, MDA raises several issues as its possible long-term benefits are uncertain. The efficacy of MDA approach relies on the level of community participation and also depends on balancing individual and public health interest and potentially limiting individual autonomy by making MDA compulsory [39]. Ivermectin is currently the main drug used as an endectocide; it reduces the survival of most hematophagous vectors when ingested, including tsetse (see below). However, ivermectin’s half-life in human blood ranges between 12 to 36 hours and requires the use of multiple doses [21]. Other compounds, such as the isoxazoline veterinary drugs, have been also evaluated for their possible use as endectocides. However, these compounds are only approved for veterinary use and their activity and toxicology profiles in humans have not yet been evaluated [23]. In contrast, the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, and metabolism information is well known for NTBC, and additionally, gained safety approval to be used to treat children since the early 1990s [17,28].

Ivermectin has been evaluated in vivo as a potential tsetse control tool. Glossina palpalis gambiensis fed on cattle treated with a single ivermectin dose showed decreased tsetse survival ranging from 21% to 84% for the therapeutic dose (0.2 mg/kg), and from 78% to 94% for a dose 10 times greater (2 mg/kg) [40]. However, it is important to highlight that another tsetse species, Glossina palpalis palpalis, remained unaffected by an ivermectin dose of 2 mg/kg (4% mortality after 25 days) [41], and no mortality was observed when flies fed on ivermectin-treated (0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg) guinea pigs and goats [42]. Similarly, no effect on fly mortality was observed when Glossina tachinoides fed on ivermectin-treated pigs [43]. These differences may be due to pharmacokinetic variations in the different host species (guinea pigs, goats, cattle, and pigs) rather than Glossina spp.-specific susceptibilities. In our study, approximately 90% of the treated G. pallidipes died within 26 hours after ingesting a single bloodmeal from NTBC-treated rats that had received 1 mg/kg. The surviving flies were severely compromised, had lost the ability to fly, and failed to recover with time. Compared to published data on ivermectin-induced tsetse mortality, dose-matched NTBC is more potent as it kills the flies faster than ivermectin. NTBC is also classified as a safer drug for mammals; the oral LD50 for NTBC in rats is >1,000 mg/kg [20], while ivermectin is >100 times more toxic presenting a LD50 = 10 mg/kg [44].

As observed in the different dose-response curves, it is not only the concentration of drug ingested or applied topically that is important, but also the quantity of blood ingested and the fly’s digestion rate of bloodmeal proteins. This is due to the particular mode of action of HPPD inhibitors. These drugs are not toxic to hematophagous arthropods during starvation or when insects are fed with low-protein content diets, but their toxicity is caused by the accumulation of tyrosine derived from hydrolysis of dietary proteins. This implies that any factor affecting bloodmeal digestion, such as temperature, may also affect HPPD inhibitor toxicity and consequently how long the bloodfed arthropods take to die. Although we discarded flies that did not feed to prevent data dispersion, young, newly emerged flies often take a partial bloodmeal, which likely explains why a small proportion of flies survived even at high drug concentrations. In the field, flies taking partial bloodmeals are also possible (interrupted feeding on host), and, consequently, this may reduce the immediate killing efficacy of any endectocide intervention.

Our data show that protein (but not haem) is sufficient to trigger the NTBC-induced lethal phenotype in tsetse. Together with metabolomic data, these results point to tyrosine accumulation (and precipitation in haemocoel and tissues) as the primary cause of insect death. Feeding flies with sugar meals supplemented with NTBC and BSA was lethal to tsetse and confirmed that tyrosine accumulation from dietary protein digestion is likely the cause of the lethal phenotype. It is worth noting that the quantity of protein to be lethal upon HPPD inhibition may depend on the tyrosine content of each protein; BSA tyrosine content is 3.46% (21/607 residues). Considering that NTBC is very stable under different environmental conditions, these results expand the possibility of also using NTBC-protein mixes in attractive targeted sugar baits (ATSBs) to control different vector-borne diseases.

When assessing the feasibility of topically using NTBC to control tsetse flies, a high mortality was still observed when flies were fed up to 144 hours after NTBC topical application (S11 Fig). The longevity of this drug activity is striking and very encouraging for field-based vector control interventions. In lab-reared colony flies, most tsetse die of dehydration/starvation after such an extensive 144-hour starvation period and, of those remaining alive, many are too weak to feed when offered a bloodmeal. In wild tsetse, where fly activity and nutritional demands are greatly increased, flies are less likely to survive 144 hours of starvation so the sustained lethality of NBTC is even more encouraging. When comparing tsetse lethality to deltamethrin, NTBC is far less potent when topically applied to tsetse. This is not surprising as deltamethrin is a neurotoxin, while NTBC acts by a slower mechanism linked to amino acid catabolism. The disadvantages using deltamethrin for vector control are significant; potency comes at a price. Deltamethrin has a higher toxicity profile to mammals and because it nonselectively kills, it draws a heavy environmental penalty. All insects including pollinators and other non target species are indiscriminately killed. Additionally, deltamethrin causes severe toxicity in aquatic ecosystems [45]. Despite this, pyrethroid insecticides remain the most efficacious vector control strategy for many hematophagous arthropod populations, although increasing reports of insecticide resistance compromise their efficacy [7,4648]. In contrast, the NTBC toxicity profile is low (high doses are tolerated in humans and other mammals [20]), and it selectively kills blood-feeding arthropods, thus making it environment-friendly and more socially and ethically acceptable to incorporate into vector control strategies. Since NTBC targets a pathway separate to the neurotoxic insecticides and antiparasitic drugs, such as pyrethroids and ivermectin, respectively, its use could complement current vector control tools and reduce the emergence of insecticide-resistant populations.

As previously was reported in humans [28], we found that NTBC is not metabolised by insect P450 enzymes. Importantly, reversible competitive inhibitors of HPPD bind to this enzyme in the same active site that binds its substrate, HPPA [4952]. Mutations that would affect the binding of NTBC to HPPD may also alter the affinity for HPPA. Due to the importance of HPPD in the physiology of hematophagous arthropods, mutations that reduce its affinity for HPPA would probably be lethal. However, we cannot rule out the existence of some genetic variation or phenotypic plasticity that could confer tolerance to hematophagous vectors towards HPPD inhibitors. Common agriculture-based HPPD inhibitors like mesotrione have been used as herbicides for 20 years, and the emergence of resistant weeds has been reported [53,54]. Interestingly, sequencing the HPPD gene from sensitive and resistant plants showed no target-site mutations that could be associated with resistance to mesotrione [53,54]. Furthermore, no gene duplication or overexpression of HPPD, before or after herbicide treatment, was detected. In contrast, higher levels of mesotrione metabolism via 4-hydroxylation of the dione ring [53] and an enhanced rate of herbicide metabolism [54] were observed in resistant plants. Moreover, a new gene called HIS1 (HPPD Inhibitor Sensitive 1) was found to confer resistance to several triketone herbicides (including mesotrione) in rice plants [55], but our Vectorbase search (www.vectorbase.org) did not find orthologous genes in the genomes of several insects, thus indicating the absence of this gene in invertebrates. In summary, two important mechanisms that commonly confer resistance to insecticides (P450s-mediated detoxification and target-site mutations) are unlikely to generate resistance towards HPPD inhibitors in insects. However, since insects are capable of evolving multiple resistance mechanisms, they would could eventually develop resistance to NTBC if used as monotherapy.

We conclude that both NTBC and mesotrione induce rapid death in bloodfed tsetse, although the potency and the duration of their effects are very different (as they are in humans [17]). For these reasons, we propose using NTBC (but not mesotrione) to develop new and complementary vector control tools that target tsetse and other blood-feeding arthropod populations. The importance of using integrated approaches including novel vector controls to achieving elimination was one of the general conclusions of the third WHO meeting of stakeholders on the elimination of gambiense HAT in Geneva, 2018 [56]. The versatility of NTBC is also noteworthy; this FDA-approved drug could be used as a stand-alone technology to control tsetse and other vector populations as an endectocide, or it could complement (or provide an alternative to) the use of standard insecticides. Thus, NTBC is a safer and more environment-friendly alternative to neurotoxic insecticide-based vector control as it is not toxic to mammals and selectively kills blood-feeding arthropods.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

Male (4 to 6 weeks old, 180 to 250 g in weight) Wistar rats sourced from the Animal Rearing Unit and Containment Unit (ARCU) at International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe) were used. The animals were housed in standard plastic rodent cages (Thoren Caging Systems, Hazleton, United States) with wood shavings as bedding material. The rodents were maintained on commercial food pellets (Unga Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya), and water was provided ad libitum. Animal use and all accompanying procedures and protocols were in accordance with The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, 2011). These procedures and protocols were reviewed and approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of icipe (Ref. No. IcipeACUC2018-003).

Tsetse

The G. m. morsitans Westwood colony (originally from Zimbabwe) was housed in an insectary at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. Flies were kept at 26°C and 73% ± 5% relative humidity and a 12-hour light:dark cycle. The colony was maintained on defibrinated horse blood (TCS Biosciences, Buckingham, United Kingdom) and fed every 2 to 3 days using artificial silicon feeding membranes. Male and female experimental flies of different ages were separately caged and fed. The G. pallidipes (originally from Nguruman, Kenya) at the Insectary Unit at icipe were maintained at 26°C and 75% ± 4% relative humidity with 12-hour light:dark cycle. The flies were fed on defibrinated bovine blood using an in vitro silicon membrane system. Only teneral G. pallidipes were fed on NTBC-treated rats.

Bumblebee rearing

Hives of Bombus terrestris audax ordered from Agralan (Wiltshire, United Kingdom) were kept at 27°C under constant red light and fed ad libitum with pollen and 50% sugar water (Ambrosia syrup, EH Thorne). Only worker bees were used in this study. Five bees from five different colonies were placed into an acrylic box in five biological replicates, totalling 25 bumblebees per each experimental group. NTBC was diluted in sugar solution and placed into the box 24 hours after the bees acclimatised to laboratory conditions. Bees were allowed to continually drink NTBC-supplemented water ad libitum for 10 days. Each group received PBS or a dose of NTBC at concentrations shown to be lethal to tsetse (0.05 mg/ml, 0.005 mg/ml, or 0.0005 mg/ml). Solutions were changed every five days. Worker bees were also provided with pollen (protein source) according to their rate of consumption. Bee mortality was scored daily for 10 days.

Phylogenetic analysis

Dendrograms showing the phylogenetic relationships of TAT and HPPD proteins among insects were created according to the maximum likelihood method. Confidence values for each branch were determined through bootstrapping at 100. Analysis was performed on the web-based interface on Phylogeny.fr [57,58], using T-Coffee for alignments under the BLOSUM62 scoring matrix and optimised with Gblocks. Dendrograms were constructed with PhyML 3.0 [59]. The TAT and HPPD protein sequences used in the phylogenetic analyses were taken from either Vectorbase or NCBI using the most recent gene sets available.

Synthesis of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA)

Specific primers for G. m. morsitans TAT and HPPD genes were designed using primer-blast software (NCBI, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/tools/primer-blast) (Table 1). These primers contained the T7 polymerase binding sequences required for dsRNA synthesis at 5′ end. The green fluorescence protein (GFP) gene amplified from the peGFP-N1 plasmid (NCBI ID: U55762.1) was used as a control dsRNA to assess in vivo off-target effects. PCR products were sequenced to confirm identity. MEGAscript High Yield T7 Transcription kit (Ambion, Austin, United States) was used according to the manufacturer's instructions to synthesise dsRNA. After synthesis, dsRNAs were precipitated by adding an equal volume of ice-cold isopropanol, and the resulting pellets were washed with ethanol, air dried, and then the pellet resuspended in ultrapure water. The dsRNAs concentrations were determined spectrophotometrically at 260 nm on a NanoVue Plus Spectrophotometer (GE Healthcare, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom) and visualised in an agarose gel (1.5% w/v) to determine dsRNA size, integrity, and purity. An ISS110 speedvac concentrator (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, United States) was used to dry the dsRNAs and samples were adjusted to a final concentration of 5 μg/μl in sterile nuclease-free water (NFW).

