Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2021 Jul 27;15(7):e0009613. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009613

α-Gal immunization positively impacts Trypanosoma cruzi colonization of heart tissue in a mouse model

Gisele Macêdo Rodrigues da Cunha 1,#, Maíra Araújo Azevedo 1,#, Denise Silva Nogueira 1, Marianna de Carvalho Clímaco 1, Edward Valencia Ayala 2, Juan Atilio Jimenez Chunga 3, Raul Jesus Ynocente La Valle 3, Lucia Maria da Cunha Galvão 1, Egler Chiari 1, Carlos Ramon Nascimento Brito 4, Rodrigo Pedro Soares 5, Paula Monalisa Nogueira 5, Ricardo Toshio Fujiwara 1, Ricardo Gazzinelli 1,5, Robert Hincapie 6, Carlos-Sanhueza Chaves 6, Fabricio Marcus Silva Oliveira 1, M G Finn 6, Alexandre Ferreira Marques 1,*
Editor: Ulisses Gazos Lopes7
PMCID: PMC8345864  PMID: 34314435

Abstract

Chagas disease, caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, is considered endemic in more than 20 countries but lacks both an approved vaccine and limited treatment for its chronic stage. Chronic infection is most harmful to human health because of long-term parasitic infection of the heart. Here we show that immunization with a virus-like particle vaccine displaying a high density of the immunogenic α-Gal trisaccharide (Qβ-αGal) induced several beneficial effects concerning acute and chronic T. cruzi infection in α1,3-galactosyltransferase knockout mice. Approximately 60% of these animals were protected from initial infection with high parasite loads. Vaccinated animals also produced high anti-αGal IgG antibody titers, improved IFN-γ and IL-12 cytokine production, and controlled parasitemia in the acute phase at 8 days post-infection (dpi) for the Y strain and 22 dpi for the Colombian strain. In the chronic stage of infection (36 and 190 dpi, respectively), all of the vaccinated group survived, showing significantly decreased heart inflammation and clearance of amastigote nests from the heart tissue.

Author summary

Chagas disease, caused by the protozoan parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, is a significant endemic infectious disease in Latin America and is spreading in the U.S. and Europe with the presence of its insect transmission vector. No approved vaccine against Chagas disease exists. We describe a vaccine candidate based on a carbohydrate found on the T. cruzi cell surface, linked in the vaccine to a virus-like particle that provides a strong and focused immune response. Mice were immunized and challenged with the Trypanosoma cruzi parasites from two strains (Y and Colombian). Vaccination conferred substantial protection of mice against infection, compared with the unvaccinated group. Vaccinated animals presented low parasitemia, increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-12 and IFN-γ, decreased cardiomyocyte damage, and rapid clearance of parasite nests from heart tissue. These effects were especially significant at time points modeling chronic disease, an important consideration for this pathogen. We, therefore, believe this is a valuable path to pursue in the development of vaccines against Chagas disease.

Introduction

Chagas disease is caused by the protozoan parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, commonly transmitted through the feces of the infected reduviid bug (kissing bug). The disease cycle was discovered in 1909 by the Brazilian physician Carlos Chagas [1]. It is estimated that 7 million people are infected with T. cruzi, with approximately 18,000 new cases each year, [2] representing a serious health problem in Latin America that is spreading in the U.S. [3] and globally [4]. The acute stage of the disease can have symptoms similar to viral infection or febrile illness, but infected patients may progress to acute myocarditis, and meningoencephalitis may occur [5]. While patients with chronic Chagas disease can exhibit no adverse heart disease complications, dilated cardiomyopathy with heart failure is the most common cause of death among these patients [68]. Treatment is limited to the two drugs available, nifurtimox and benznidazole. Their efficacy in the acute phase of the disease is questionable, [9] costly, and significant side effects can present as gastrointestinal distress; cutaneous hypersensitivity and neurological symptoms have also been reported.[10] With no vaccine currently available for Chagas disease, [11,12] a new immunological approach is needed [13,11,14]. An extensive range of vaccine formulations has been assessed in recent years, from the use of whole attenuated parasites to purified or recombinant proteins, viral vectors, and DNA vaccines [1519].

Because humans lack the galactosyltransferase activity necessary to construct it, antibodies against the α-Gal (Gal-α1,3-Gal-β1,4-GlcNAc) motif are the most abundant natural antibody in humans [2022]. The α-Gal trisaccharide has therefore attracted attention as a molecular adjuvant in vaccines against a variety of targets, including cancer [23,24] and wound healing applications [2527]. It also represents an important antigen in its own right, as α-Gal is a cell-surface marker of Leishmania, [28,29] malaria, [30] and T. cruzi [31]. Importantly, in the latter case, both CD4 and CD8 T cell activation was reported.

The early identification and response to T. cruzi are mediated mainly by the TLR family of type I transmembrane receptors. The surface of T. cruzi contains large amounts of glycoinositolphospholipids (GIPLs), presented alone or as anchors for glycoproteins and polysaccharides.[32,33]. Macrophages respond to these ligands by producing proinflammatory cytokines, which are crucial to controlling T. cruzi infection and disease outcome [34,35]. TLR4 expression has been reported to be particularly important in this regard [36]. As previously described with Leishmania, [28] we report here that vaccination of α-galactosyltransferase knockout (αGalT-KO) mice using VLPs displaying the α-Gal epitope produced higher titers of anti-αGal IgG antibodies and protection against infection by T. cruzi Y and Colombian strains, which display different levels of galactosylation in their glycoconjugates. Particularly notable was the effect of such immunization on the control of heart inflammation and the clearance of parasite nests from heart tissue.

Results

We have previously described the preparation of Qβ virus-like particles functionalized with a dense array of synthetic α-Gal trisaccharide (designated Qβ-αGal, with 540±50 trisaccharides per particle) and the use of those particles to elicit high titers of anti-αGal IgG antibodies in αGalT-KO mice [28,37]. These particles are approximately 30 nm in diameter, highly homogeneous in size, with most of the surface lysine residues acylated with a 10-atom linker bearing a terminal azide group. To these azide groups were conjugated αGal bearing a β-linked short chain with a terminal alkyne group. The rapid and selective nature of the copper-mediated azide-alkyne ligation reaction [38] is required to achieve this high-density display of the αGal motif.

To test protection against T. cruzi injection, αGalT-KO mice received a 10-μg dose of Qβ-αGal, with control groups receiving unfunctionalized Qβ VLPs or PBS (Fig 1A). The vaccinated group showed significantly higher IgG anti-αGal antibody titers (Fig 1B) after one week. A boost injection of the same dose was followed one week later with an intense challenge of 106 Y strain (TcII) parasites (recovered previously from mice in a standard passaging procedure). Parasitemia was controlled much better in the vaccinated group (Fig 1C), and 58% of this group survived more than 50 days compared to complete mortality within two weeks post-infection in the control groups (Fig 1D).

Fig 1. Immunization against high dose of T. cruzi Y strain.

Fig 1

(A) Immunization and analysis schedule. αGalT-KO mice (5 per group) were inoculated (subcutaneous) with two 10 μg doses of of Qβ-αGal, Qβ-WT, or PBS on days 0 and 7. On day 14 (dpi 0), all groups were infected with 106 Y strain. (B) Relative anti-α-Gal IgG serum antibody levels measured by ELISA before infection, Y days before infection (serum dilution = 1/100). (C) Parasite levels in blood checked daily starting at day 1 post-infection (dpi). (D) Mouse survival. All experiments were performed independently in triplicate.