Table 1. Sequences of the primers used to amplify target genes for RNAi experiments.

T7 promoter sequences that were necessary for transcription are underlined.

Gene NCBI/Vector Base ID Forward primer Reverse primer
Green fluorescence protein U55762.1 TAATACGACTCACTATAGGGACGTAAACGGCCACAAGTTC TAATACGACTCACTATAGGGCTTGTACAGCTCGTCCATGCC
Tyrosine aminotransferase GMOY012088 TAATACGACTCACTATAGGGAGACGAAGTGACTGCCGGTCTACG TAATACGACTCACTATAGGGAGATTCACGAGGCACTGTTAGCAC
Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase GMOY012145 TAATACGACTCACTATAGGGAGAATCGCAGCCAATATCGTGGTG TAATACGACTCACTATAGGGAGACTTTAATTTTGGTGCGGCTGTGC

Gene silencing

The protocols described by Walshe and colleagues [60] were followed for RNAi knockdown in tsetse. Briefly, male G. m. morsitans were injected in the thorax with 10 μg of each target gene dsRNA (2 μl of 5 μg/μl stock). Tsetse controls were injected with 10 μg of GFP dsRNA. Injection needles were handmade using pulled micro-haematocrit glass capillary tubes (2.00 mm outside diameter) (Globe Scientific, Mahwah, United States) mounted inside 200 μl yellow micropipette tips and sealed with Araldite epoxy glue. Flies were injected 24 hours after receiving a bloodmeal to increase survival rates. Flies were chilled for 10 minutes on ice to immobilise them, and 2 μl of dsRNA was injected into the dorsolateral surface of the thorax. Injected flies were allowed to rest for 24 hours before the next bloodmeal. Following injections, flies were fed every 2 to 3 days on sterile, defibrinated horse blood. Three days after dsRNA injection, the digestive systems were excised to determine the efficacy of gene-silencing as evaluated by quantitative PCR (qPCR).

RNA isolation and cDNA synthesis

G. m. morsitans flies were immobilised on ice, and the digestive system was dissected into ice-cold PBS. The total RNA was extracted using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, United States), according to the manufacturer's instructions. Following treatment of the extracted mRNA with Invitrogen Ambion TURBO DNase (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Loughborough, UK), first-strand cDNA synthesis was performed using 1 μg total RNA with “Superscript III First-strand Synthesis System for RT-PCR Kit” (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Loughborough, UK) and poly-T primer, according to manufacturer instructions. The cDNAs were stored at −80°C until use.

Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)

Gene-specific qPCR primers were designed to amplify a different region from that amplified by the RNAi primers to prevent dsRNA amplification. They were designed to span different exons to easily discern contaminating genomic DNA amplification. Primer efficiency was experimentally tested (Table 2). Glossina α-tubulin and β-tubulin genes were used as references (housekeeping) genes. Quantitative PCR was performed using a MxPro – Mx3005P thermocycler (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, United States) with Brilliant III Ultra-Fast SYBR Green QPCR Master Mix (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) under the following conditions: 95°C for 15 minutes, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 seconds, 60°C for 30 seconds, and 72°C for 30 seconds, and a final extension of 72°C for 10 minutes. Target gene expression levels were assessed as 2e−ΔCT values (ΔCT = CT gene of interest – CT housekeeping gene) and were used to evaluate the mRNA levels of the genes in the different experimental groups (dsTAT- or dsHPPD-injected flies and dsGFP-injected flies) [61].

Table 2. Sequence of the primers used to amplify target genes by real-time PCR.

Gene Vector Base ID Forward primer Reverse primer % Efficiency
Alpha tubulin GMOY004645 TGTATGTTGTATCGTGGTGATGT GAATTGGATGGTGCGTTTAGTTT 100.6
Beta tubulin GMOY000148 CCATTCCCACGTCTTCAGTT GACCATGACGTGGATCACAG 96.6
Tyrosine amino transferase GMOY012088 CCTAGCAATCCGTGTGGTAGTG TAACCGCTATGTGCTGCGAAC 103
Hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase GMOY 012145 CTAAAGAACGTGGAGCAACTGTG TCCACAAAAGTGTGAGTCGT 106.5

Oral dosing of mesotrione and NTBC

Mesotrione (2-[4-(Methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzoyl]cyclohexane-1,3-dione; PESTANAL analytical standard; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, United States) and NTBC (2-[2-nitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzoyl]cyclohexane-1,3-dione; PESTANAL, analytical standard; Merck Life Science UK Limited, Gillingham, UK) were solubilised in sterile PBS (NaCl 0.15 M, Na-phosphate 10 mM (pH 7.0)) to different final concentrations (pH was readjusted to 7.0 with 1 M NaOH). One volume of the drugs, or PBS as control, was then mixed with nine volumes of sterile defibrinated horse blood, and these bloodmeals were fed to male and female flies. Only flies with visible redness in the abdomen were selected, and unfed flies were discarded. Final mesotrione concentrations used in blood were: 2, 1.5, 1, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 mg/ml. Final NTBC concentrations in blood were: 0.05, 0.025, 0.01, 0.005, 0.0025, 0.00075, 0.0005, 0.00025, and 0.0001 mg/ml).

Confocal microscopy

Teneral (<24 hours old post emergence) male tsetse were fed on horse blood (TCS Biosciences, Buckingham, United Kingdom) and three days later were offered a second meal containing horse serum (to increase tissue visibility by removing red blood cell interference) with or without 500 ng/mL NTBC. Fifteen hours post-feeding, tsetse were anaesthetized on ice, and the midgut tissue (with attached proventriculi) was dissected into ice-cold PBS and immediately fixed in fresh 4% paraformaldehyde for 1 hour at room temperature (RT). Tsetse group survival rates were determined 72 hours post-NTBC administration. Fixed tissues were washed in PBS (and stained with SiR-actin (1,100 dilution, Cytoskeleton Inc.) for 3 hours at RT and posteriorly incubated in 500 ng/mL DAPI for 10 minutes at RT. Tissues were finally suspended in 1% (w/v) low-melting agarose at approximately 40°C mixed with Slowfade Diamond oil (Molecular Probes, Eugene, United States) on a slide. Slides were imaged using a Zeiss LSM-880 confocal laser scanning microscope and tissues were 3D-reconstructed from a series of z-stacks at intervals of 1.3 μm (Zeiss Company, Oberkochen, Germany).

NTBC treatment of trypanosome-infected flies

Newly emerged (24 to 48 hours post-eclosion), teneral male G. m. morsitans were fed an infected bloodmeal containing fly-infective T. b. brucei (strain Antat 1.1 90:13) [62] at 106 parasites per ml of blood. Newly emerged colony-reared flies are highly susceptible to trypanosome infections. Nine days after infection, when procyclic trypanosomes should be established in the midgut, the flies were fed with blood supplemented with NTBC as indicated above.

Oral dosing of mesotrione in serum

Horse red blood cells were removed from defibrinated horse blood by centrifugation at 1,000 × g for 5 minutes. The horse serum was collected, supplemented with mesotrione as indicated above and subsequently fed to female and male G. m. morsitans.

Feeding fructose supplemented with BSA and NTBC

Teneral, male G. m. morsitans were sorted into 10 cages and starved for 48 hours. BSA fraction V (stock concentration at 200 mg/ml (w/v) in PBS) was serially diluted into sterile 0.1% (w/v) fructose in PBS to create final concentrations of 40, 34, 30, 25, 20, 18, 16, 15, 12, 10, 5 and 0 mg/ml BSA. Control flies were fed with either diluent alone (0.1% fructose) or diluent plus NTBC. All experimental groups were fed a NTBC dose of 0.001 mg/ml (lethal when delivered with blood or serum). Flies were offered their first meal at 72 hours post-emergence, and mortality was tracked daily for one week.

Administering HPLA to tsetse by feeding or injection

Newly emerged, male G. m. morsitans were sorted into 10 cages containing 25 flies/cage. At 48 hours post-emergence, each cage was fed on defibrinated horse blood supplemented with distilled water (control) or a serial dilution of DL-p-hydroxyphenyllactic acid (HPLA: Aldrich-Sigma, St. Louis, United States). All dilutions were made with the same ratio: 25 μl of additive to 1.975 ml of blood. The concentrations of HPLA tested were 0.05, 0.025, 0.01, 0.005, 0.0025, 0.0075, 0.0005, 0.00025, and 0.0001 mg/ml. All dilutions were kept on ice until feeding to avoid chemical degradation. Fresh HPLA stock concentration was 2 mg/ml in sterile water. After 3 days, flies were offered a normal bloodmeal to test if HPLA impaired a second feed. To administer HPLA by injection, 1-week old male flies that had taken 3 previous bloodmeals (to ensure good health and adequate hydration) were separated into 10 cages. Each group received 2 μl of the selected HPLA concentration via thoracic injection. Stock HPLA was 2 mg/ml, and the concentrations injected were 1.0, 0.5, 0.1, 0.05, 0.01, 0.005, 0.001, 0.0005, and 0.0001 mg/ml with sterile water injected as a control. Flies were allowed to recover for 24 hours and then offered a normal bloodmeal. Fly mortality was monitored throughout in both experiments for a week after HPLA administration, and no group exceeded 10% mortality.

In vivo oral administration of NTBC to rats

Rats received an oral dose of NTBC solubilised in sterile PBS by gavage. The doses administered were 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg/kg, with controls receiving an equal volume of PBS. After 90 minutes, the rats were anaesthetized with an intraperitoneal injection of 80 μl of 3% ketamine and Xilazin 0.33% diluted in sterile PBS. Ketamine and Xilazin do not affect tsetse mortality. Groups of G. pallidipes flies were fed on either PBS- or NTBC-treated anaesthetized rats.

Topical application of mesotrione and NTBC to tsetse cuticle

Mesotrione and NTBC were solubilised in 100% acetone at the following concentrations (Mesotrione: 10, 5, 2.5, 1, 0.5, and 0.1 mg/ml. NTBC: 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.125, 0.0625, 0.03175, 0.0156, 0.0078, and 0.0039 mg/ml). One microliter of solution was topically applied with a P2 micropipette to the ventral surface of the abdomen of a cold-anaesthetized male G. m. morsitans, either immediately before ingesting a blood meal, at different times before or after a bloodmeal. The control flies received 1 μl of 100% acetone. Only fully engorged flies were used.

Metabolomic analysis

Male G. m. morsitans were dissected at different times (0, 5, or 10 hours) after ingesting horse blood supplemented with NTBC 0.01 mg/ml or PBS. The flies were chilled for 10 minutes at 4°C and kept on ice. The legs of 20 flies were severed and collected into 1.5 ml plastic tubes containing 300 μl of 0.9% NaCl and 13.34 μM phenylthiourea (internal standard that prevents melanization) in ultrapure water. The samples were vortexed for 1 minute, centrifuged for 10 minutes at 14,000 rpm to collect the supernatant and then syringe-filtered (Millipore 0.22 μm syringe filter) to remove cells, such as haemocytes, present in the haemolymph. Filtered samples (150 μl total volume) were transferred to a 1.5 ml tube containing 50 μl of chloroform, 75 μl of methanol, and 75 μl of water containing B-methylamino-L-Alanine (53.4 μM) as an internal standard for normalisation. After centrifugation, the polar and apolar phases were collected and dried in a speed vac concentrator (ISS100, Thermo Scientific, Dreieich, Germany), and samples were stored at −80 until analysis. Five samples in total were collected from 2 independent experiments for each group and time point.