To further assess Qβ-αGal as a candidate for vaccine development against T. cruzi infection, the effectiveness of a single immunization was tested against a more typical lower parasite dose of the Y strain. Experimental groups (6–10 mice) were sacrificed at either 8 or 36 dpi, modeling acute and chronic of Chagas disease stages, respectively. Given the high anti-αGal responses (Fig 1B), we challenged immunized αGal-KO mice with 104 parasites each one week after a single immunization. Parasitemia (Fig 2A) and survival rates (Fig 2B) were again dramatically improved; because of the lower parasite dose, approximately 60% of the control animals survived, compared to 100% of the immunized groups. Since heart damage is a hallmark of T. cruzi parasite infection, heart tissue from all animals was examined and scored for signs of degeneration, inflammation, cardiomyocyte hypertrophy, and parasite lesions [3941]. While degenerative damage was observed in all animals in the acute phase, this was completely resolved for the immunized animals, in contrast to the control group (Fig 2C). Similarly, abnormal cardiomyocyte hypertrophy was enhanced in the control group but missing among the immunized group (Fig 2D). Inflammation was suppressed by immunization at both 8 and 36 dpi (Fig 2E), and very few parasites were found in the heart at day 36 (Fig 2F).

Fig 2. Immunization against moderate dose of T. cruzi Y strain.

Fig 2

αGalT-KO mice (6–10 per group) were inoculated (subcutaneous) with one 10 μg dose of Qβ-αGal, Qβ-WT, or Qβ-Glu (alternate control bearing glucose units instead of α-Gal). Mice were challenged one week after immunization with 104 Y strain. (A) Parasite levels in blood checked daily starting at day 1 post-infection (dpi). Red dashed lines show the upper limit of the standard deviation for each set of data. (B) Mouse survival. (C) Degenerative changes in the heart. (D) Hypertrophy. (E) Inflammation score. (F) Lesion intensity. All experiments were performed independently in triplicate. Significance p < 0.05. ns (not significant). Data plotted as SEM (Standard Error of the Mean).

The myotropic Colombian (TcI) strain of T. cruzi is associated with Chagas disease cardiomyopathy [4244]. Groups of 7–10 αGalT-KO mice were vaccinated and infected with the same protocol as above using a standard challenge of 103 parasites per mouse. Parasitemia was followed for 45 days, and all groups of mice were kept for more than 190 days. All vaccinated αGalT-KO mice showed higher anti-αGal IgG antibody levels throughout the experiment (Fig 3A). Parasitemia was well controlled in the vaccinated group (Fig 3B). Analysis of heart sections samples from all groups at 22 and 190 dpi showed the vaccinated αGalT-KO mice to have significantly fewer degenerative changes at 190 dpi (Fig 3C) and lower inflammation at both acute and chronic stages (22 and 190 dpi, respectively, Fig 3E). We observed a significant decrease of cardiomyocyte hypertrophy of vaccinated animals at 22 dpi; by 190 dpi, hypertrophy had largely resolved for both groups, but was undetectable in the Qβ-αGal-immunized mice (Fig 3D). Lesion intensity significantly decreased in the myocardium of the vaccinated group at 22 and 190 dpi compared with the animals receiving the underivatized particle (Fig 3F).

Fig 3. Immunization against T. cruzi Colombian strain.

Fig 3

αGalT-KO mice (6–10 per group) were inoculated (subcutaneous) with two 10 μg doses of Qβ-αGal or Qβ-WT on days 0 and 7. On day 14, all groups were challenged with 103 parasites of the Colombian strain. (A) Relative anti-α-Gal IgG serum antibody levels measured by ELISA (serum dilution = 1/100). “Pre-infection” denotes day 7, one week before challenge. (B) Parasite levels in blood checked daily starting at day 2 post-infection (dpi). Red dotted lines show the upper limit of the standard deviation for each set of data. (C) Degenerative changes in the heart. (D) Hypertrophy. (E) Inflammation score. (F) Lesion intensity. All experiments were performed independently in triplicate. Significance p < 0.05. ns (not significant). Data plotted as SEM (Standard Error of the Mean).

TLR4 has been reported to play an essential role in protecting mice against experimental T. cruzi infection, [36,45] and a synthetic TLR-4 agonist was found to increase mice survival and decrease cardiac colonization by the parasite [46]. We therefore tested the TLR agonistic potential of Qβ-αGal particles in this context using standard C57BL/6 mice, as well as their TLR knockouts, because the corresponding TLR variants of the GalT-KO strain were not available. We believe these results to be potentially relevant because there is some IgG anti-α-Gal immune response in C57BL/6 mice [47]. We collected peritoneal macrophages from unvaccinated wild-type, TLR 2-/-, and TLR 4-/- knockout mice and treated them with unfunctionalized and α-Gal decorated VLPs. Qβ-αGal was uniquely found to induce significant nitric oxide production (although not to the level of lipopolysaccharide positive control) in wild-type and TLR2-knockout, but not in TLR4-knockout mice (Fig 4A), suggesting its action as a TLR4 agonist. Next, we evaluate cytokine production on heart homogenates. We observed higher concentrations of IL-12 and IFN-γ in homogenates from heart tissue of vaccinated and challenged groups of αGalT-KO mice at dpi 8 and 36 for Y strain and dpi 20 and 190 for Colombian T. cruzi infection (Fig 4B and 4E).

Fig 4. TLR activity, cytokine production and histopathology.

Fig 4

(A) Nitric oxide production from stimulated peritoneal macrophages from unvaccinated mice of the indicated strains. Treatment groups refer to 1 μg/mL concentrations of the indicated agent; “medium” = buffer. (B and C) IL-12 and IFN-γ production by heart homogenate from vaccinated or unvaccinated αGalT-KO mice infected with Y strain. (D and E) IL-12 and IFN-γ production by heart homogenate from vaccinated or unvaccinated αGalT-KO mice infected with Colombian strain. (F and G) Average number of T. cruzi amastigote nests found in heart tissue by counting in 100 fields per slide of heart section. (H) Representative histopathological sections from the indicated mice; for example, the top-left panel shows heart tissue from an unvaccinated animal 8 days after infection with T. cruzi Y strain. Arrows point to amastigote colonies. All experiments were performed independently in triplicate.

The presence of amastigote parasites was analyzed in 100 fields per slide of heart sections from vaccinated and unvaccinated αGalT-KO mice. Although parasites were found in the heart of the vaccinated group at 8 dpi for Y T. cruzi infection, they were cleared by day 36 (Fig 4F). Analysis at both dpi 22 and 190 after Colombian strain infection showed no amastigote nests for the vaccinated animals (Fig 4G). Representative histopathology images are shown in Fig 4H.

Discussion

In Latin America, infection with the Trypanosoma cruzi parasite is the most common cause of inflammatory heart disease [48]. Chagas heart disease is characterized by acute and chronic stages, which can occur decades apart. The disease’s effects can lead to a spectrum of problems, from organ damage due to high parasitemia in the acute stage (the first 2–3 months) to cardiac lesions and neurogenic disturbances in the chronic stage [49,50]. Although 60% of infected patients can survive for decades with the disease, about 30–40% of patients develop heart manifestations in the chronic stage that may lead to death.[5153] It is suggested that the persistence of amastigote parasites in heart tissues correlates directly with the disease severity due to direct disruption of host cells by parasite multiplication and exacerbation of inflammation caused by parasite residue [5458]. Furthermore, the recommended drug treatment for Chagas disease, benznidazole, is not very efficient and is highly toxic upon sustained use [59].

The search for a vaccine against T. cruzi started in 1912 when it was observed that animals surviving acute infection became resistant to a second infection.[60] Since then, a variety of experimental vaccine candidates have been tested, involving live, killed, or attenuated parasites, recombinant T. cruzi proteins, peptides, and DNA [11,6167]. Both the acute and chronic stages of Chagas disease can be reflected in several experimental animal models, [6870] most examples using the Colombian (TcI) and Y (TcII) strains of T. cruzi [71].