LC-MS and LC-MS/MS analysis

Polar extracts were reconstituted in Methanol:Water (1:1, V/V) containing 5 μM 13C5, 15N-Valine as an internal standard. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was performed as described previously [63]. LC analysis was performed using a Dionex UltiMate LC system (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Loughborough, UK) with a ZIC-pHILIC column (150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm particle, Merck Sequant, Umea, Sweden). A 15-minute elution gradient of 80% Solvent A (20 mM ammonium carbonate in Optima HPLC grade water, Sigma Aldrich) to 20% Solvent B (acetonitrile Optima HPLC grade, Sigma Aldrich) was used, followed by a 5-minute wash of 95:5 Solvent A to Solvent B and 5-minute re-equilibration. Other parameters were as follows: flow rate 300 μl/min; column temperature 25°C; injection volume 10 μl; and autosampler temperature 4°C.

All metabolites were detected across a mass range of 70 to 1050 m/z using a Q Exactive Orbitrap instrument (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Loughborough, UK) with heated electrospray ionisation and polarity switching mode at a resolution of 70,000 (at 200 m/z). MS parameters were as follows: spray voltage 3.5 kV for positive mode and 3.2 kV for negative mode; probe temperature 320°C; sheath gas 30 arbitrary units; and auxiliary gas 5 arbitrary units. Pooled biological quality control (PBQC) samples were analysed throughout the run to provide a measurement of the stability and performance of the system. Parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) was used at a resolution of 17,500 to confirm the identification of metabolites; collision energies were set individually in high-energy collisional dissociation (HCD) mode. Data were acquired using Xcalibur 3.0.63 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Loughborough, UK), and Progenesis (Nonlinear Dynamics, Newcastle, United Kingdom) was used for data alignment and peak detection. Data were normalised against internal standards. Metabolites were considered significantly altered using 2-way ANOVA (p < 0.05) and Bonferroni post hoc test. Annotations were assigned to accurate masses with a maximum error of 5 ppm using Metlin [64], LipidMaps [65], Kegg [66], and HMDB [67], which were searched simultaneously using the CEU Mass Mediator engine (http://ceumass.eps.uspceu.es/mediator/)). Features that did not present any hint in the database were filtered out. Metabolomics data (five replicates/time point and condition) was deposited into the Metabolights repository (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/metabolights/) under accession number MTBLS2166.

Metabolomic pathway analysis and heat map

The mean relative abundances of all identifiable metabolites for each time point for both treated and untreated flies were divided by the mean abundance of the metabolite at the corresponding time point from untreated flies. Results were expressed in fold change values for each individual metabolite, with the untreated group serving as the baseline. Thus, metabolites with abundance fold changes greater than 1 were said to be up-regulated in flies treated with NTBC as compared to control, while metabolites with abundance fold change less than 1 were said to be down-regulated.

The abundance fold-change values were then plotted onto a heatmap using gplot's heatmap.2 program (version 3.0.1.1, http://cran.r-project.org). The heatmap colour scale was limited from 0 to 4, with additional non-cosmetic options as follows: distfun = function(x) dist(x, "manhattan"), hclustfun = function(x) hclust(x, "centroid"), Colv = FALSE.

Subsequent to this, metabolic pathways were assembled using Pathway Collages from BioCyc [68,69], focusing on pathways relevant to tyrosine degradation, carbon metabolism, and amino acid biosynthesis. Fold changes from all identified metabolites were overlaid onto this “combined” metabolic pathway, and statistically significant metabolites (as determined by the 2-way ANOVA test as described previously) were highlighted. Metabolites that were identified from LC-MS/MS but were not identifiable within the “combined” metabolic pathway were not mapped. Pathways that did not have any LC-MS/MS-identified metabolites mapped to it were removed from the “combined” pathway.

In vitro comparative metabolism of NTBC against insect microsomal preparations

Microsome preparation

Microsomes were prepared from young female mosquitoes (48 to 72 hours old) and from the mosquitoes (An. gambiae (Kisumu) and Ae. aegypti (New Orleans) as described by Kasai and colleagues [70] and Inceoglu and colleagues [71] with some modifications. Briefly, preparation of the adult mosquito microsomes (approximately 200 individuals per colony) were done by removing the heads to avoid enzyme inhibition by xanthommatin eye pigments [72]. Mosquitoes were snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen with a sieve approximately 2 mm mesh size. Small steel spheres were gently mixed with the mosquitoes to fractionate their bodies and to separate the heads, legs, and wings parts from the joint abdominal-thoracic components. The thorax and the abdomen were then washed with 3 ml of prechilled 0.1 M KBP (pH 7.4) homogenisation buffer (HB) containing 1× protease inhibitor (Roche Complete ULTRA, Basel, Switzerland). The complex was homogenised in 20 ml of HB using 40 ml glass Dounce homogeniser with a loose B pestle (Wheaton Science, Millville, United States) for 20 strokes. The separation of the homogenate into cytosolic and microsomal extracts was achieved by centrifugation steps at 4°C. The initial centrifugation was performed at 10,000 × g for 15 minutes to remove insoluble debris. A second centrifugation at 200,000 × g for 1 hour was performed to pellet the microsomes. The microsomal pellet was resuspended in 2 ml of ice-cold suspension buffer (HB containing 20% glycerol). Protein concentration was measured in triplicate by the Bradford method [73] with Bio-Rad reagents using BSA as a protein standard.

Tsetse microsomes

Virgin female G. m. morsitans (n = 174) were maintained on three bloodmeals over the week and then starved for six days to reduce bloodmeal contaminants during tissue homogenisation. The intact thorax and abdomen were removed by a pair of forceps, snap frozen in liquid nitrogen, and homogenised as described with mosquito microsomes. Because of the low P450 content in insecticide-susceptible tsetse flies and mosquitoes, it was not possible to determine P450 content by the traditional carbon monoxide-reduced spectral assay [74], thus protein concentrations were adjusted to 4 mg/ml using 0.1 M Potassium Phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) to normalise for protein content. Recombinant An. gambiae CYP6P3 enzyme was used as a positive control for P450s microsomal activities. All microsome preparations, in comparison to CYP6P3, were tested for O-dealkylation activities against the P450’s generic substrate “Diethoxyfluorescein” before the setup of the NTCB metabolism assay that identifies P450s enzyme activities in microsomal extracts. Briefly, for activity assays, 200 μl of reaction media were set up in triplicate containing 0.5 mM NADPH, 5 μM diethoxyfluorescein, 4 mg/ml microsomes or with mixture of 0.1 μM CYP6P3, 0.8 μM cytochrome b5 and incubated at 30°C for 15 minutes. The enzyme activity was recorded versus negative control (no NADPH) as 147.93 ± 32, 408.64 ± 45.96, 51.5 ± 2.63, and 372 ± 9.8 relative fluorescence units (RFU) for tsetse, Ae. aegypti, An. gambiae, and CYP6P3, respectively. This showed the suitability of microsomes, CYP6P3, and NADPH for running the NTBC comparative metabolism.

NTBC metabolism by P450 enzymes

NTBC oxidation by P450 enzymes were evaluated. The 200 μl reaction media containing 20 μM of each drug, 0.5 mM NADPH, and the enzyme source (4 mg/ml microsomal extract or CYP6P3 0.1 μM ± 0.8 μM cytochrome b5) was incubated for 1 hour. Reactions were initiated by adding NADPH and incubating at 30°C with shaking (1,200 rpm). Reactions were stopped with 200 μl acetonitrile and analysed for drug peak depletion using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) according to Muller and colleagues [29] with some modifications. The chromatographic separation was achieved using a Thermofisher C18 column using 0.1% phosphoric acid in water and acetonitrile (45:55, v/v). The cutoff value of 20% substrate depletion used to distinguish true substrate turnover from baseline variability.

NTBC stability under environmental stressors

NTBC was diluted in 10% (w/v) sucrose to a final concentration of 0.01 mg/ml and stored at either 4°C or 25°C in dark or transparent 1.5 ml polypropylene tubes. One volume of NTBC was then mixed with 9 volumes of sterile defibrinated horse blood (final NTBC concentration: 0.001 mg/ml), and these bloodmeals were used to weekly screen for tsetse lethality throughout a 5-week period.

Additionally, NTBC was diluted in 10% (w/v) sucrose to a final concentration of 0.01 mg/ml and subjected to 10 freeze–thaw cycles. Following temperature stress, one NTBC volume was mixed with nine volumes of sterile defibrinated horse blood (final concentration: 0.001 mg/ml), and these bloodmeals were fed to male tsetse. Mortality was monitored over 24 hours.

Mathematical modelling

A discrete time (one-day time step) compartmental model was constructed to describe the key processes underlying the transmission of African trypanosomiasis. These parasites have a broad reservoir of host animals, so these were categorised according to whether they were livestock or wildlife. The transmission between three host types in total (humans, livestock, and wildlife), and the tsetse fly vector was simulated for Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense (S1 Methods). For T. b. gambiense, animal reservoirs likely play a reduced role, so simulations focused on transmission between tsetse flies and humans only. In both cases, the pre-intervention R0 was assumed to have a value of 1.1 [75,76]. The impact of vector biting behaviour was examined by apportioning the split of bites on humans, livestock, and wildlife randomly across the full possible range (500 iterations) and, through simulation, determining the frequency of NTBC application required to drive the effective reproduction number (Re) below unity. See S1 Methods for further details about the mathematical modelling.

Statistical analysis

Tsetse survival was scored daily post-treatment. Statistical analysis and graphics were performed using Prism 6.0 software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, United States). The data from multiple experiments were combined into a single graph. The log-rank (Kaplan–Meier) test was used to evaluate significant differences in survival between the experimental and control groups. Dose-response curves were completed using a plot of nonlinear fit for log of inhibitor versus normalised response (variable slope). LD50 and LC50 were calculated using Probit analysis (POLO Plus version 2.0). Numerical source data underlying all figures can be found in S1 Data.

Supporting information

S1 Methods. Mathematical modelling for Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense transmission.

Mathematical modelling for T. brucei gambiense transmission.

(DOCX)

S1 Table

Tsetse survival after (A) bloodmeal supplementation with HPLA concentrations or (B) injecting HPLA concentrations into the haemocoel. One independent replicate was performed per experiment; (A) n = 25 flies fed/concentration, (B) n = 10 flies injected/dose.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. The HPLC depletion assay was used to determine if NTBC is metabolised by Glossina P450 enzymes (detoxification enzymes).

Summary of in vitro NTBC degradation after an hour incubation with insect microsomal preparations and recombinant CYP6P3 in the presence of NADPH.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. NTBC stability under different environmental conditions (light exposure and storage temperature).

NTBC stock solutions were stored in either opaque (dark) tubes to protect from light exposure or in translucent tubes (light). Tube storage was either at room temperature (RT; 25°C) or refrigerated (4°C) over a 5-week time period.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig

ML phylogenetic trees were created from full-length protein sequences of TAT (A) and HPPD (B) from several insect species. The species and branches highlighted in orange indicate blood-feeding insects. A partial sequence coding for HPPD was identified for G. pallidipes, but it was excluded from the analysis because it was not complete. Scale bars (branch lengths) correspond to the mean number of amino acid substitutions per site on the respective branch. HPPD, 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; ML, maximum likelihood; TAT, tyrosine aminotransferase.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Efficiency of gene silencing in tsetse midgut tissue three days after intrathoracic injection of dsRNA.