Chagas disease patients from endemic areas are reported to have high levels of antibodies against the α-Gal glycotope, which is expressed by T. cruzi amastigotes and trypomastigotes. These antibodies are thought to confer protection to these individuals in the acute and chronic phases of the disease [7274]. Following the report from Almeida and colleagues [31], our group also validated the α-Gal transferase knockout (αGalT-KO) mouse as an effective experimental Chagas disease model that mimics the key immunological property of humans and Old-World primates [22,23,75] of producing high titers of anti-α-Gal antibodies [76]. Having earlier found that the virus-like particle bearing a high density of α-Gal is an effective experimental vaccine candidate against Leishmania spp., [28] we describe here the application of this particle to T. cruzi. Indeed, Almeida’s use of α-Gal linked to human serum albumin [31] gave very promising results: the vaccinated group of αGalT-KO mice were protected against T. cruzi infection and presented higher anti-αGal antibody titers [31]. To this important precedent we add several important factors.

First, this is the first work comparing two different T. cruzi strains belonging to different DTUs [77]. These remarkable genetic polymorphisms are significant in scope and may hinder vaccine efficacy. For example, the strains used here display very different levels of galactosylation in their GPI-mucins, the Y strain being high and the Colombian strain low in this parameter [78]. That the Qβ-αGal particle was effective for both further supports its consideration as a promising vaccine candidate. Activity against the Colombian strain suggests that are other α-galactosyl-containing GIPLs (or other cell-surface glycoconjugates) may be involved in the immune response to this pathogen. Second, the vaccine used here is far better defined than the “Galα3LN-HSA" material employed by Almeida and colleagues. Purchased from a commercial supplier, we assume that it is created by conjugation to HSA lysine groups by virtue of an activated ester variant of the α-Gal trisaccharide using a “3 atom spacer” as described by the supplier. No characterization data is available, so neither the number of carbohydrates nor the homogeneity of the material are known. Virus-like particle platforms are, by contrast, homogeneous in size, shape, and in the number and location of the lysines functionalized by acylation and azide-alkyne ligation reactions. In addition, VLPs such as Qβ impart strong immunogenicity to attached molecules including carbohydrates [79,80] by virtue of their regular structure and self-adjuvanting properties [81].

We explored acute Chagas disease in infected α-GalT-KO mice at 8 days post-infection (dpi) with the Y strain and 22 dpi for the Colombian strain, whereas the chronic stage was evaluated at 36 and 190 dpi, respectively. The Qβ-αGal particle was highly effective, producing high titers of anti-αGal IgG antibodies, controlling parasitemia, enhancing survival upon challenge with a very high concentration of T. cruzi in strains belonging to different DTUs (I and II). It is also crucial for patients infected with T. cruzi to prevent cardiac damage by long-term exposure to amastigote colonies established in the heart tissue. Therapeutic vaccination has previously demonstrated a correlation between the reduction of parasitemia and easing of long-term cardiac parasite burden [15,8284]. In our case, all animals vaccinated and infected with two different T. cruzi parasite strains did quite well initially and also cleared the parasites from the heart at 36 dpi for Y strain and 190 dpi for Colombian strain. This led to significant improvements in heart inflammation, hypertrophy, lesion intensity, and degenerative changes in cardiac tissues. The Qβ-αGal particle was found to function as a TL4 agonist in vitro experiments, inducing macrophages to produce more nitric acid. Correspondingly, higher proinflammatory cytokines IL-12 and IFN-γ were found in heart homogenates of vaccinated animals. The result was a promising combination of protection against primary infection and an ability to clear amastigote parasites from the heart, thereby limiting the damage by acute and chronic Chagas disease infection. The results showed here suggest that Qβ-αGal particles could be a candidate for vaccinating different parasite DTUs.

Material and methods

Ethics statement

All experiments were approved and conducted according to the guidelines of the Ethics Committee on the Use of Animals (CEUA) of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (protocol n° 255/2013).

Mice

Mice (Mus musculus), females aged 6 to 8 weeks of the C57BL/6 lineage, depleted the gene of α1,3-galactosyltransferase enzyme (αGalT-KO), were used. The mice were donated by Director Peter Cowan, Hospital São Vicente, Australia and by Dr. Kim Janda, Scripps Research Institute, United States, and are bred and maintained in the vivarium of the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Department of Parasitology. Under appropriate conditions of temperature and humidity, the mice were housed in 30.3 x 19.3 x 12.6 cm polypropylene boxes with 3–5 mice each, with controlled 12-hour light-dark cycles, receiving commercial feed specific to the species (Presence/Archer Daniels Midland Company) and water ad libitum.

Parasites

Trypomastigote forms of the Y and Colombian strains of T. cruzi were kept in the T. cruzi Biology Laboratory, Federal University of Minas Gerais. The Y strain of T. cruzi—DTU TcII ([77], Zingales et al., 2009) was isolated from a patient in the acute phase of Chagas disease by Pereira de Freitas, in 1950, in Marília, São Paulo and later studied and described by Silva and Nussenzweig [85]. The Colombian strain of T. cruzi—DTU TcI [77] was isolated from a patient in Colombia and later studied and described by Federici, et al [86]. Parasites were kept in mice and recovered for challenges.

Parasitemia

The parasitic load was estimated from the parasite count in 5 μL blood samples collected from the caudal vein of the mouse, made under an optical microscope at 40X using the Brener method. [87] The number of mobile blood trypomastigotes was counted in 50 fields at random distributed throughout the slide area. The data were demonstrated as the number of trypomastigotes per mL of blood [87].

ELISA

Blood samples were obtained by submandibular collection before the first immunization and five days after the mice received the final (first or second) dose. Blood samples were also collected by cardiac puncture at the time of euthanasia. All samples were stored in tubes without anticoagulant. Serum aliquots were obtained by centrifugation at 3000 x g for 15 minutes at 25°C and stored at -20°C until the time of use. To perform the immunoenzymatic assay, polystyrene microplates with 96 wells (NUNC MaxiSorp/Thermo Fisher Scientific) were treated with 50 μL of the selected particle (Qβ-αGal, Qβ-WT) at 0.4 μg/mL in 100 mM carbonate/sodium bicarbonate buffer, pH 9.6, for 18 hours at 2–8°C. The wells were then blocked with 200 μL of PBS1X solution containing 1% bovine serum albumin (PBS1X - BSA 1%), for 50 minutes at 37°C. After blocking, 50 μL of diluted serum (1:100) were added in triplicate in PBS1X - BSA 1% solution, and the microplates were incubated for 90 minutes at 37°C. Wells were then washed three times with 200 μL of PBS1X containing 0.05% Tween-20 (PBS1X –T 0.05%) per well. Anti-mouse IgG antibody conjugated with biotin (GE Healthcare) diluted 1:5,000 in PBS1X - BSA 1% solution (50 μL) was added, and the microplates were incubated for 50 minutes at 37°C. After washing three times, 50 μL of streptavidin-conjugated horseradish peroxidase (GE Healthcare) diluted 1:3,000 in 1% PBS1X - BSA solution was added and incubated for 50 minutes at 37°C. The plate was washed three times, each well was treated with substrate solution (100 μL), and incubated for 30 minutes in the dark, followed by reading on a microplate reader at 490 nm. The substrate solution consisted of 2 mg OPD (o-phenylenediamine dihydrochloride) and 4 μL of 30–32% hydrogen peroxide in 10 mL of a solution containing 30 mM citric acid, 50 mM disodium phosphate (pH 5), diluted in 1 mL of distilled water.

Cytokines

Immediately after collection from euthanized mice, a sample (~1g) of cardiac tissue was subjected to maceration in 1 mL of extraction buffer containing protease inhibitor. The resulting homogenate was centrifuged for 10 minutes at 10,000 rpm at 4°C, and the supernatant was collected and stored at -80°C for cytokine determination using the BD OptEIA Set Mouse kits (BD Biosciences) to determine IL-12 p40 and IFN-γ levels using the capture ELISA assay. The observed detection limits were 15.6 pg/mL for IL-12p40 and 3.1 pg/mL for IFN-γ.

Histopathological analysis of inflammation, degenerative changes, hypertrophy, and amastigote nests

Groups of mice, six per group, were euthanized, a fragment of each excised heart was fixed in 10% buffered formaldehyde for 7 days. Then it was dehydrated in increasing alcoholic dilutions, diaphanized in xylol, infiltrated and included in paraffin for block making and subsequent microtomy, gluing, and mounting the blades. The blocks were cut into sections of 4 μm in diameter for staining with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). After making the slides, quantitative and semi-quantitative histopathological analyses were performed by optical microscopy. The lesions displayed in the myocardium were assessed regarding inflammatory infiltrate, degenerative changes, and hypertrophy. The presence of amastigote nests quantified parasitism in cardiac tissues. For semi-quantitative analyzes, the slides were examined in a bright field optical microscope coupled with a digital image capture system (Motic 2.0). For the score of myocardial inflammation, ten random images were captured per fragment with a 20X magnification. The rating was based on four degrees of myocardial inflammation: grade 0 (absent) = absence of inflammatory cells around the cardiomyocytes; grade 1 (discrete) = some cardiomyocytes had a small number of inflammatory cells; grade 2 (moderate) = some cardiomyocytes had significant inflammation; grade 3 (marked) = some cardiomyocytes had an intense inflammatory infiltrate. A four-point scoring system was also adopted for degenerative changes represented by tissue necrosis, autolysis, or cardiomyocyte degeneration: grade 0 (absent) = absence of histopathological changes; grade 1 (slight) = some cardiomyocytes showed slight degeneration; grade 2 (moderate) = some cardiomyocytes had a degenerative aspect, and others were in autolysis; grade 3 (marked) = numerous cardiomyocytes had a degenerative aspect, autolysis. For the semi-quantitative analysis of cardiomyocyte hypertrophy, a four-point intensity scale was used: grade 0 (absent) = no cardiomyocyte hypertrophy observed; grade 1 (discreet) = few cardiomyocytes were hypertrophied; grade 2 (moderate) = a significant number of cardiomyocytes were observed to have hypertrophy; grade 3 (marked) = large numbers of cardiomyocytes were hypertrophied. To count the amastigote nests present in the histological cuts in the cardiac muscle tissue, a complete scan of the heart sections of the mice was performed with a 20X magnification.

TLR2 (-/-) and TLR4 (-/-) murine peritoneal macrophages

**TLR2(-/-) and TLR4(-/-) knockout strains of C57BL/6 mice were obtained from Oswaldo Cruz Institute, Fiocruz. Thioglycolate (2 mL) was injected in the mouse peritoneum and macrophages were extracted by peritoneal washing with ice-cold RPMI, and enriched by plastic adherence (1 h, 37°C, 5% CO2). Cells (3 x 105 cells/well) were washed with fresh RPMI then cultured in RPMI containing 2 mM glutamine, 50 U/mL of penicillin, and 50 μg/mL streptomycin supplemented with 10% FBS in 96-well culture plates (37°C, 5% CO2). Cells were primed with interferon-gamma (IFN-γ, 3 IU/mL) for 18 h before incubation with LPS, Qβ-gal, Qβ-control (10 μg/mL), or only medium. Nitrite concentrations were determinate by the Griess reaction (Griess Reagent System, 2009).