(A) TAT (unpaired t test with equal SD. N = 4–5 p = 0.05) knockdown. (B) HPPD knockdown (unpaired t test with equal SD. N = 5–4 p = 0.04). Data are shown as mean ± SEM. dsRNA, double-stranded RNA; HPPD, 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; TAT, tyrosine aminotransferase.

(TIF)

S3 Fig

The survival of tsetse after feeding on blood supplemented with either mesotrione (A) or NTBC (B). Dose-response curves were calculated at 24 hours after the bloodmeal (C). Six independent experiments were performed (n = 16–28 insects per dose). Total number of tsetse used to generate the dose-response curves were n = 1,018 for mesotrione and n = 914 for NTBC. Data are shown as mean ± SEM. NTBC, nitisinone.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. No differences in susceptibility to HPPD inhibitors were observed between flies sex.

(A) Mesotrione-fed female tsetse (total insects: 483; LD50: 427.5 μM; 95% CI: 189.5–737.4) and (B) Mesotrione-fed male tsetse (total insects: 536; LD50: 304.9 μM; 95% CI: 133.3–507.8). (C) Dose-response curves calculated 24 hours after mesotrione feeding. Data are shown as mean ± SEM. (D) NTBC-fed female tsetse (total insects: 403; LD50: 2.8 μM; 95% CI: 0.38–8.5). (E) NTBC-fed male tsetse (total insects: 511; LD50: 1.7 μM; 95% CI: 0.24–4.32). (F) Dose-response curves calculated 24 hours after NTBC feeding. Three independent experiments were performed, each with n = 26–30 tsetse per dose. Data are shown as mean ± SEM. HPPD, 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; NTBC, nitisinone.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. The percent of T. brucei-infected flies surviving a bloodmeal supplemented with NTBC or PBS.

Two independent experiments were performed, each with n = 26–30 tsetse per dose (233 insects in total). NTBC, nitisinone; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Characterisation of tsetse phenotypes when fed on rats treated with different doses of NTBC.

G. pallidipes flies were fed on anaesthetised rats that received an oral dose of sterile PBS (A) or 0.1 mg/kg (B), 0.5 mg/kg (C), or 1 mg/kg NTBC. Survival was recorded for 26 hours post feeding. NTBC, nitisinone; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline.

(TIF)

S7 Fig

(from S1 Video) Panels (A) to (C) have control (untreated) tsetse on the left and NTBC-treated (0.001 mg/ml) flies on the right. (A) In both groups, the excretion of water within the first 20 minutes after feeding is due to a process called diuresis. (B) The first fly to be partially paralysed (fly on back, yellow circle) in the NTBC-treated group occurs 8 hours after ingesting the bloodmeal. (C) Evidence of bloodmeal digestion in control flies as evidenced by dark excreta (yellow arrows) that is absent in NTBC-treated flies. (D) Top view of NTBC-treated compartment highlights the characteristic NTBC-treated, blackened abdomens (*). All flies are dead (black eyes) or dying (fully paralysed) by 28 hours post ingestion of NTBC. NTBC, nitisinone; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline.

(TIF)

S8 Fig

External and internal tissue destruction of NTBC-treated tsetse: (A) tsetse fed regular blood on left and NTBC-treated blood on the right. Internal abdominal liquefaction was demonstrated by placing tsetse abdomens under a glass slide and applying pressure to squeeze out tissues: (B) control fly and (C) NTBC-treated fly. NTBC, nitisinone.

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Percent survival of flies fed daily with either 0.1% fructose-PBS or PBS alone supplemented with 34 mg/ml of BSA.

Only a small percentage (approximately 6%) of flies died 24 hours after feeding with either PBS-BSA or fructose-BSA. Moreover, both groups showed a comparable mortality rate until day 6, when they reached approximately 50% of the mortality compared to the group of flies fed only with horse blood. These experiments provide evidence that (1) the 24-hour mortality shown in Fig 4B is due to the addition of NTBC; (2) protein degradation is important for NTBC killing; and (3) tsetse flies do not appear to obtain energy from ingesting 0.1% fructose. Daily feeds were mandatory because the flies are highly susceptible to dehydration as they quickly process the nutritionally poor meal. Fly mortality was daily recorded for a period of six days. Two independent experiments were performed, each with n = 18–51 tsetse per treatment (221 insects in total). BSA, bovine serum albumin; NTBC, nitisinone; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline.

(TIF)

S10 Fig. Dose-response curves calculated 24 hours after topical application of either deltamethrin or NTBC.

Drugs were applied immediately after tsetse had taken a bloodmeal. Three independent experiments were performed: n = 10–20 insects per dose. The data for the dose-response curves for deltamethrin (n = 339 flies) and NTBC (n = 449 flies) are shown as mean ± SEM. NTBC, nitisinone.

(TIF)

S11 Fig

The percent survival of G. m. morsitans after topically applying either acetone (red) or NTBC: 1,000 ng (blue) or 31.25 ng (black). Once the solution was applied, tsetse were offered a bloodmeal every 24 hours to measure the residual activity of absorbed NTBC. Flies were fed at either 24 hours (A), 48 hours (B), 72 hours (C), 96 hours (D), 120 hours (E), or 144 hours (F) after topical application. Vertical dotted lines indicate the timing of each bloodmeal. Two independent experiments were performed, each with n = 10–12 insects (315 insects in total). NTBC, nitisinone.

(TIF)

S12 Fig. G. m. morsitans survival (%) after the topical application of solutions at specific times after an initial bloodmeal (PBM).

Acetone (red) or NTBC (1,000 ng, blue; 21.25 ng, black) was topically applied at (A) 24 hours, (B) 48 hours, (D) 72 hours, and (D) 96 hours after a fly had ingested a single bloodmeal. Two independent experiments were conducted, each with n = 10–12 insects (306 insects in total). NTBC, nitisinone; PBM, post-blood meal.

(TIF)

S13 Fig. Tsetse survival after topically applying mesotrione to the fly thorax and then giving them a bloodmeal.

Two independent experiments were performed, each with n = 10–30 flies per dose tested (190 insects in total).

(TIF)

S14 Fig. T. b. rhodesiense Re dynamics following NTBC treatment of both livestock and humans every 30 days.

The different lines correspond with randomly selected distributions of bites among humans, livestock, and wildlife. Where wildlife make up the large majority of tsetse bloodmeals, only limited control is achievable (dark brown) but where humans and livestock make up the majority of bloodmeals, good levels of control can be achieved (blue). NTBC, nitisinone.

(TIF)

S15 Fig. Effect of NTBC application on the effective reproduction number of T. brucei gambiense (Re > 1 in brown and Re < 1 in purple).

Treatments are conducted either every 10 days (left column), every 30 days (middle column), or every 90 days (right column). The axes denote the proportional split of bloodmeals ingested by local tsetse vectors between humans, livestock, and wildlife (where proportion of bites on wildlife are 1 - (bites on humans + bites on livestock)). NTBC, nitisinone.

(TIF)

S1 Video. Male tsetse flies were fed either normal blood (control) or blood supplemented with a lethal concentration of NTBC (0.001 mg/ml) and immediately transferred into a bespoke Perspex box for filming.

The left compartment contains control flies and the right holds NTBC-treated flies. Initial tsetse knockdown is defined as loss of flight, followed by paralysis and dropping to the floor. The video recorded continually for almost 29 hours and was condensed to 1 minute (100,000 ×); real time is shown in top right corner (hh:mm). Key features, highlighted in yellow, are further described in S7 Fig.

(MP4)

S1 Data. All experimental raw data used to generate manuscript figures.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Daniel Southern, Keith Steen, and Robert Leyland for excellent technical assistance. We thank Robert Prendergast for videography and video editing.