Statistical analyses

GraphPad Prism software (San Diego, USA, version 7.0) was used for statistical analysis. The bidirectional analysis of variance test (ANOVA), followed by the Bonferroni post-test, was used to compare the values ​​presented by the parasitemia and weight variation curves. The Log Rank test was used to compare the survival rate of mice after infection with T. cruzi. Fisher’s test was used to compare the different proportions of mice that survived the infection. Statistical analyses were also used to compare maximum levels of parasites detected in peripheral blood, dosages of total IgG antibodies, the intensity of inflammation, degenerative changes, hypertrophy, parasitic load, and cytokine profile in cardiac tissues. For this, the Student’s T-test parametric data and the Mann Whitney test for non-parametric data were used in comparative analyses between two groups. For the comparative analysis between three or more groups, the one-way ANOVA test was used, followed by the Tukey post-test, for parametric data, and the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by the Dunns post-test for non-parametric data. To check whether the data presented Gaussian distribution, the D’Agostino & Pearson normality test was used. Differences between groups were considered significant when the p-value <0.05.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifíco e Tecnoloǵico, CNPQ Brazil (Projects 407926/2018-6; 303698/2019-5) to AFM, and a research partnership between Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and the Georgia Institute of Technology. National Institute of Health (1R01AI116577) to MGF; National Institute of Science and Technology for Vaccines/Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (465293/2014-0) to RTG. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kropf SP, Sa MR. The discovery of Trypanosoma cruzi and Chagas disease (1908–1909): tropical medicine in Brazil. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 2009;16 Suppl 1:13–34. doi: 10.1590/s0104-59702009000100002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rassi A Jr., Rassi A, Marin-Neto JA. Chagas disease. Lancet. 2010;375(9723):1388–402. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60061-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nolan MS, Aguilar D, Misra A, Gunter SM, Erickson T, Gorchakov R, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Patients, Houston, Texas, USA Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(7): doi: 10.3201/eid2707.203244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chagas disease in Latin America: an epidemiological update based on 2010 estimates. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2015;90(6):33–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Malik LH, Singh GD, Amsterdam EA. The Epidemiology, Clinical Manifestations, and Management of Chagas Heart Disease. Clin Cardiol. 2015;38(9):565–9. doi: 10.1002/clc.22421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nunes MCP, Beaton A, Acquatella H, Bern C, Bolger AF, Echeverria LE, et al. Chagas Cardiomyopathy: An Update of Current Clinical Knowledge and Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018;138(12):e169–e209. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000599 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cunha-Neto E, Chevillard C. Chagas disease cardiomyopathy: immunopathology and genetics. Mediators Inflamm. 2014;2014:683230. doi: 10.1155/2014/683230 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rassi A Jr., Rassi SG, Rassi A. Sudden death in Chagas’ disease. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2001;76(1):75–96. doi: 10.1590/s0066-782x2001000100008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Morillo CA, Marin-Neto JA, Avezum A, Sosa-Estani S, Rassi A Jr., Rosas F, et al. Randomized Trial of Benznidazole for Chronic Chagas’ Cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(14):1295–306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507574 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Perez-Molina JA, Norman F, Lopez-Velez R. Chagas disease in non-endemic countries: epidemiology, clinical presentation and treatment. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2012;14(3):263–74. doi: 10.1007/s11908-012-0259-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Quijano-Hernandez I, Dumonteil E. Advances and challenges towards a vaccine against Chagas disease. Hum Vaccin. 2011;7(11):1184–91. doi: 10.4161/hv.7.11.17016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Beaumier CM, Gillespie PM, Strych U, Hayward T, Hotez PJ, Bottazzi ME. Status of vaccine research and development of vaccines for Chagas disease. Vaccine. 2016;34(26):2996–3000. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lee BY, Bacon KM, Wateska AR, Bottazzi ME, Dumonteil E, Hotez PJ. Modeling the economic value of a Chagas’ disease therapeutic vaccine. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2012;8(9):1293–301. doi: 10.4161/hv.20966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Beaumier CM, Gillespie PM, Hotez PJ, Bottazzi ME. New vaccines for neglected parasitic diseases and dengue. Transl Res. 2013;162(3):144–55. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2013.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pereira IR, Vilar-Pereira G, Marques V, da Silva AA, Caetano B, Moreira OC, et al. A human type 5 adenovirus-based Trypanosoma cruzi therapeutic vaccine re-programs immune response and reverses chronic cardiomyopathy. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11(1):e1004594. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004594 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sanchez Alberti A, Bivona AE, Cerny N, Schulze K, Weissmann S, Ebensen T, et al. Engineered trivalent immunogen adjuvanted with a STING agonist confers protection against Trypanosoma cruzi infection. NPJ Vaccines. 2017;2:9. doi: 10.1038/s41541-017-0010-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Barry MA, Versteeg L, Wang Q, Pollet J, Zhan B, Gusovsky F, et al. A therapeutic vaccine prototype induces protective immunity and reduces cardiac fibrosis in a mouse model of chronic Trypanosoma cruzi infection. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(5):e0007413. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Villanueva-Lizama LE, Cruz-Chan JV, Aguilar-Cetina ADC, Herrera-Sanchez LF, Rodriguez-Perez JM, Rosado-Vallado ME, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi vaccine candidate antigens Tc24 and TSA-1 recall memory immune response associated with HLA-A and -B supertypes in Chagasic chronic patients from Mexico. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(1):e0006240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Collins MH, Craft JM, Bustamante JM, Tarleton RL. Oral exposure to Trypanosoma cruzi elicits a systemic CD8(+) T cell response and protection against heterotopic challenge. Infect Immun. 2011;79(8):3397–406. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01080-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Galili U. Evolution in primates by "Catastrophic-selection" interplay between enveloped virus epidemics, mutated genes of enzymes synthesizing carbohydrate antigens, and natural anti-carbohydrate antibodies. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2019;168(2):352–63. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Galili U, Anaraki F, Thall A, Hill-Black C, Radic M. One percent of human circulating B lymphocytes are capable of producing the natural anti-Gal antibody. Blood. 1993;82(8):2485–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Galili U. Evolution and pathophysiology of the human natural anti-alpha-galactosyl IgG (anti-Gal) antibody. Springer Semin Immunopathol. 1993;15(2–3):155–71. doi: 10.1007/BF00201098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Galili U. The alpha-gal epitope and the anti-Gal antibody in xenotransplantation and in cancer immunotherapy. Immunol Cell Biol. 2005;83(6):674–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1711.2005.01366.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Galili U, Wigglesworth K, Abdel-Motal UM. Intratumoral injection of alpha-gal glycolipids induces xenograft-like destruction and conversion of lesions into endogenous vaccines. J Immunol. 2007;178(7):4676–87. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.7.4676 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Galili U. alpha-Gal Nanoparticles in Wound and Burn Healing Acceleration. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2017;6(3):81–92. doi: 10.1089/wound.2016.0703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Arash Samadi B, 1 Justin S. Buro, BS,1 Daniel O. Lara, BS,1 Matthew A. Wright, BA,1 Uri Galili, PhD,1 and Jason A. Spector, MD, FACS1. Topical Alpha-Gal Nanoparticles Enhances Wound Healing in Radiated Tissue. PRS Global Open. 2019;7:124. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wigglesworth KM, Racki WJ, Mishra R, Szomolanyi-Tsuda E, Greiner DL, Galili U. Rapid recruitment and activation of macrophages by anti-Gal/alpha-Gal liposome interaction accelerates wound healing. J Immunol. 2011;186(7):4422–32. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1002324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Moura APV, Santos LCB, Brito CRN, Valencia E, Junqueira C, Filho AAP, et al. Virus-like Particle Display of the alpha-Gal Carbohydrate for Vaccination against Leishmania Infection. ACS Cent Sci. 2017;3(9):1026–31. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Avila JL, Rojas M, Acosta A. Glycoinositol phospholipids from American Leishmania and Trypanosoma spp: partial characterization of the glycan cores and the human humoral immune response to them. J Clin Microbiol. 1991;29(10):2305–12. doi: 10.1128/jcm.29.10.2305-2312.1991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yilmaz B, Portugal S, Tran TM, Gozzelino R, Ramos S, Gomes J, et al. Gut microbiota elicits a protective immune response against malaria transmission. Cell. 2014;159(6):1277–89. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Portillo S, Zepeda BG, Iniguez E, Olivas JJ, Karimi NH, Moreira OC, et al. A prophylactic alpha-Gal-based glycovaccine effectively protects against murine acute Chagas disease. NPJ Vaccines. 2019;4:13. doi: 10.1038/s41541-019-0107-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.McConville MJ, Ferguson MA. The structure, biosynthesis and function of glycosylated phosphatidylinositols in the parasitic protozoa and higher eukaryotes. Biochem J. 1993;294 (Pt 2):305–24. doi: 10.1042/bj2940305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Carreira JC, Jones C, Wait R, Previato JO, Mendonca-Previato L. Structural variation in the glycoinositolphospholipids of different strains of Trypanosoma cruzi. Glycoconj J. 1996;13(6):955–66. doi: 10.1007/BF01053191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gazzinelli RT, Denkers EY. Protozoan encounters with Toll-like receptor signalling pathways: implications for host parasitism. Nat Rev Immunol. 2006;6(12):895–906. doi: 10.1038/nri1978 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Golgher D, Gazzinelli RT. Innate and acquired immunity in the pathogenesis of Chagas disease. Autoimmunity. 2004;37(5):399–409. doi: 10.1080/08916930410001713115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Oliveira AC, Peixoto JR, de Arruda LB, Campos MA, Gazzinelli RT, Golenbock DT, et al. Expression of functional TLR4 confers proinflammatory responsiveness to Trypanosoma cruzi glycoinositolphospholipids and higher resistance to infection with T. cruzi. J Immunol. 2004;173(9):5688–96. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.173.9.5688 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Araujo RN, Franco PF, Rodrigues H, Santos LCB, McKay CS, Sanhueza CA, et al. Amblyomma sculptum tick saliva: alpha-Gal identification, antibody response and possible association with red meat allergy in Brazil. Int J Parasitol. 2016;46(3):213–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpara.2015.12.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Presolski SI, Hong V, Cho S-H, Finn MG. Tailored Ligand Acceleration of the Cu-Catalyzed Azide-Alkyne Cycloaddition Reaction: Practical and Mechanistic Implications. J Am Chem Soc. 2010;132(41):14570–6. doi: 10.1021/ja105743g [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Julio Larenas Herrera1, Catalina Rámila Garrido1, Claudio Zúñiga Marti1, María Teresa Paláu Castaño2 UVC, 4. Daño Inflamatorio y Cambios Cariométricos en Tejido Cardiaco de Ratones Experimentalmente Infectados con Trypanosoma cruzi. Rev Inv Vet Perú. 2016;4(27):758–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Garzoni LR, Adesse D, Soares MJ, Rossi MI, Borojevic R, de Meirelles Mde N. Fibrosis and hypertrophy induced by Trypanosoma cruzi in a three-dimensional cardiomyocyte-culture system. J Infect Dis. 2008;197(6):906–15. doi: 10.1086/528373 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Petersen CA, Burleigh BA. Role for interleukin-1 beta in Trypanosoma cruzi-induced cardiomyocyte hypertrophy. Infect Immun. 2003;71(8):4441–7. doi: 10.1128/IAI.71.8.4441-4447.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mantilla JC, Zafra GA, Macedo AM, Gonzalez CI. Mixed infection of Trypanosoma cruzi I and II in a Colombian cardiomyopathic patient. Hum Pathol. 2010;41(4):610–3. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.11.