Abbreviations

AAT

animal African trypanosomiasis

ARCU

Animal Rearing Unit and Containment Unit

ATSB

attractive targeted sugar bait

BSA

bovine serum albumin

dsRNA

double-stranded RNA

FAH

fumarylacetoacetase

GFP

green fluorescence protein

HAT

human African trypanosomiasis

HB

homogenization buffer

HCD

high-energy collisional dissociation

HIS1

HPPD Inhibitor Sensitive 1

HPLA

4-hydroxyphenyl lactic acid

HPLC

High Performance Liquid Chromatography

HPPD

4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase

HPPA

4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate

HT-1

hypertyrosinemia type I

IACUC

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

icipe

International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology

LC-MS/MS

liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

MDA

mass drug administration

NFW

nuclease-free water

NTBC

nitisinone

PBQC

pooled biological quality control

PRM

parallel reaction monitoring

qPCR

quantitative polymerase chain reaction

RFU

relative fluorescence unit

RNAi

RNA interference

RT-PCR

reverse transcription PCR

TAT

tyrosine aminotransferase

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files, except for the metabolomics dataset, which has been deposited into the MetaboLights repository (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/metabolights/) under accession number MTBLS2166.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Confidence in Concept awards 2016-17 MC_PC_16052 and 2017-18 MC_PC_17167 to AA-S and MIP (https://mrc.ukri.org/), and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Anti-VeC award AV/PP0021/1 to AA-S and LHR (https://bbsrc.ukri.org). MS was supported by grants from FONCyT PICT 2017-1015 (http://www.foncyt.mincyt.gov.ar/), BBSRC Anti-VeC AV/TTKE/0011 and CAPES/FAPERJ No E-26/102.837/2011 (http://www.faperj.br/). PLO was supported by FAPERJ E-26/210.246/2018, CAPES 9152899772/CAPES-PRINT760102P (https://www.gov.br/capes/pt-br) and CNPq 09078/2018-2 (www.http://www.cnpq.br). SW was supported by LSTM Research Computing Unit. JIM and MSS were supported by The Francis Crick Institute which receives its core funding from Cancer Research UK FC001999 (https://www.cancerresearchuk.org), the MRC FC001999, and the Wellcome Trust FC001999 (https://wellcome.org/). Confocal images were supported by a Wellcome Trust Multi-User Equipment grant 104936/Z/14/Z. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Simarro P, Franco J, Diarra A, Jannin J. Epidemiology of human African trypanosomiasis. Clin Epidemiol. 2014;257 10.2147/CLEP.S39728 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.WHO. WHO | Trypanosomiasis, human African (sleeping sickness). In: WHO. World Health Organization; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.WHO. Strategic review of traps and targets for tsetse and African trypanosomiasis control. World Health Rep. 2004;1–58. Available: www.who.int/tdr/publications/documents/tsetse_traps.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rayaisse J-B, Kröber T, McMullin A, Solano P, Mihok S, Guerin PM. Standardizing visual control devices for tsetse flies: west African species Glossina tachinoides, G. palpalis gambiensis and G. morsitans submorsitans. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6:e1491 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rayaisse JB, Tirados I, Kaba D, Dewhirst SY, Logan JG, Diarrassouba A, et al. Prospects for the development of odour baits to control the tsetse flies Glossina tachinoides and G. palpalis s.l. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4:e632 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ndeledje N, Bouyer J, Stachurski F, Grimaud P, Belem AMG, Molélé Mbaïndingatoloum F, et al. Treating cattle to protect people? Impact of footbath insecticide treatment on tsetse density in Chad. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e67580 10.1371/journal.pone.0067580 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Torr SJ, Maudlin I, Vale GA. Less is more: restricted application of insecticide to cattle to improve the cost and efficacy of tsetse control. Med Vet Entomol. 2007;21:53–64. 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2006.00657.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Simo G, Rayaisse JB. Challenges facing the elimination of sleeping sickness in west and central Africa: sustainable control of animal trypanosomiasis as an indispensable approach to achieve the goal. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:640 10.1186/s13071-015-1254-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lehane MJ. The Biology of Blood-Sucking in Insects. Second Edition Cambridge University Press; 2005. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sterkel M, Oliveira JHM, Bottino-Rojas V, Paiva-Silva GO, Oliveira PL. The dose makes the poison: nutritional overload determines the life traits of blood-feeding arthropods. Trends Parasitol. 2017;33:633–44. 10.1016/j.pt.2017.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sterkel M, Perdomo HD, Guizzo MG, Barletta ABF, Nunes RD, Dias FA, et al. Tyrosine detoxification is an essential trait in the life history of blood-feeding arthropods. Curr Biol. 2016;26:2188–93. 10.1016/j.cub.2016.06.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Holme E, Lindstedt S. Tyrosinaemia type I and NTBC (2-(2-nitro-4-trifluoromethylbenzoyl)-1,3-cyclohexanedione). J Inherit Metab Dis. 1998;21:507–17. 10.1023/a:1005410820201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lock E, Ranganath LR, Timmis O. The role of nitisinone in tyrosine pathway disorders. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2014;16:457 10.1007/s11926-014-0457-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Consortium TIAG. Genome sequence of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum. PLoS Biol. 2010;8:e1000313 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nowicki C, Cazzulo JJ. Aromatic amino acid catabolism in trypanosomatids. Comp Biochem Physiol Part A Mol Integr Physiol. 2008;151:381–90. 10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Watanabe J, Hattori M, Berriman M, Lehane MJ, Hall N, Solano P, et al. Genome sequence of the tsetse fly (Glossina morsitans): Vector of African trypanosomiasis. Science (80-). 2014;344:380–6. 10.1126/science.1249656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hall MG, Wilks MF, Provan WM, Eksborg S, Lumholtz B. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of NTBC (2-(2-nitro-4-fluoromethylbenzoyl)-1,3-cyclohexanedione) and mesotrione, inhibitors of 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) following a single dose to healthy male volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;52:169–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lindstedt S, Holme E, Lock EA, Hjalmarson O, Strandvik B. Treatment of hereditary tyrosinaemia type I by inhibition of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Lancet. 1992;340:813–7. 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92685-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lock E, Ranganath LR, Timmis O. The role of nitisinone in tyrosine pathway disorders. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2014;16:1–8. 10.1007/s11926-014-0457-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.European Medicines Agency-Orfadin, INN-Nitisinone. 2004;1: 1–102. Available: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-discussion/orfadin-epar-scientific-discussion_en.pdf.
  • 21.Crump A, Omura S. Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective. Proc Japan Acad Ser B. 2011;87:13–28. 10.2183/pjab.87.13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Foy BD, Kobylinski KC, da Silva IM, Rasgon JL, Sylla M. Endectocides for malaria control. Trends Parasitol. 2011;27:423–8. 10.1016/j.pt.2011.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Miglianico M, Eldering M, Slater H, Ferguson N, Ambrose P, Lees RS, et al. Repurposing isoxazoline veterinary drugs for control of vector-borne human diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115:E6920–6. 10.1073/pnas.1801338115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mantilla BS, Marchese L, Casas-Sánchez A, Dyer NA, Ejeh N, Biran M, et al. Proline metabolism is essential for Trypanosoma brucei brucei survival in the tsetse vector. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13:e1006158 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Graça-Souza AV, Maya-Monteiro C, Paiva-Silva GO, Braz GRC, Paes MC, Sorgine MHF, et al. Adaptations against heme toxicity in blood-feeding arthropods. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2006;36:322–35. 10.1016/j.ibmb.2006.01.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Riond B, Wenger-Riggenbach B, Hofmann-Lehmann R, Lutz H. Serum protein concentrations from clinically healthy horses determined by agarose gel electrophoresis. Vet Clin Pathol. 2009;38:73–7. 10.1111/j.1939-165X.2008.00100.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Huledal G, Olsson B, Önnestam K, Dalén P, Lindqvist D, Kruse M, et al. Non randomized study on the potential of nitisinone to inhibit cytochrome P450 2C9, 2D6, 2E1 and the organic anion transporters OAT1 and OAT3 in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;75:313–20. 10.1007/s00228-018-2581-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Neat JN, Wolff A, Kazmi F, Prentiss P, Buckley D, Wilson EM, et al. In vitro inhibition and induction of human liver cytochrome P450 enzymes by NTBC and its metabolism in human liver microsomes. Drug Metab Rev. 2010;42. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Müller P, Warr E, Stevenson BJ, Pignatelli PM, Morgan JC, Steven A, et al. Field-caught permethrin-resistant Anopheles gambiae overexpress CYP6P3, a P450 that metabolises pyrethroids. PLoS Genet. 2008;4:e1000286 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Barchanska H, Rola R, Szczepankiewicz W, Mrachacz M. LC-MS/MS study of the degradation processes of nitisinone and its by-products. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2019;171:15–21. 10.1016/j.jpba.2019.03.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Klein A-M, Boreux V, Fornoff F, Mupepele A-C, Pufal G. Relevance of wild and managed bees for human well-being. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2018;26:82–8. 10.1016/j.cois.2018.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mužinić V, Želježić D. Non-target toxicity of novel insecticides. Arch Ind Hyg Toxicol. 2018;69:86–102. 10.2478/aiht-2018-69-3111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ramirez MAV, Sterkel M, Martins A d J, JBP L, Oliveira PL. On the use of inhibitors of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase as a vector-selective insecticide in the control of mosquitoes. bioRxiv. 2019. 10.1101/669747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rock KS, Ndeffo-Mbah ML, Castaño S, Palmer C, Pandey A, Atkins KE, et al. Assessing strategies against gambiense sleeping sickness through mathematical modeling. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66 (4):S286–92. 10.1093/cid/ciy018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Capewell P, Cren-Travaillé C, Marchesi F, Johnston P, Clucas C, Benson RA, et al. The skin is a significant but overlooked anatomical reservoir for vector-borne African trypanosomes. Elife. 2016;5:3–5. 10.7554/eLife.17716 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Casas-Sánchez A, Acosta-Serrano Á. Skin deep. Elife. 2016;5 10.7554/eLife.21506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Capewell P, Atkins K, Weir W, Jamonneau V, Camara M, Clucas C, et al. Resolving the apparent transmission paradox of African sleeping sickness. PLoS Biol. 2019;17:e3000105 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Camara M, Soumah AM, Ilboudo H, Travaillé C, Clucas C, Cooper A, et al. Extravascular dermal trypanosomes in suspected and confirmed cases of gambiense human African trypanosomiasis. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. 10.1093/cid/ciaa897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cheah PY, White NJ. Antimalarial mass drug administration: ethical considerations. Int Health. 2016;8:235–8. 10.1093/inthealth/ihw027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pooda SH, Mouline K, De Meeûs T, Bengaly Z, Solano P. Decrease in survival and fecundity of Glossina palpalis gambiensis vanderplank 1949 (Diptera: Glossinidae) fed on cattle treated with single doses of ivermectin. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:165 10.1186/1756-3305-6-165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Distelmans W, D’Haeseleer F, Mortelmans J. Efficacy of systemic administration of ivermectin against tsetse flies. Ann Soc Belg Med Trop (1920). 1983;63: 119–125. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6688512. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Van Den Abbeele J, Van Den Bossche P, Mortelmans J, Decleir W. Effect of ivermectin and isometamidium chloride on Glossina palpalis palpalis (diptera: Glossinidae). Ann Soc Belg Med Trop (1920). 1988;68: 53–59. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3178326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Van Den Bossche P, Geerts S. The effects on longevity and fecundity of Glossina tachinoides after feeding on pigs treated with ivermectin. Ann Soc Belg Med Trop (1920). 1988;68: 133–139. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3240008. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.DrugBank. Available: https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00602.
  • 45.Macagnan N, Rutkoski CF, Kolcenti C, Vanzetto GV, Macagnan LP, Sturza PF, et al. Toxicity of cypermethrin and deltamethrin insecticides on embryos and larvae of Physalaemus gracilis (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2017;24:20699–704. 10.1007/s11356-017-9727-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gurevitz JM, Gaspe MS, Enríquez GF, Vassena CV, Alvarado-Otegui JA, Provecho YM, et al. Unexpected failures to control Chagas Disease vectors with pyrethroid spraying in northern Argentina. J Med Entomol. 2012;49:1379–86. 10.1603/me11157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Toé KH, Jones CM, N’Fale S, Ismail HM, Dabiré RK, Ranson H. Increased pyrethroid resistance in malaria vectors and decreased bed net effectiveness. Burkina Faso Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20:1691–6. 10.3201/eid2010.140619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Strode C, Donegan S, Garner P, Enayati AA, Hemingway J. The impact of pyrethroid resistance on the efficacy of insecticide-treated bed nets against African Anopheline mosquitoes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001619 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Molchanov S, Gryff-keller A. Inhibition of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase by 2-[2-nitro-4- (trifluoromethyl)benzoyl]-1,3-cyclohexanedione. Acta Biochem Pol. 2009;56:447–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Lin H-Y, Chen X, Chen J-N, Wang D-W, Wu F-X, Lin S-Y, et al. Crystal Structure of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase in complex with substrate reveals a new starting point for herbicide discovery. Research. 2019;2019:1–11. 10.34133/2019/2602414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Santucci A, Bernardini G, Braconi D, Petricci E, Manetti F. 4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase and its inhibition in plants and animals: small molecules as herbicides and agents for the treatment of human inherited diseases. J Med Chem. 2017;60:4101–25. 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b01395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rocaboy-Faquet E, Barthelmebs L, Calas-Blanchard C, Noguer T. A novel amperometric biosensor for ß-triketone herbicides based on hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibition: A case study for sulcotrione. Talanta. 2016;146:510–6. 10.1016/j.talanta.2015.09.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kaundun SS, Hutchings SJ, Dale RP, Howell A, Morris JA, Kramer VC, et al. Mechanism of resistance to mesotrione in an Amaranthus tuberculatus population from Nebraska, USA. PLoS ONE. 2017;12 10.1371/journal.pone.0180095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lu H, Yu Q, Han H, Owen MJ, Powles SB. Evolution of resistance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides in a wild radish population via enhanced herbicide metabolism. Pest Manag Sci. 2020;76:1929–37. 10.1002/ps.5725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Maeda H, Murata K, Sakuma N, Takei S, Yamazaki A, Karim MR, et al. A rice gene that confers broad-spectrum resistance to ß-triketone herbicides. Science. 2019;365:393–6. 10.1126/science.aax0379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Barrett MP. The elimination of human African trypanosomiasis is in sight: Report from the third WHO stakeholders meeting on elimination of gambiense human African trypanosomiasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12:e0006925 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006925 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Dereeper A, Guignon V, Blanc G, Audic S, Buffet S, Chevenet F, et al. Phylogeny.fr: robust phylogenetic analysis for the non-specialist. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:W465–9. 10.1093/nar/gkn180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Dereeper A, Audic S, Claverie J-M, Blanc G. BLAST-EXPLORER helps you building datasets for phylogenetic analysis. BMC Evol Biol. 2010;10:8 10.1186/1471-2148-10-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Guindon S, Dufayard J-F, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 2010;59:307–21. 10.1093/sysbio/syq010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Walshe DP, Lehane SM, Lehane MJ, Haines LR. Prolonged gene knockdown in the tsetse fly Glossina by feeding double stranded RNA. Insect Mol Biol. 2009;18:11–9. 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2008.00839.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCT method. Methods. 2001;25:402–8. 10.1006/meth.2001.1262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.MacGregor P, Rojas F, Dean S, Matthews KR. Stable transformation of pleomorphic bloodstream form Trypanosoma brucei. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2013;190:60–2. 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2013.06.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Fets L, Driscoll PC, Grimm F, Jain A, Nunes PM, Gounis M, et al. MCT2 mediates concentration-dependent inhibition of glutamine metabolism by MOG. Nat Chem Biol. 2018;14:1032–42. 10.1038/s41589-018-0136-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Guijas C, Montenegro-Burke JR, Domingo-Almenara X, Palermo A, Warth B, Hermann G, et al. METLIN: A Technology platform for identifying knowns and unknowns. Anal Chem. 2018;90:3156–64. 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b04424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Fahy E, Sud M, Cotter D, Subramaniam S. LIPID MAPS online tools for lipid research. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35 10.1093/nar/gkm324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kanehisa M. Kegg bioinformatics resource for plant genomics and metabolomics Methods in Molecular Biology. Humana Press Inc.; 2016. pp. 55–70. 10.1007/978-1-4939-3167-5_3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Wishart DS, Feunang YD, Marcu A, Guo AC, Liang K, Vázquez-Fresno R, et al. HMDB 4.0: The human metabolome database for 2018. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46:D608–17. 10.1093/nar/gkx1089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Paley S, O’Maille PE, Weaver D, Karp PD. Pathway collages: personalized multi-pathway diagrams. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016;17:529 10.1186/s12859-016-1382-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Karp PD, Latendresse M, Paley SM, Krummenacker M, Ong QD, Billington R, et al. Pathway Tools version 19.0 update: software for pathway/genome informatics and systems biology. Brief Bioinform. 2016;17:877–90. 10.1093/bib/bbv079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Kasai S, Komagata O, Itokawa K, Shono T, Ng LC, Kobayashi M, et al. Mechanisms of pyrethroid resistance in the Dengue mosquito vector, Aedes aegypti: target site insensitivity, penetration, and metabolism. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8:e2948 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Inceoglu AB, Waite TD, Christiansen JA, McAbee RD, Kamita SG, Hammock BD, et al. A rapid luminescent assay for measuring cytochrome P450 activity in individual larval Culex pipiens complex mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol. 2009;46:83–92. 10.1603/033.046.0111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Schonbrod R. D.; Terriere LC. Inhibition of housefly microsomal epoxidase by the eye pigment, xanthommatin. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 1971;1:409–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Bradford M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem. 1976;72:248–54. 10.1006/abio.1976.9999 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Omura T, Sato R. The carbon monoxide-binding pigment of liver microsomes. Solubilization, purification, and properties. J Biol Chem. 1964;239:2379–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Funk S, Nishiura H, Heesterbeek H, Edmunds WJ, Checchi F. Identifying transmission cycles at the human-animal interface: the role of animal reservoirs in maintaining gambiense human African trypanosomiasis. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Rock KS, Torr SJ, Lumbala C, Keeling MJ. Quantitative evaluation of the strategy to eliminate human African trypanosomiasis in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8: 1–13. 10.1186/s13071-014-0608-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hashi Wijayatilake