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Montilla MM, Guhl F, Jaramillo C, Nicholls S, Barnabe C, Bosseno MF, et al. Isoenzyme clustering of Trypanosomatidae Colombian populations. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002;66(4):394–400. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2002.66.394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Higo H, Miura S, Horio M, Mimori T, Hamano S, Agatsuma T, et al. Genotypic variation among lineages of Trypanosoma cruzi and its geographic aspects. Parasitol Int. 2004;53(4):337–44. doi: 10.1016/j.parint.2004.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Medeiros MM, Peixoto JR, Oliveira AC, Cardilo-Reis L, Koatz VL, Van Kaer L, et al. Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)-dependent proinflammatory and immunomodulatory properties of the glycoinositolphospholipid (GIPL) from Trypanosoma cruzi. J Leukoc Biol. 2007;82(3):488–96. doi: 10.1189/jlb.0706478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Villanueva-Lizama LE, Cruz-Chan JV, Versteeg L, Teh-Poot CF, Hoffman K, Kendricks A, et al. TLR4 agonist protects against Trypanosoma cruzi acute lethal infection by decreasing cardiac parasite burdens. Parasite Immunol. 2020:e12769. doi: 10.1111/pim.12769 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Saleh FM, Chandra PK, Lin D, Robinson JE, Izadpanah R, Mondal D, et al. A New Humanized Mouse Model Mimics Humans in Lacking α-Gal Epitopes and Secreting Anti-Gal Antibodies. J Immunol. 2020;204(7):1998–2005. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1901385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hidron A, Vogenthaler N, Santos-Preciado JI, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Franco-Paredes C, Rassi A Jr., Cardiac involvement with parasitic infections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010;23(2):324–49. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00054-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Marin-Neto JA, Cunha-Neto E, Maciel BC, Simoes MV. Pathogenesis of chronic Chagas heart disease. Circulation. 2007;115(9):1109–23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.624296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Rassi A Jr., Marin JAN, Rassi A. Chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy: a review of the main pathogenic mechanisms and the efficacy of aetiological treatment following the BENznidazole Evaluation for Interrupting Trypanosomiasis (BENEFIT) trial. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2017;112(3):224–35. doi: 10.1590/0074-02760160334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Teixeira AR, Hecht MM, Guimaro MC, Sousa AO, Nitz N. Pathogenesis of chagas’ disease: parasite persistence and autoimmunity. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011;24(3):592–630. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00063-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Tanowitz HB, Machado FS, Jelicks LA, Shirani J, de Carvalho AC, Spray DC, et al. Perspectives on Trypanosoma cruzi-induced heart disease (Chagas disease). Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;51(6):524–39. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2009.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bivona AE, Alberti AS, Cerny N, Trinitario SN, Malchiodi EL. Chagas disease vaccine design: the search for an efficient Trypanosoma cruzi immune-mediated control. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2020;1866(5):165658. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2019.165658 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Rutschow S, Leschka S, Westermann D, Puhl K, Weitz A, Ladyszenskij L, et al. Left ventricular enlargement in coxsackievirus-B3 induced chronic myocarditis—ongoing inflammation and an imbalance of the matrix degrading system. Eur J Pharmacol. 2010;630(1–3):145–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2009.12.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Andrade ZA, Andrade SG. [Pathogenesis of Chagas’ chronic myocarditis; importance of ischemic lesions]. Arq Bras Med. 1955;45(7–8):279–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Benvenuti LA, Roggerio A, Freitas HF, Mansur AJ, Fiorelli A, Higuchi ML. Chronic American trypanosomiasis: parasite persistence in endomyocardial biopsies is associated with high-grade myocarditis. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2008;102(6):481–7. doi: 10.1179/136485908X311740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Gutierrez FR, Guedes PM, Gazzinelli RT, Silva JS. The role of parasite persistence in pathogenesis of Chagas heart disease. Parasite Immunol. 2009;31(11):673–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3024.2009.01108.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Torres SH, Finol HJ, Montes de Oca M, Vasquez F, Puigbo JJ, Loyo JG. Capillary damage in skeletal muscle in advanced Chagas’ disease patients. Parasitol Res. 2004;93(5):364–8. doi: 10.1007/s00436-004-1107-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Viotti R, Alarcon de Noya B, Araujo-Jorge T, Grijalva MJ, Guhl F, Lopez MC, et al. Towards a paradigm shift in the treatment of chronic Chagas disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(2):635–9. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01662-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Rodriguez-Morales O, Monteon-Padilla V, Carrillo-Sanchez SC, Rios-Castro M, Martinez-Cruz M, Carabarin-Lima A, et al. Experimental Vaccines against Chagas Disease: A Journey through History. J Immunol Res. 2015;2015:489758. doi: 10.1155/2015/489758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Introini MV, Basso B, Moretti E. [Experimental Chagas’ disease: I. Study of different immunization conditions in the infection course]. Bol Chil Parasitol. 1998;53(3–4):45–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Basso B, Moretti E, Fretes R. Vaccination with epimastigotes of different strains of Trypanosoma rangeli protects mice against Trypanosoma cruzi infection. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2008;103(4):370–4. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762008000400010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Bregano JW, Picao RC, Graca VK, Menolli RA, Itow Jankevicius S, Pinge Filho P, et al. Phytomonas serpens, a tomato parasite, shares antigens with Trypanosoma cruzi that are recognized by human sera and induce protective immunity in mice. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2003;39(3):257–64. doi: 10.1016/S0928-8244(03)00256-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Ruiz AM, Esteva M, Cabeza Meckert P, Laguens RP, Segura EL. Protective immunity and pathology induced by inoculation of mice with different subcellular fractions of Trypanosoma cruzi. Acta Trop. 1985;42(4):299–309. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Dos Santos Virgilio F, Pontes C, Dominguez MR, Ersching J, Rodrigues MM, Vasconcelos JR. CD8(+) T cell-mediated immunity during Trypanosoma cruzi infection: a path for vaccine development? Mediators Inflamm. 2014;2014:243786. doi: 10.1155/2014/243786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Arce-Fonseca M, Rios-Castro M, Carrillo-Sanchez Sdel C, Martinez-Cruz M, Rodriguez-Morales O. Prophylactic and therapeutic DNA vaccines against Chagas disease. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:121. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-0738-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Dumonteil E, Herrera C, Tu W, Goff K, Fahlberg M, Haupt E, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant vaccine against Trypanosoma cruzi in Rhesus macaques. Vaccine. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Mateus J, Guerrero P, Lasso P, Cuervo C, Gonzalez JM, Puerta CJ, et al. An Animal Model of Acute and Chronic Chagas Disease With the Reticulotropic Y Strain of Trypanosoma cruzi That Depicts the Multifunctionality and Dysfunctionality of T Cells. Front Immunol. 2019;10:918. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00918 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Chatelain E, Konar N. Translational challenges of animal models in Chagas disease drug development: a review. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9:4807–23. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S90208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Costa SC. Mouse as a model for Chagas disease: does mouse represent a good model for Chagas disease? Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 1999;94 Suppl 1:269–72. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02761999000700045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Blyszczuk P. Myocarditis in Humans and in Experimental Animal Models. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2019;6:64. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2019.00064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Almeida IC, Ferguson MA, Schenkman S, Travassos LR. Lytic anti-alpha-galactosyl antibodies from patients with chronic Chagas’ disease recognize novel O-linked oligosaccharides on mucin-like glycosyl-phosphatidylinositol-anchored glycoproteins of Trypanosoma cruzi. Biochem J. 1994;304 (Pt 3):793–802. doi: 10.1042/bj3040793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Avila JL, Rojas M, Galili U. Immunogenic Gal alpha 1,3Gal carbohydrate epitopes are present on pathogenic American Trypanosoma and Leishmania. J Immunol. 1989;142(8):2828–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Almeida IC, Krautz GM, Krettli AU, Travassos LR. Glycoconjugates of Trypanosoma cruzi: a 74 kD antigen of trypomastigotes specifically reacts with lytic anti-alpha-galactosyl antibodies from patients with chronic Chagas disease. J Clin Lab Anal. 1993;7(6):307–16. doi: 10.1002/jcla.1860070603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Galili U. Interaction of the natural anti-Gal antibody with alpha-galactosyl epitopes: a major obstacle for xenotransplantation in humans. Immunol Today. 1993;14(10):480–2. doi: 10.1016/0167-5699(93)90261-i [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Ayala EV, Rodrigues da Cunha GM, Azevedo MA, Calderon M, Jimenez J, Venuto AP, et al. C57BL/6 alpha1,3-galactosyltransferase Knockout Mouse (alpha-GalT-KO) as an Animal Model for Experimental Chagas Disease. ACS Infect Dis. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Zingales B, Andrade SG, Briones MR, Campbell DA, Chiari E, Fernandes O, et al. A new consensus for Trypanosoma cruzi intraspecific nomenclature: second revision meeting recommends TcI to TcVI. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2009;104(7):1051–4. doi: 10.1590/s0074-02762009000700021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Soares RP, Torrecilhas AC, Assis RR, Rocha MN, Moura e Castro FA, Freitas GF, et al. Intraspecies variation in Trypanosoma cruzi GPI-mucins: biological activities and differential expression of alpha-galactosyl residues. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;87(1):87–96. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.12-0015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Polonskaya Z, Deng S, Sarkar A, Kain L, Comellas-Aragones M, McKay C, et al. T cells control the generation of nanomolar-affinity anti-glycan antibodies. J Clin Invest. 2017;127(4):1491–504. doi: 10.1172/JCI91192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Kaltgrad E, Sen Gupta S, Punna S, Huang C-Y, Chang A, Wong C-H, et al. Anti-Carbohydrate Antibodies Elicited by Polyvalent Display on a Viral Scaffold. ChemBioChem. 2007;8:1455–62. doi: 10.1002/cbic.200700225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Bachmann MF, Jennings GT. Vaccine delivery: a matter of size, geometry, kinetics and molecular patterns. Nat Rev Immunol. 2010;10:787–96. doi: 10.1038/nri2868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Barry MA, Wang Q, Jones KM, Heffernan MJ, Buhaya MH, Beaumier CM, et al. A therapeutic nanoparticle vaccine against Trypanosoma cruzi in a BALB/c mouse model of Chagas disease. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2016;12(4):976–87. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1119346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Seid CA, Jones KM, Pollet J, Keegan B, Hudspeth E, Hammond M, et al. Cysteine mutagenesis improves the production without abrogating antigenicity of a recombinant protein vaccine candidate for human Chagas disease. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2017;13(3):621–33. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2016.1242540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Jones K, Versteeg L, Damania A, Keegan B, Kendricks A, Pollet J, et al. Vaccine-Linked Chemotherapy Improves Benznidazole Efficacy for Acute Chagas Disease. Infect Immun. 2018;86(4). doi: 10.1128/IAI.00876-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Silva LHP, Nussenzweig V. Sobre uma cepa de Trypanosoma cruzi altamente virulenta para o camundongo branco. Folia Clin Biol. 1953;20:191–203. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Federici EE, Abelmann WH, Neva FA. Chronic and Progressive Myocarditis and Myositis in C3h Mice Infected with Trypanosoma cruzi. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1964;13:272–80. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.1964.13.272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Brener Z. Therapeutic activity and criterion of cure on mice experimentally infected with Trypanosoma cruzi. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1962;4:389–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009613.r001