29 May 2020

Dear Dr Acosta-Serrano,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Repurposing the orphan drug nitisinone to control the transmission of African trypanosomiasis" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology. I apologize for the delay in getting you this decision. As I’m sure you can understand, our Academic Editors (and reviewers) currently have very limited availability due to COVID-19 related disruptions and an increased review load, and our editorial team is also affected. Additionally, we have been seeing a large increase in submissions during this time. Please do accept our very sincere apologies for the unavoidable delays.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff. We had been hoping to have an Academic Editor's input as well but have decided to move ahead regardless. The editorial team is very interested in your manuscript 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.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by May 31 2020 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.

Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, please expect delays in the editorial process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

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

Kind regards,

Hashi Wijayatilake, PhD,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 1

Nonia Pariente, PhD

30 Jun 2020

Dear Alvaro,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Repurposing the orphan drug nitisinone to control the transmission of African trypanosomiasis" 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, whose expertise and comment you will find at the end of this email.

As you will see, reviewers 1, 2 and 4 are overall very supportive of the work and we have decided to overrule referee 3's novelty concerns, as we consider that demonstrating the applicability of this approach goes well beyond your previous proof of principle studies. Nevertheless, the referees have identified several key experiments and analyses that need strengthening and would be important to do, especially the modelling and PTU experiments, and request some additional discussion and caveating of the results, and some reworking of the figures. In addition, reviewers 1 and 3 request that data not shown be included in the manuscript, which is also our journal policy and thus must be addressed.

In light of the reviews (below) we would be happy to invite revision of a study that fully addresses the concerns outlined above. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments, which is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 4 months; please let us know if you foresee that the revision process may be longer.

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. 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, point by point.

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.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission 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.

With best wishes,

Nonia

Nonia Pariente, PhD,

Editor-in-Chief PLOS Biology

PLOS Biology

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

REVIEWS:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Louis Lambrechts (ecology, evolution and genetics of insect-virus interactions)

Reviewer #2: Yes: Geoffrey M Attardo (tsetse physiology and trypanosomiasis control)

Reviewer #3: No (interventions to prevent malaria transmission; mosquito vector control strategies; malaria pathogenesis)

Reviewer #4: No (modelling of parasite spread and effect of anti-parasitic interventions)

Reviewer #1: This is a well-conducted and exciting study on the potential of the FDA-approved drug nitisinone to control populations of hematophagous vectors. The body of evidence provided in the paper convincingly demonstrates that nitisinone (a tyrosine degradation inhibitor) can kill tsetse flies upon blood feeding by promoting toxic accumulation of tyrosine. The potency of the drug at concentrations that are compatible with mass drug administration in the human population, the versatile application (oral or topical) and the environmental friendliness (harmless to bumble-bees) make nitisinone a very promising candidate for drug-based vector control. The paper is clearly written and I only have minor suggestions to improve it, listed below in decreasing order of importance.

It would be interesting to discuss the likelihood that flies (or other insects) could evolve nitisinone resistance by other means than metabolic detoxification (e.g., target insensitivity). In the dose-response experiments, a small proportion (10-15%) of flies seems to survive even at high drug concentration (e.g., Fig. 1d). This observation is consistent with the existence of some genetic variation and/or phenotypic plasticity in nitisinone tolerance.

Since PLoS Biology has no restrictions on the number of figures, some of the data relegated to the supporting information could be included in the main body of the paper. For instance, Figs. S6, S7 and S8 could be combined and provided as an additional main figure.

It is not expected that the authors carry out additional experiments with mosquitoes, but perhaps the collateral effects of nitisinone on mosquito vector species (if they are considered plausible) could be mentioned in the discussion as an additional benefit to the proposed strategy.

Some guidance in the caption could help the unfamiliar reader to navigate the ternary plots shown in Fig. 4. For example, placing the labels at the corners (not the edges) would make it easier to interpret the simulation results. Frequency (in days) should probably refer to time interval between applications.

Line 108: why are the data not shown ?

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Sterkel et al. describes the the implementation of a tyrosine catabolism inhibitor (nitisinone - NTBC) as a a putative insecticide targeted at control of blood feeding arthropods with tsetse flies being the focus of this work.

The authors demonstrate the essential nature of tyrosine detoxification in blood meal digestion and metabolism as knockout of the genes for key enzymes in the tyrosine detoxification pathway (TAT and HPPD) causes lethality in flies after blood feeding. This is followed up by treatment with inhibitors of these enzymes (mesotrione and NTBC) and demonstrate lethality after blood feeding when treated with these drugs either orally or topically. In particular, nitisinone, a FDA approved drug with a well tolerated mammalian toxicity profile, is effective a low concentrations equivalent to therapeutic dosages found in humans. Tsetse flies feeding on rats treated with therapeutic levels of nitisinone also become intoxicated and die. The results from this paper are exciting and potentially game changing as a way to enable vector control to reduce levels of both human and animal trypanosomiasis.

The manuscript is well written and easy to read, the materials and methods are comprehensive and well described and the data is presented clearly. I feel the manuscript is well suited to PLoS Biology. However, I think some of the statements in the manuscript regarding the data are overinterpreted and either need to be toned down or additional controls/experimental work need to be included to provide support for these statements. I also think the final figure could use some modifications to make it easier to interpret and should include one alternative condition.

The authors perform a thorough analysis of the pathology resulting from in nitisinone treatment revealing extensive disruption and breakdown of internal tissues/organ systems. They demonstrate via metabolomic analysis that treatment with the inhibitor results in accumulation of toxic levels of tyrosine and hydroxyphenylpyruvic acid as a result of the HPPD inhibition. They go on to examine the potential for excess melanization activity and/or haem accumulation to be the cause of pathology. The authors state that they inhibited phenoloxidase (PO) activity with treatment of phenylthiourea (PTU), however, the experiment lacks a positive control to demonstrate the inhibitor is working. The inclusion of a positive control such as injected beads that trigger the melanization reaction by the immune system in the presence and absence of PTU would make the argument more convincing. In addition, thes PTU treatment seems to have a significant negative impact on the survival of the flies. It would be more convincing if the authors dissected out tissues from PTU and NTBC treated flies in a similar manner to what is shown in Figure 2 A+B to show that the melanization found in the NTBC treated flies alone disappears in the presence of PTU. Another alternative would be for the authors to mine their metabolomics data to compare the levels of downstream metabolites of the PO cascade such as dopa, dopamine and melanin in the NTBC treated flies.

The authors state that both oral and topical administration of NTBC are effective delivery mechanisms and that dietary protein is essential for its toxicity. In Supplemental figure 8 they show that the LC50 of NTBC requires ingestion of ~15 mg/ml of protein. This experiment could also use a control group which was fed BSA in the absence of NTBC. Blood is a complex mixture which tsetse have evolved specific mechanisms to deal with, however ingestion of sugar solution infused with BSA has a very different composition/osmolarity to that of blood and may have significant biochemical impacts on the fly. The control group would allow such issues to be accounted for and isolate the effect of protein concentration on NTBC mode of action.

As the headline of one of the major sections of the results indicates that "NTBC-associated damage does not depend on phenoloxidase activation or haem, but protein concentration in the bloodmeal" I think either this section should be toned down or additional controls should be added to the experiments to bolster this statement.

In the final section which discusses the results of the mathematical modelling of tsetse populations a model is presented which predicts how long NTBC treatment interventions would be required to reduce the population replacement number below 1. I was somewhat confused as to how to interpret the color scale as it would seem that the lower the number of days of treatment required would represent higher efficacy. However, the black indicator at the bottom of the figure indicates that the population is not controlled. The color indicating only 10 days of treatment at the bottom of the gradient is very close to black, so to my eye treatment efficacy is correlating with color intensity with the exception of completely black dots which are ineffective. If I am interpreting this correctly, I would suggest to reverse the gradient or change the color of the dots that fall into the "Not controlled" category. Another consideration in regards to this figure is that the two panels represent treatment of humans alone and treatment of livestock and humans. Treatment of healthy humans with a drug primarily tested in people with a genetic disease could potentially have unanticipated long term side effects. I think consideration should be given to treatment of livestock alone and that that should be presented as a third condition.