Decision Letter 0

Ulisses Gazos Lopes, Walderez O Dutra

3 May 2021

Dear Dr. Marques,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "α-Gal Immunization Positively Impacts Trypanosoma cruzi Colonization of Heart Tissue in a Mouse Model" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

Dear Colleagues,

Reviewer #2 raised significant concerns and required more experiments in addition to modifications on some figures and the text. The necessary experiments are of capital importance to strengthen the main concepts underlined in the manuscript.

The authors must address the points raised by both reviewers and the experiments suggested by the reviewer.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 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.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

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

Sincerely,

Ulisses Gazos Lopes

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Walderez Dutra

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Dear Autho

Reviewer #2 raised significant concerns and required more experiments in addition to modifications on some figures and the text. The necessary experiments are of capital importance to strengthen the main concepts underlined in the manuscript.

The authors must address the points raised by both reviewers and the experiments suggested by the reviewer.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

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

Reviewer #1: The objectives as well as the hypothesis are clear.

The proposed methodology is adequate to meet the established objectives.

The population is clearly described and appropriate.

The sample size is sufficient.

The statistical analysis is correct.

The study adheres to the guidelines of the Ethics Committee.

Reviewer #2: -Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? YES

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? In most cases, yes, it is. However, when testing the hypothesis that the Qb-aGal VLP is a TLR4 agonist, further experiments are necessary.

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

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

In most experiments, yes, it is. However, for the results shown in Figs. 3D and 3F, no statistical significance is attained when comparing Qb-aGal- and Qb-WT-treated groups. Of notice, there is no information about what errors bars represent in any figure: standard deviation or standard error of the mean? This information should be available in every Figure caption. I suggest showing the standard error of the mean in every graph. Concerns about the interpretation of results shown in Figs. 3D and 3F will be further commented below. Also, sample size is not specified in Figs.4B-4G caption.

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? YES.

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? NO

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

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

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

Reviewer #1: The analysis matches what was planned.

The results are clearly presented.

The figures are sufficient and of very good quality.

Reviewer #2: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? YES

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? YES

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Yes, with the exception of figures showing parasitemia kinetics (Figs. 1C, 2A and 3B), in which red dotted lines are employed to show the upper limit of the standard deviation for each set of data. This is very confusing. In my opinion, error bars (showing the standard error of the mean at each point - day pi) should be plotted instead, in each of the 3 parasitemia curves (corresponding to the 3 groups: Qb-aGal, Qb-WT and PBS).

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

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

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

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The conclusions are sufficiently supported as they are supported by the data presented.

The limitations of the analysis are not clearly described.

Discussion of the data is useful to understand its scope and impact in the area.

If the relevance to public health is addressed.

Reviewer #2: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

In most cases, yes, they are. However, when presenting the results of Figs. 3D and 3F, on page 6, the authors state: "Although not statistically significant, we observed decreased hypertrophy (Fig. 3E) and lesion intensity in the myocardium of the vaccinated group compared with the animals receiving the underivatized particle". If no statistical significance was attained when comparing Qb-aGal- and Qb-WT-treated groups, it cannot be stated that there was a decrease in hypertrophy and lesion intensity. The authors should either increase the sample sizes, in order to attain statistical significance, or rephrase the statement. It is not possible to conclude that there is decreased hypertrophy and lesion intensity, without attaining statistical significance.

Also, the conclusion that IL-12 and IFN-g are produced in response to Qb-aGal through the activation of TLR4 in macrophages of the heart is not supported by presented data (please see details in point #5, below).

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? YES

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

-Is public health relevance addressed? YES

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

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

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

Reviewer #1: There are no editorial suggestions.

Reviewer #2: 1. All over the Introduction and Discussion sections, a period punctuation mark is wrongly placed before the indicated reference numbers.

2. On the last line of page 3: ..." infection by T. cruzi Y and Colombian strains who displays different levels of ..." correct: ...strains, which display different...

3. Page 6: "... we observed decreased hypertrophy (Fig. 3E) and lesion intensity..." Correct: (Fig. 3D).

The manuscript lacks page and line numbers: this does not help at all the work of a reviewer. Should be required for every submitted ms.

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

Summary and General Comments

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

Reviewer #1: Summary.

In this study the effectiveness of a vaccine against Chagas disease was tested. alfa-GalT-KO mice were immunized twice with a virus-like particle vaccine displaying a high density of the immunogenic alfa-Gal trisaccharide (Qbeta-αGal). Seven days after the second immunization the animals were infected with trypomastigotes of two different strains of T. cruzi.

They analyzed the effect of protection at the humoral and histological level. They concluded that this vaccine can offer protection in case of infection with different DTUs of T. cruzi, reducing its effect in the acute phase and avoiding damage to the heart in the chronic phase.

General Comments.

1. Although the authors mention two references (I can only access one reference), it is highly necessary that in the methodology of this manuscript they briefly describe the vaccine preparation process and emphasize the composition of the vaccine.

2.-The authors name an experimental group in three different ways and it causes confusion. They are required to unify the nomenclature or specify what each of the groups corresponds to:

QB-control

QB-WT

QB-VLPs

3.-In the first paragraph of results, figure 1 is mis-referenced:

where the authors say Fig. 1A they should say Fig. 1B

where the authors say Fig. 1B they should say Fig. 1C

where the authors say Fig. 1C they should say Fig. 1D

At the end of the statement "To test protection ... QB-VLPs or PBS" the authors should refer to Fig. 1A.

4.- Also in the second paragraph of results, figure 1 is mis-referenced:

where the authors say Fig. 1A they should say Fig. 1B.

5.-How do you interpret the similar hypertrophy result between the QB-Glu and QB-alpha Gal groups?

Reviewer #2: In the present manuscript, Gisele M. R. da Cunha et al., assess Qb-aGal (virus-like particles [VLP] functionalized with a dense array of synthetic a-Gal trisaccharide) as a candidate for vaccine development against infection with T. cruzi. For this, they immunized and challenged α1,3-galactosyltransferase knockout mice. The same Gal (Gal-a1,3-Gal-β1,4-GlcNAc) motif was previously employed covalently linked to a carrier protein (HSA), and tested as an experimental vaccine against infection with T. cruzi [ref. 30]. On the other hand, the same Qb-aGal VLPs were employed as an experimental vaccine against infection with other trypanosomatids: Leishmania amazonensis and L. infantum, in a1,3-galactosyltransferase knockout mice, by the same group [ref. 27].

Interesting results are shown: similarly to what was previously shown with the a-Gal-HSA vaccine, immunization with Qb-αGal reduced parasitemia and mortality, as well as inflammation score and degenerative changes in the heart tissue of mice challenged with 2 strains of T. cruzi, belonging to different DTUs (I and II). Qb-WT VLPs were employed as control. The advantages of the present vaccine upon the previous aGal-HSA (ref#30) should be addressed in more details.

Although the majority of the experiments are well conducted and controlled, some points should be clarified and certain statements rephrased. Also, some missing experimental controls and information should be added, as specified below.

1) When presenting the results of Figs. 3D and 3F, on page 6, the authors state: "Although not statistically significant, we observed decreased hypertrophy (Fig. 3D - not 3E) and lesion intensity in the myocardium of the vaccinated group compared with the animals receiving the underivatized particle". If no statistical significance was attained when comparing Qb-aGal- and Qb-WT-treated groups, it cannot be stated that there was a decrease in hypertrophy and lesion intensity. The authors should either increase the sample sizes, in order to attain statistical significance, or rephrase the statement. It is not possible to conclude that there is decreased hypertrophy and lesion intensity, without attaining statistical significance.

2) Regarding hypertrophy, in the Material and Methods section (page 12, last line) it is said that a semi-quantitative analysis of cardiomyocyte hypertrophy was performed. This is different from heart hypertrophy, a characteristic of the chronic cardiac form of Chagas disease. Therefore, to avoid misunderstanding, all through the text the authors should refer to "cardiomyocyte hypertrophy" and not to "heart hypertrophy" or simply hypertrophy, as in pages 5, 6 and 10.

3) In the Discussion section (3rd paragraph on page 9), it is stated that a previous work has shown that "...both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were activated by immunization, protecting a-GalT-KO mice by decreasing parasitemia and the number of parasites found on heart tissues.[30]". However, in fact, this was NOT demonstrated in ref. #30. This previous work showed an experiment where total splenocytes from vaccinated and non-vaccinated mice (challenged or not) were incubated in vitro for 24 h in the presence of aGal-HSA and the frequency of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells was measured by flow cytometry afterwards. Frequency of CD44+ T cells was also evaluated. Absolute cell numbers were not shown. This experiment is not a proof of Ag-specific T cell activation. Certain cell-subset percentages can be increasing simply because other splenocytes might be dying in vitro, for example. Also, in vitro incubation for only 24 h does not induce T cell proliferation. Of course, since IgG anti-aGal, are induced by vaccination, CD4+ T cells are in all likelihood being activated too, but probably this is the consequence of the recognition of MHC II-restricted peptides derived from the carrier ptn. In challenged mice, CD44+ T cells were probably activated by parasite-derived peptides. No test on the Ag-specificity of T cells were performed in ref #30, nor in the present study. Importantly, no evidence is shown that T cells are responsible for "decreasing parasitemia and the number of parasites found on heart tissues in vaccinated mice as stated on page 9 of the present manuscript. Therefore this affirmation must be removed.

4) Fig. 4A shows evidence that Qb-aGal could be acting as a TLR4 agonist. Peritoneal macrophages from WT and Tlr2-/- or Tlr4-/- mice were stimulated in vitro with Qb-aGal or Qb-WT VLPs, but only nitric oxide production was measured. TLR4 agonists usually also induce cytokine production, such as IL-6, TNF and type I IFN. The demonstration that Qb-aGal also induces these cytokines in WT but not in Tlr4-/- macrophages would strengthen this evidence. It is also very important to demonstrate that Qb-aGal VLPs are not contaminated with endotoxin, by performing the LAL assay, for example.

5) Also concerning Fig.4, its title is not appropriate, since TLR activity was tested only in vitro and with cells from non-vaccinated mice. The fact that the heart homogenates of mice vaccinated with Qb-aGal produce more IL-12 and IFN-g (Fig. 4B-4E) is not an evidence of TLR4 activation at all, since other pathways can also induce these cytokines. Furthermore, since these animals were not only vaccinated, but also infected, production of IL-12 and IFN-g might be driven by the parasite and not by the vaccine. Corroborating with this idea is the fact that IL-12 and IFN-g measurement was performed several days post-infection (8, 22, 36 and 190 dpi), at time points in which Qb-aGal was most probably already eliminated from the vaccinated mice. In the Discussion section it is stated that: "The Qb-aGal particle was found to function as a TLR4 agonist, inducing macrophages to produce more nitric acid, IL-12, and TNF-g in heart tissues". However, no evidence was shown that macrophages are the cells producing these cytokines in the heart, or that the production of these cytokines is dependent on TLR4 activation. Therefore, the text referring to these results (on page 7) should be rephrased. Also, the inaccurate conclusion that these results are an evidence of TLR4 activation in heart macrophages by vaccination with Qb-aGal should be removed from the last paragraph of the Discussion section, on page 10.

Minor:

1) I suppose Fig. 4F shows results of mice infected with Y strain, while Fig. 4G with Colombian strain. This information should be added to the figure caption.

2) In the Material and Methods section, a description of how Q�-aGal VLPs are obtained is completely absent and must be included.

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

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all 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.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-21-00089 Review.pdf

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009613.r003

Decision Letter 1

Ulisses Gazos Lopes, Walderez O Dutra

30 Jun 2021

Dear Dr. Marques,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'α-Gal Immunization Positively Impacts Trypanosoma cruzi Colonization of Heart Tissue in a Mouse Model' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Ulisses Gazos Lopes

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Walderez Dutra

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009613.r004

Acceptance letter

Ulisses Gazos Lopes, Walderez O Dutra

23 Jul 2021

Dear Dr. Marques,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "α-Gal Immunization Positively Impacts Trypanosoma cruzi Colonization of Heart Tissue in a Mouse Model," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PNTD-D-21-00089 Review.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviews. 06-21-21. docx.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


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

    RESOURCES