Overall this is a very nice paper with exciting potential that requires some additional tweaking prior to publication.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript by M. Sterkel and colleagues describes the effects of genetic and chemical impairment of tyrosine catabolism in two species of Glossinia, the tsetse fly vector of both human and animal African trypanosomiasis, a neglected tropical disease. The authors demonstrate that perturbation of tyrosine catabolism, either through mRNA silencing targeted against tyrosine aminotransferase (TAT) and hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD), or through the use of the selective HPPD inhibitors mesotrione and nitisinone, causes widespread tissue damage, morbidity and mortality in Glossinia spp. following a vertebrate blood meal, or digestion of protein. The authors go on to characterize this effect in detail, demonstrating the insecticidal effects of HPPD inhibitors when included in sugar or blood meals, or through direct external application. The authors conclude that HPPD inhibitors could be used as endectocides in mass drug administration (MDA), livestock treatment, or as an active ingredient in tsetse-targeting interventions. New tools to control tsetse flies are needed, and the presented data are an encouraging step forward.

The authors should be commended for presenting a large amount of work on an important subject. However, there are a number of important issues that reduce the relevance of this study.

MAJOR ISSUES

This study follows a previous publication from some of the same authors detailing similar effects of TAT and HPPD RNAi, and mesotrione and nitisinone on the Trypanosoma cruzi vector Rhodnius prolixus, and the mosquito vector Aedes aegypti. While the present manuscript goes into greater detail on the effects of perturbation of tyrosine catabolism in tsetse, the prior, similar findings in other hematophagic insects strongly reduces the novelty and impact of the present work.

Throughout, revisions are needed in the presentation of the data. The authors leave the reader to do much of the work to synthesize the data as the results section is, in general, too vague throughout (see specific comments). Data, including dosage concentrations, diluents, controls, median time-to-death, percent mortality at 24 h, should be presented clearly in the results section as well as the method text and not left to the figures. The same is true for figure legends, which lack detail.

Figures are difficult to follow, with very similar looking panels presenting different treatment conditions. All figures should have treatment conditions specified either on top of the graphs or on the x axis.

Line 195 Although the addition of phenylthiourea may indicate that PO activation is not required for NTBC activity, those experiments do not prove this is the case as the authors do not determine whether PO activity was inhibited in those conditions. So those conclusions aren't warranted.

Line278 No details of the model used are provided in the results. Also, the description of those results is minimal. What's the possible impact of the two control measures, and at what coverage level is an impact achieved?

The authors should also discuss the feasibility of achieving such high coverage levels as those indicated by the model figure.

'Data not shown' should be presented in supplementary figures.

MINOR ISSUES

Results

The use of "spiked" to describe solutions containing treatment compounds should be avoided. Instead include total makeup of provided solution (e.g. defibrinated horse blood with 10 µM mesotrione). In general, the range, or specific concentrations used in experiments should be stated in the results.

Line 102-104: state degree of mortality, and knockdown efficiency, for each treatment. Presumably the explanation for incomplete mortality is due to incomplete knockdown, but this is not stated in the text.

Line 121: please provide specific safety information for nitisinone/NTBC.

Related: nitisinone should be defined once as NTBC at first use, then referred to as that only for the remainder of the text. Currently, references to this drug are inconsistent.

Line 126: missing reference for standard oral dose of 1 mg/kg nitisinone.

Line 129 to 131: There is an extensive literature on both veterinary and human endectocides that should be referenced here.

Line 132-134: These data should be described in more detail.

Line 136-143: Again the data should be described fully - median-time-to-death etc - including the fact that mortality was incomplete, and (as stated in the discussion, but not here) that surviving flies suffered some morbidity effects

Line 155-159: The text (and figure legends) for figure 2 describe features that are not readily apparent on the included micrographs. Please highlight specific features of interest on figures.

Line 160-173: as above

Line 200-208: It is not clear whether these data were generated with mesotrione or nitisinone. The section heading states NTBC, but supp. Fig. 7 states mesotrione.

Line 209-215: state concentration of NTBC, state concentration range of BSA, concentration of sugar (fructose in this case).

Line 217-225: State method of application, vehicle, volume, concentration range applied. See comment above on topical application.

Line 218: Provide exact numbers of flies on the graph. Specify which sex was tested, and which line corresponds to which concentration.

Line 240: it's not clear why the authors used p450s from mosquitoes rather than from tsetse. This limits the relevance of these findings.

Line 243: define "moderately"

Line 267: sugar solutions of NTBC didn't kill tsetse flies either. The authors should test topical application in bees, as possible mortality effects in bees may be unrelated to protein uptake. Moreover, the conclusions that NTBC selectively kills blood-sucking insects provided in the discussion (line 386) is not justified given the limited number of insect species tested here and in previous work.

Discussion

Line 347: what is the approximate tyrosine content in whole blood (bovine, human). The comparison is interesting.

Caution is to be encouraged in discussing the unknown environmental safety of NTBC which, given its origin as an herbicide (albeit an agriculturally unsuitable one) may have some environmental impact. See also comment above about beneficial insects.

The suggestion that nitisinone could be used in a human MDA approach is presented without scrutiny. Given the potential ethical issues of administering a human therapeutic en masse with no direct benefit to the individual, I would like to see some discussion of these issues.

Topical application of compounds dissolved in a volatile vehicle (e.g. acetone), should not be considered a direct proxy for compound contact on a flag-trap, surface-treated animal, or similar substrate. Acetone disrupts the waxes of the insect exocuticle and, as a result, facilitates traversal of dissolved compounds into the insect hemocoel. While the fact that external exposure to nitisinone is effective is an important finding, some discussion of the limitations of this technique should be included.

Reviewer #4: I am only reviewing the modeling portion of this paper.

The authors use a simple model to estimate the impact of distributing NTBC as an endectocide for HAT, to humans and/or livestock, and predict the dosing interval for NTBC needed to drive R below 1. It's great to see modeling deployed to estimate the potential impact of a new tool like this! However, I have a few concerns with model structure and additional concerns about parameterization:

In the model, infection in animals is the same as infection in humans. The model says animal infections are just as transmissible and it is not at all clear that this is the case for T.b. gambiense, which accounts for the vast majority of HAT infections.

Why exp(-\\lambda t^2) instead of exp(-\\lambda t) for the drug decay?

Equation for m_2 suggests effective coverage of 100% for humans (or animals) treated with NTBC. This is unrealistically high. Operationally realistic excellent coverage with mass drug administration, which this is, would probably not exceed even 80%.

No evidence that model can capture observed HAT dynamics: no description of model calibration to HAT incidence data or other model validation. Would be great to see this in a revision so that we can be confident that the model is capturing relevant transmission. Current control methods also rely heavily on treatment, which in recent years has become much less onerous. It's probably fine to ignore treatment in a paper that is very focused on a novel vector control method but it should be acknowledged that no one would pursue mass NTBC distribution unless good case management were already in place.

The authors seem unfamiliar with the existing HAT modeling literature from a number of groups, including Kat Rock and Nakul Chitnis, for example:

Kat S Rock, Martial L Ndeffo-Mbah, Soledad Castaño, Cody Palmer, Abhishek Pandey, Katherine E Atkins, Joseph M Ndung'u, T Déirdre Hollingsworth, Alison Galvani, Caitlin Bever, Nakul Chitnis, Matt J Keeling, Assessing Strategies Against Gambiense Sleeping Sickness Through Mathematical Modeling, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 66, Issue suppl_4, 15 June 2018, Pages S286-S292,

Stone CM, Chitnis N. Implications of heterogeneous biting exposure and animal hosts on Trypanosomiasis brucei gambiense transmission and control. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Oct 1;11(10):e1004514.

Decision Letter 2

Nonia Pariente, PhD

13 Oct 2020

Dear Alvaro,

Thank you very much for submitting a revised version of your manuscript "Repurposing the orphan drug nitisinone to control the transmission of African trypanosomiasis" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. This revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, the Academic Editor and three of the original reviewers (2, 3 and 4).

All reviewers appreciate the work performed during revision and the article is almost ready, although as you will see reviewers 3 and 4 have some remaining issues that will need to be addressed in a revision that we anticipate should be straightforward. We will assess your revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments in-house (and with our Academic Editor) and may need to run your revision quickly by reviewer 4. We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 month, please let us know if this is likely to take longer.

I have also gone through your work in detail and have noticed the following points that will need addressing:

- The control BSA group figure that you provided in the response to reviewers should be included in the manuscript, as readers may have the same concern

- The manuscript should reference the Oliveira lab preprint (bioRxiv doi.org/10.1101/669747) on the use of HPPD inhibitors for mosquito control that you allude to in response to reviewer 1 and discuss the implications of those results (it increases the relevance of the work to say if the strategy could be used for mosquitoes control, given their importance as vectors of disease)

- Your metabolomics dataset should be deposited in an appropriate public repository, such as Metabolights, and the accession number included in the Data Availability statement (in the online article submission form) and were relevant in the manuscript.

- Figure 2A needs a scale bar

- Units need to be provided for scale bar in the legend to SI 1

- Statistical information (n, whether the mean or median is plotted, what kind of error bars, etc) is missing in the legend of figure 1, for the box-and-whisker plot data in 3B , and for Suppl Figure 4

- As there are no length restrictions, please include all of the Material and Methods information in the main text. The detailed explanation of the mathematical model can be left in SI, and the file labelled accordingly, but the other two subheadings should be moved to the main text.

- You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the main and supplementary figures of your paper need to be made available as source data. Each figure legend should include a statement indicating where the numerical source data for the figures can be found (e.g. Numerical source data underlying this figure can be found in XXX). You can provide source data 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 such a GitHub. If you choose this option, 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 all of the main and supplementary figures that present graphs, as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it:

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 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 that makes it easy to understand.

- The Supplementary Figures need to be provided as individual files

-----

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. 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/

*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.

With kind regards,

Nonia

Nonia Pariente, PhD,

Editor-in-Chief,

npariente@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

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

REVIEWS:

Reviewer expertise:

Reviewer #2: tsetse physiology and trypanosomiasis control

Reviewer #3: strategies to prevent malaria transmission; mosquito vector control; malaria pathogenesis

Reviewer #4: mathematical modelling of malaria transmission and effects of antimalarial strategies

Comments to authors:

Reviewer #2: Thank you to the authors for their comprehensive response to my and the other reviewers critiques. The manuscript is much improved and the issues raised in my previous review have been addressed.

Reviewer #3: This is a greatly improved resubmission. The authors have done a good job at addressing all comments, adding more information when needed and more comprehensively explaining their findings, as well as their significance and limitations. I just have some minor revisions to add:

Line 320: provide references for this statement

Line 391: I think the word 'albeit' doesn't fit here

Lines 408-430. I particularly appreciated the more detailed discussion of possible emergence of tsetse resistance. However, insects are capable of evolving multiple resistance mechanisms besides target site and metabolic resistance, and I encourage the authors to acknowledge that eventually flies would develop resistance to their compound if it was used as monotherapy, as they suggest in line 438.

Reviewer #4: Two main points on the modeling section:

1. Clarity on model assumptions

2. Relevance of NTBC to public health

I get what the authors are saying re: model validation. Their goal is to use the simple Ross-Macdonald and see what happens if mortality of the vector is increased through endectocide. But the authors need to do a much better job being explicit about the assumptions of their model because the modeling section of the paper is key to showing that that NTBC has relevance for public health.

It's somewhat unclear to me how the Re values with intervention are being calculated. Is m2(t) plugged into the analytical solution to R to derive an Re(t)? Then are the Re values shown in Fig 5 a mean Re? Or is Re(t) being estimated directly from the simulation with a method like EpiEstim? I'm a little bit confused by the supplemental methods description.

Either way, does this mean that the modeling assumes that NTBC distribution continues indefinitely? I think this is a key assumption that should be explicitly mentioned to help readers interpret the modeling results. Furthermore, there's a key assumption of R0 = 1.1 that is not stated explicitly in the main text.

My read of Fig 5 and Fig S13 is that NTBC in its current form is not an operationally relevant potential vector control: monthly MDAs (or even 3-monthly) at 80% coverage aren't going to be sustainable for long enough to interrupt transmission, and the modest dip of Re to just below 1 in most of the searched parameter space would indicate that a long program of MDAs would be needed. Given the low case numbers of both rhodesiense and gambiense HAT, WHO is focusing on improved diagnostics and treatments to interrupt transmission (gambiense) or eliminate as a public health problem (rhodesiense). The modeling results for NTBC don't suggest that it would drive a shift in HAT policy toward vector control.

Decision Letter 3

Nonia Pariente, PhD

9 Nov 2020

Dear Alvaro,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript entitled "Repurposing the orphan drug nitisinone to control the transmission of African trypanosomiasis" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now discussed the revision with our Academic Editor and I am happy to contact you with an accept in principle decision, conditional on a few last changes to comply with our reporting and formatting requirements for publication.

- The Data Accessibility Statement that you fill in during submission in our online system will be published with your paper. Please make sure that it is complete and includes, e.g. information about the Metabolights deposition and the accession code.

- Before final sign off we will need to access the Metabolights data. As it is not yet live, please confirm that it is set to live on publication and provides us with a temporary access token to look at it before formal acceptance.

- A member of our team will be in touch shortly with an additional set of requests. As we can't proceed until all have been addressed, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication.

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 the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

*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

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

With best wishes,

Nonia

Nonia Pariente, PhD,

Editor-in-Chief,

npariente@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

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

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

Reviewer remarks:

Decision Letter 4

Nonia Pariente, PhD

30 Nov 2020

Dear Dr Acosta-Serrano,

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

PRODUCTION PROCESS

Before publication you will see the copyedited word document (within 5 business days) and a PDF proof shortly after that. The copyeditor will be in touch shortly before sending you the copyedited Word document. We will make some revisions at copyediting stage to conform to our general style, and for clarification. When you receive this version you should check and revise it very carefully, including figures, tables, references, and supporting information, because corrections at the next stage (proofs) will be strictly limited to (1) errors in author names or affiliations, (2) errors of scientific fact that would cause misunderstandings to readers, and (3) printer's (introduced) errors. Please return the copyedited file within 2 business days in order to ensure timely delivery of the PDF proof.

If you are likely to be away when either this document or the proof is sent, please ensure we have contact information of a second person, as we will need you to respond quickly at each point. Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there may be delays in the production process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

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,

Erin O'Loughlin

Publishing Editor,

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Nonia Pariente, PhD,

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Methods. Mathematical modelling for Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense transmission.

    Mathematical modelling for T. brucei gambiense transmission.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table

    Tsetse survival after (A) bloodmeal supplementation with HPLA concentrations or (B) injecting HPLA concentrations into the haemocoel. One independent replicate was performed per experiment; (A) n = 25 flies fed/concentration, (B) n = 10 flies injected/dose.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. The HPLC depletion assay was used to determine if NTBC is metabolised by Glossina P450 enzymes (detoxification enzymes).

    Summary of in vitro NTBC degradation after an hour incubation with insect microsomal preparations and recombinant CYP6P3 in the presence of NADPH.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. NTBC stability under different environmental conditions (light exposure and storage temperature).

    NTBC stock solutions were stored in either opaque (dark) tubes to protect from light exposure or in translucent tubes (light). Tube storage was either at room temperature (RT; 25°C) or refrigerated (4°C) over a 5-week time period.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig

    ML phylogenetic trees were created from full-length protein sequences of TAT (A) and HPPD (B) from several insect species. The species and branches highlighted in orange indicate blood-feeding insects. A partial sequence coding for HPPD was identified for G. pallidipes, but it was excluded from the analysis because it was not complete. Scale bars (branch lengths) correspond to the mean number of amino acid substitutions per site on the respective branch. HPPD, 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; ML, maximum likelihood; TAT, tyrosine aminotransferase.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Efficiency of gene silencing in tsetse midgut tissue three days after intrathoracic injection of dsRNA.

    (A) TAT (unpaired t test with equal SD. N = 4–5 p = 0.05) knockdown. (B) HPPD knockdown (unpaired t test with equal SD. N = 5–4 p = 0.04). Data are shown as mean ± SEM. dsRNA, double-stranded RNA; HPPD, 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; TAT, tyrosine aminotransferase.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig

    The survival of tsetse after feeding on blood supplemented with either mesotrione (A) or NTBC (B). Dose-response curves were calculated at 24 hours after the bloodmeal (C). Six independent experiments were performed (n = 16–28 insects per dose). Total number of tsetse used to generate the dose-response curves were n = 1,018 for mesotrione and n = 914 for NTBC. Data are shown as mean ± SEM. NTBC, nitisinone.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. No differences in susceptibility to HPPD inhibitors were observed between flies sex.

    (A) Mesotrione-fed female tsetse (total insects: 483; LD50: 427.5 μM; 95% CI: 189.5–737.4) and (B) Mesotrione-fed male tsetse (total insects: 536; LD50: 304.9 μM; 95% CI: 133.3–507.8). (C) Dose-response curves calculated 24 hours after mesotrione feeding. Data are shown as mean ± SEM. (D) NTBC-fed female tsetse (total insects: 403; LD50: 2.8 μM; 95% CI: 0.38–8.5). (E) NTBC-fed male tsetse (total insects: 511; LD50: 1.7 μM; 95% CI: 0.24–4.32). (F) Dose-response curves calculated 24 hours after NTBC feeding. Three independent experiments were performed, each with n = 26–30 tsetse per dose. Data are shown as mean ± SEM. HPPD, 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; NTBC, nitisinone.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. The percent of T. brucei-infected flies surviving a bloodmeal supplemented with NTBC or PBS.

    Two independent experiments were performed, each with n = 26–30 tsetse per dose (233 insects in total). NTBC, nitisinone; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Characterisation of tsetse phenotypes when fed on rats treated with different doses of NTBC.

    G. pallidipes flies were fed on anaesthetised rats that received an oral dose of sterile PBS (A) or 0.1 mg/kg (B), 0.5 mg/kg (C), or 1 mg/kg NTBC. Survival was recorded for 26 hours post feeding. NTBC, nitisinone; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig

    (from S1 Video) Panels (A) to (C) have control (untreated) tsetse on the left and NTBC-treated (0.001 mg/ml) flies on the right. (A) In both groups, the excretion of water within the first 20 minutes after feeding is due to a process called diuresis. (B) The first fly to be partially paralysed (fly on back, yellow circle) in the NTBC-treated group occurs 8 hours after ingesting the bloodmeal. (C) Evidence of bloodmeal digestion in control flies as evidenced by dark excreta (yellow arrows) that is absent in NTBC-treated flies. (D) Top view of NTBC-treated compartment highlights the characteristic NTBC-treated, blackened abdomens (*). All flies are dead (black eyes) or dying (fully paralysed) by 28 hours post ingestion of NTBC. NTBC, nitisinone; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig

    External and internal tissue destruction of NTBC-treated tsetse: (A) tsetse fed regular blood on left and NTBC-treated blood on the right. Internal abdominal liquefaction was demonstrated by placing tsetse abdomens under a glass slide and applying pressure to squeeze out tissues: (B) control fly and (C) NTBC-treated fly. NTBC, nitisinone.

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. Percent survival of flies fed daily with either 0.1% fructose-PBS or PBS alone supplemented with 34 mg/ml of BSA.

    Only a small percentage (approximately 6%) of flies died 24 hours after feeding with either PBS-BSA or fructose-BSA. Moreover, both groups showed a comparable mortality rate until day 6, when they reached approximately 50% of the mortality compared to the group of flies fed only with horse blood. These experiments provide evidence that (1) the 24-hour mortality shown in Fig 4B is due to the addition of NTBC; (2) protein degradation is important for NTBC killing; and (3) tsetse flies do not appear to obtain energy from ingesting 0.1% fructose. Daily feeds were mandatory because the flies are highly susceptible to dehydration as they quickly process the nutritionally poor meal. Fly mortality was daily recorded for a period of six days. Two independent experiments were performed, each with n = 18–51 tsetse per treatment (221 insects in total). BSA, bovine serum albumin; NTBC, nitisinone; PBS, phosphate-buffered saline.

    (TIF)

    S10 Fig. Dose-response curves calculated 24 hours after topical application of either deltamethrin or NTBC.

    Drugs were applied immediately after tsetse had taken a bloodmeal. Three independent experiments were performed: n = 10–20 insects per dose. The data for the dose-response curves for deltamethrin (n = 339 flies) and NTBC (n = 449 flies) are shown as mean ± SEM. NTBC, nitisinone.

    (TIF)

    S11 Fig

    The percent survival of G. m. morsitans after topically applying either acetone (red) or NTBC: 1,000 ng (blue) or 31.25 ng (black). Once the solution was applied, tsetse were offered a bloodmeal every 24 hours to measure the residual activity of absorbed NTBC. Flies were fed at either 24 hours (A), 48 hours (B), 72 hours (C), 96 hours (D), 120 hours (E), or 144 hours (F) after topical application. Vertical dotted lines indicate the timing of each bloodmeal. Two independent experiments were performed, each with n = 10–12 insects (315 insects in total). NTBC, nitisinone.

    (TIF)

    S12 Fig. G. m. morsitans survival (%) after the topical application of solutions at specific times after an initial bloodmeal (PBM).

    Acetone (red) or NTBC (1,000 ng, blue; 21.25 ng, black) was topically applied at (A) 24 hours, (B) 48 hours, (D) 72 hours, and (D) 96 hours after a fly had ingested a single bloodmeal. Two independent experiments were conducted, each with n = 10–12 insects (306 insects in total). NTBC, nitisinone; PBM, post-blood meal.

    (TIF)

    S13 Fig. Tsetse survival after topically applying mesotrione to the fly thorax and then giving them a bloodmeal.

    Two independent experiments were performed, each with n = 10–30 flies per dose tested (190 insects in total).

    (TIF)

    S14 Fig. T. b. rhodesiense Re dynamics following NTBC treatment of both livestock and humans every 30 days.

    The different lines correspond with randomly selected distributions of bites among humans, livestock, and wildlife. Where wildlife make up the large majority of tsetse bloodmeals, only limited control is achievable (dark brown) but where humans and livestock make up the majority of bloodmeals, good levels of control can be achieved (blue). NTBC, nitisinone.

    (TIF)

    S15 Fig. Effect of NTBC application on the effective reproduction number of T. brucei gambiense (Re > 1 in brown and Re < 1 in purple).

    Treatments are conducted either every 10 days (left column), every 30 days (middle column), or every 90 days (right column). The axes denote the proportional split of bloodmeals ingested by local tsetse vectors between humans, livestock, and wildlife (where proportion of bites on wildlife are 1 - (bites on humans + bites on livestock)). NTBC, nitisinone.

    (TIF)

    S1 Video. Male tsetse flies were fed either normal blood (control) or blood supplemented with a lethal concentration of NTBC (0.001 mg/ml) and immediately transferred into a bespoke Perspex box for filming.

    The left compartment contains control flies and the right holds NTBC-treated flies. Initial tsetse knockdown is defined as loss of flight, followed by paralysis and dropping to the floor. The video recorded continually for almost 29 hours and was condensed to 1 minute (100,000 ×); real time is shown in top right corner (hh:mm). Key features, highlighted in yellow, are further described in S7 Fig.

    (MP4)

    S1 Data. All experimental raw data used to generate manuscript figures.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Sterkel et al Point by point response.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to the editor.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to editorial team.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files, except for the metabolomics dataset, which has been deposited into the MetaboLights repository (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/metabolights/) under accession number MTBLS2166.


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES