Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0265192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265192

miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasis

Jaqueline Poleto Bragato 1, Gabriela Torres Rebech 1, Jéssica Henrique de Freitas 1, Marilene Oliveira dos Santos 1, Sidnei Ferro Costa 1, Flavia de Rezende Eugênio 1, Paulo Sérgio Patto dos Santos 1, Valéria Marçal Felix de Lima 1,*
Editor: Paulo Lee Ho2
PMCID: PMC8947396  PMID: 35324917

Abstract

Visceral leishmaniasis in humans is a chronic and fatal disease if left untreated. Canine leishmaniasis (CanL) is a severe public health problem because infected animals are powerful transmitters of the parasite to humans via phlebotomine vectors. Therefore, dogs are an essential target for control measures. Progression of canine infection is accompanied by failure of cellular immunity with reduction of circulating lymphocytes and increased cytokines that suppress macrophage function. Studies showed that the regulation of the effector function of macrophages and T cells appears to depend on miRNAs; miRNA-21 (miR-21) shows increased expression in splenic leukocytes of dogs with CanL and targets genes related to the immune response. Mimics and inhibitors of miR-21 were used in vitro to transfect splenic leukocytes from dogs with CanL. After transfection, expression levels of the proteins FAS, FASL, CD69, CCR7, TNF-α, IL-17, IFN-γ, and IL-10 were measured. FAS, FASL, CD69, and CCR7 expression levels decreased in splenic leukocytes from dogs with CanL. The miR-21 mimic decreased CD69 expression in splenic leukocytes from CanL and healthy groups. The miR-21 inhibitor decreased IL-10 levels in culture supernatants from splenic leukocytes in the CanL group. These findings suggest that miR-21 alters the immune response in CanL; therefore, miR-21 could be used as a possible therapeutic target for CanL.

Introduction

Visceral leishmaniasis (VL), also known as kala-azar, is caused by the protozoan Leishmania infantum (syn Leishmania chagasi) and is fatal if left untreated in over 95% of cases. An estimated 50000 to 90000 new cases of VL occur worldwide annually, and most cases occur in Brazil, East Africa, and India [1]. Dogs are considered the primary domestic reservoirs of L. infantum [2]. In humans and dogs, the parasite causes characteristic symptoms of the disease [3,4]. The most frequent clinical signs of canine leishmaniasis (CanL) are lymphadenopathy, onychogryphosis, cutaneous lesions, weight loss, cachexia, fever, and locomotor abnormalities [5].

Dogs with CanL present a complex immune response, which is decisive for disease resistance or susceptibility [6,7]. The protective immune response against Leishmania sp. in dogs is related to the increase in the Th1 response with the production of IFN-γ and IL-2, cytokines that promote activation of macrophages and cytotoxic T lymphocytes [8]. Susceptibility to infection has been associated with the predominance of IL-4 and IL-10; reducing the effects of Th1 cytokines that decrease the production of nitric oxide in macrophages prevents the destruction of the parasite [9].

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs that work as post-transcriptional regulators of gene expression, regulating the translation of proteins fundamental to the immune response [10]. In splenic leukocytes [11] and peripheral blood mononuclear cells from dogs with CanL [12], microarray analysis showed increased expression of miR-21 in the CanL group. The parasitic load in the spleens of these animals negatively correlated with the expression of miR-21 [11].

In silico analysis of pathways and targets of differentially expressed miRNAs in splenic leukocytes from dogs naturally infected by L. infantum, some genes related to the immune response in CanL were targets of miR-21 [11]. The canonical pathways included the miR-21 target genes FAS, FASL, CCR7, CD69, and TNF-α [11,12].

IL-10 is associated with susceptibility in CanL, and high levels of this cytokine are detected in the spleens of dogs with CanL [13]. There was a positive correlation between splenic levels of this cytokine and the progression of CanL [14]. In peripheral blood mononuclear cells of dogs with CanL, increased IL-10 levels were associated with the detection of parasitic DNA [15]. IL-10 mRNA was a target of miR-21 in a murine model of adenovirus [16] and autoimmune encephalomyelitis [17].

IFN-γ is a Th1 cytokine associated with resistance in CanL [13]. Significantly higher IFN-γ concentrations were noted in dogs in stage I of the disease [18]. IFN-γ-producing dogs presented lower antibody levels and lower blood parasitemia [18]. IL-17 is a mediator of inflammatory reactions in CanL, and the infection inhibited IL-17A mRNA expression in the spleen, especially in symptomatic dogs [19]. IL-17A acts synergistically with IFN-γ to promote protection against L. infantum infection [20]. IL-17 and IFN-γ mRNAs were targets of CD69 in murine CD4+ cells [21,22].

In the present study, we demonstrate that miR-21 overexpression leads to a decreased CD69 expression in splenic leukocytes of infected and healthy dogs, whereas decreased miR-21 expression leads to lower expression of IL-10 in culture supernatants from dogs with CanL.

Materials and methods

Animal screening and collection of samples

The Committee for Ethics in Animal Experimental Research approved the study, with the approval of the Committee for Ethics in Animal Use of São Paulo State University, School of Veterinary Medicine, Araçatuba (process number 00624–2018). The owners of the control group dogs did the consent to the surgery by written the term of consentient, according Committee for Ethics instructions.

Five healthy dogs were used in the control group. These animals were selected following clinical examination, complete blood count, and serum biochemical profile within the normal range for the species and negative results for CanL (serological [23] and molecular [24]; Table 1). Dogs selected are of both sexes and have between 1–5 years old.

Table 1. Screening of dogs.

Optical density on ELISA and clinical signs of CanL and control groups.

Animal O.D. (ELISA) Sex Clinical Signs PCR
Infected 1 1,132 F Onychogryphosis, skin lesions, cachexia, seborrhea +
Infected 2 1,065 M Lymphadenopathy, onychogryphosis, cachexia and skin lesions +
Infected 3 0,978 F Lymphadenopathy, onychogryphosis, ear injuries, alopecia, skin lesions +
Infected 4 0,636 M Lymphadenopathy, cachexia, skin lesions, periocular lesion +
Infected 5 1,374 F Onychogryphosis, cachexia, alopecia, skin lesions +
Infected 6 1,208 M Lymphadenopathy, onychogryphosis, cachexia, alopecia +
Infected 7 1,267 F Lymphadenopathy, onychogryphosis, seborrhea, alopecia, skin lesions, periocular lesion, hepatosplenomegaly +
Infected 8 1,052 F Lymphadenopathy, onychogryphosis, periocular lesion, hepatosplenomegaly +
Infected 9 0,968 F Lymphadenopathy, onychogryphosis, cachexia +
Infected 10 1,049 F Lymphadenopathy, onychogryphosis, seborrhea +
Control 1 0,062 F No clinical signs -
Control 2 0,026 M No clinical signs -
Control 3 0,147 F No clinical signs -
Control 4 0,028 M No clinical signs -
Control 5 0,071 F No clinical signs -

In the infected group, ten dogs were naturally infected with L. infantum; all animals were positive for leishmaniasis by serology and molecular testing and were kept at the Zoonosis Control Center of Araçatuba. These animals carried at least three characteristic clinical signs of the disease, including onychogryphosis, weight loss, ear-tip injuries, periocular lesions, alopecia, skin lesions, or lymphadenopathy (Table 1).

Blood samples from the healthy and infected groups were collected in tubes without EDTA to obtain serum for biochemical profiles (S1 Table) and indirect ELISA (Table 1) to measure anti-leishmanial antibodies [23]. Blood was collected in EDTA-containing tubes for complete blood count (S2 Table). Infected dogs were euthanized by barbiturate anesthesia (Tiopental, Cristália Itapira, SP), followed by intravenous injection of 19.1% potassium chloride, as recommended for VL control in compliance with local legislation. After euthanasia, a 2-cm3 fragment of the spleen was collected for isolation of splenic leukocytes. Splenic fragments in control dogs were removed by surgical excision as described by [25]. Dogs with laboratory exams incompatible with clinical leishmaniasis were not used in the study.

Isolation of splenic leukocytes

Splenic leukocytes were obtained from a 2-cm3 fragment that was macerated using a mortar and pestle, and added to 10 ml RPMI-1640 medium (Sigma, USA) supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS), 0.03% L-glutamine, and 100 IU/mL penicillin and 100 mg/mL streptomycin. After removal of cell debris through a 100-μm cell strainer (BD Falcon Cell strainer, USA), suspensions were processed with 5 mL of red blood cell lysis buffer containing 7.46 g/L ammonium chloride (NH4ClO3), 1,6 g/L EDTA and 0,84 g/L sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) at 4° C for 10 minutes, centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 5 minutes, and washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at pH 7.2 three times. Cells were counted in a Neubauer chamber.

Serological diagnosis by ELISA

Samples were analyzed by ELISA using total antigen from lysed promastigotes [26]. The antigen was coated overnight with 20 μg/ml protein pH 9.6, then washed three times in PBS containing 0.05% Tween 20 (washing buffer) and saturated for 1 hour with 150 μl/well of a mixture of PBS and 10% FBS at room temperature. Next, the preparation was washed three times with washing buffer. Blocking buffer/Tween (100 μl of serum sample (1/400) diluted in PBS, pH 7.2, containing 0.05% Tween 20 and 10% FCS) was added to each well and incubated at room temperature for 3 h, followed by three washes with washing buffer. Subsequently, 100 μl/well of anti-dog IgG conjugated with horseradish peroxidase (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) at appropriate dilution in blocking buffer/Tween was added, incubated at room temperature for 1 hour, and washed. Substrate solution (0.4 mg/ml o-phenylenediamine (Sigma) and 0.4 μl/ml H2O2 in phosphate citrate buffer, pH 5.0) was added at 100 μl/well and developed for 5 min at room temperature. The reaction was stopped with 50 μl of 3M H2SO4. Absorbance was measured at 490 nm using a Tecan microplate reader (Sunrise model ref. 16039400). Negative and positive controls were included on each plate. Positive controls obtained from a hyperimmune animal were included. The cut-off was determined using the mean +3 SD of the readings obtained from serum samples of healthy dogs from non-endemic areas for leishmaniasis.

DNA extraction and determination of the Leishmania species

DNA extraction from splenic leukocytes samples from the experimental dogs was performed using 5 x 106 cells with the commercial DNAeasy kit (Qiagen, USA) according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Extracted DNA was quantified in a spectrophotometer 260/280 (NanoDrop, Thermo Fisher Scientific) to measure purity and concentration and were then stored at –20°C until analysis.

Determination of the Leishmania species was performed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-restriction fragment length polymorphism [24], comparing the restriction profiles of the sample with a PCR restriction profile obtained from L. infantum (IOC / L0575-MHOM / BR / 2002 / LPC-RPV), L. braziliensis (IOC / L0566-MHOM / BR / 1975 / M2903) and L. amazonensis (IOC / L0575-MHOM / BR / 1967 / PH8) as positive controls, and water as a negative control (S1 Fig).

Extraction and quantification of total RNA

Extraction of total RNA, including miRNAs, from 5 x 104 splenic leukocytes post-transfection, was performed using the commercial mirVana kit for isolation of total RNA with phenol (Life Technologies, USA), following manufacturer’s instructions. After RNA isolation, samples were stored at –80°C.

RNA samples were analyzed in a spectrophotometer (NanoDrop, Thermo Scientific, USA) for purity evaluation (260/280) and quantification.

Real-time PCR for miR-21

To confirm that miR-21 is upregulated in dogs with CanL obtained by [11], real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) was performed. cDNA production was performed using the miScript RT II kit (Qiagen, USA), as recommended by the manufacturer. A total of 1 μg of RNA was used for each sample with the 5x miScript Hiflex Buffer, in a final volume of 20 μl. Mix was incubated for 60 min at 37°C, followed by 5 min at 95°C to inactivate the miScript Reverse Transcriptase. Next, qPCR was performed using commercially available specific primer for Canis familiaris miR-21 and the endogenous reference RNA SNORD96A, as recommended by manufacturer (miScript, Qiagen). The SYBR Green system (MyScript SYBR Green PCR Kit, Qiagen) was used in a real-time thermal cycler (RealPlex, Eppendorf). Amplification conditions consisted of an initial activation step of 95°C for 15 min followed by 40 cycles of 94°C for 15 seconds, 55°C for 30 seconds, and 70°C for 30 seconds denaturation, annealing, and extension, respectively. For miRNA analysis, a standard curve was generated with serial dilution of a pool of all cDNAs. The absolute quantification of miR-21 was performed by converting the sample cycle threshold values to a concentration (ng/μl) based on the standard curves generated using 10-fold serial dilutions of the cDNA pool. Values obtained for the target miRNA were then divided by SNORD96A values to obtain normalized target values for each sample. All samples were run in duplicate.

Transfection with miR-21 mimic and inhibitor in splenic leukocytes

Splenic leukocytes were cultured (1.6 x 105 cells/replicate) in triplicate in 24-well plates for 48 h at 37°C in 5% CO2. All-Stars Negative control siRNA (scrambled), miR-21 mimic (5 nM), and miR-21 inhibitor (50 nM) (miScript miRNA Mimic and Inhibitor Qiagen, USA) were used, and splenic leukocytes were transfected using 3 μL of Hiperfect (Qiagen, USA) in each well, following manufacturer’s instructions. To evaluate transfection rates, AllStars HS Cell Death Control siRNA (Qiagen, USA) was used at a final concentration of 50 nM. AllStars Hs Cell Death Control siRNA is a blend of highly potent siRNAs targeting ubiquitously expressed genes that are essential for cell survival. Knockdown of these genes induces a high degree of cell death. The transfection rate was measured by flow cytometry using 7-AAD Viability Staining Solution (BioLegend, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Cell death was evaluated using Trypan blue in a Neubauer chamber for optical microscopy. A medium transfection rate of 20% was obtained for both groups. Experiment to confirm the transfection rate are demonstrate in representative image (S2 Fig).

Flow cytometry analysis in splenic leukocytes

For flow cytometry analysis, 1 x 104 cells were incubated with Fc blocking buffer (10% FBS) for 30 min at room temperature. Cells were centrifuged at 1800 rpm for 7 minutes and then incubated with phycoerythrin (PE)-conjugated anti-human CD95 (FAS) monoclonal antibody (BD Biosciences, USA), anti-human CD178 (FASL) monoclonal antibody (BD Biosciences, USA), and anti-human CD69 polyclonal antibody (Lifespan Biosciences, USA). To measure CCR7 in dendritic cells, splenic leukocytes were incubated with PE-conjugated anti-human CCR7 monoclonal antibody (Invitrogen, USA), anti-dog MHC class II conjugated with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) (Bio-Rad, USA), or anti-human CD11c conjugated with peridinin-chlorophyll-protein (Lifespan Biosciences, USA). To avoid non-specific binding, cells were incubated with respective control isotypes. Acquisition of 10,000 events was counted by experimental replicate on channels FL1, FL2, and FL3, and cytometric analysis was performed using an Accuri C5 Flow Cytometer (BD Biosciences, USA) with BD Accuri C6 software, version 1.0.264.21 (BD Biosciences, USA).

To determine CD69 expression on lymphocytes, splenic leukocytes were incubated with Fc blocking buffer (10% FBS) for 30 min at room temperature. Cells were centrifuged at 1800 rpm for 7 minutes and then incubated with anti-dog CD4 monoclonal antibody (FITC) (ABD Serotec, USA), anti-dog CD8 monoclonal antibody (FITC) (ABD Serotec, USA), or anti-human CD21 monoclonal antibody (FITC) (ExBio, Czech Republic) in different tubes, and with PE-conjugated anti-human CD69 polyclonal antibody (Lifespan Biosciences, USA) to obtain double tagging of CD69 in T CD4+, T CD8+, and B lymphocytes, respectively. To avoid non-specific binding, cells were incubated with respective control isotypes. Acquisition of 10,000 events was counted by experimental replicate on channels FL1 and FL2, and cytometry was performed using an Accuri C5 Flow Cytometer (BD Biosciences, USA) using BD Accuri C6 software version 1.0.264.21 (BD Biosciences, USA).

Dosage of cytokines by ELISA

After 48 h of transfection, supernatants from splenic leukocyte cultures were collected, centrifuged at 2500 rpm, and stored at –80°C until further analysis. Concentrations of TNF-α [12], IL-10 [17], IL-17, and IFN-γ [21] in the supernatant were determined by capture ELISA using a Canine DuoSet ELISA Kit (R&D Systems, USA) for the respective cytokines. The assay was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The plates were read using a Spectra Count™ reader (Packard BioScience Company) with a 450-nm filter. All measurements were performed in duplicate.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 6 software (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA). D’Agostino & Pearson, Shapiro–Wilk, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were determined to assess for normality of distribution, and then non-parametric tests were used. The Mann–Whitney test was used for group comparison. Treatment comparisons (miR-21 mimic, miR-21 inhibitor, scrambled, hiperfect and untransfected cells) were evaluated using the Friedman test followed by Dunn’s multiple comparisons test (comparing the mean rank of each treatment with every other treatments). Differences were considered significant when p < 0.05.

Results

miR-21 expression is increased in CanL

Because miR-21 regulates the immune response, to confirm the increase in miR-21 expression in CanL, real-time PCR was performed with samples of splenic leukocytes from dogs of both groups. We found a higher expression of miR-21 in dogs with CanL than healthy dogs (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Expression of miR-21.

Fig 1

miR-21 expression using real-time PCR. Expression of miR-21 was quantified using real-time PCR in splenic leukocytes of CanL (n = 10) and control (n = 5) dogs. Fold change of miR-21 was calculated with normalized results by converting the sample cycle threshold values to a concentration (ng/μl). Data represent the mean values of miRNA expression ± standard deviation, and the asterisks represent statistically significant data following the Mann–Whitney test. Results were considered significant when p < 0.05.

Expression of proteins regulated by miR-21 in splenic leukocytes of CanL and healthy dogs

Expression of FAS, FASL, CD69, and CCR7 were compared between control and CanL groups. Proteins FAS (Fig 2A), FASL (Fig 2B), CD69 (Fig 2C), and CCR7 (Fig 2D), regulated by miR-21 [11,12] were decreased in splenic leukocytes from the CanL group.

Fig 2. Expression of proteins regulated by miR-21 in splenic leukocytes of CanL and healthy dogs.

Fig 2

Expression of FAS (A), FASL (B), CD69 (C), and CCR7 (D) in splenic leukocytes from CanL and healthy dogs after culture and respective representative histograms obtained from flow cytometry analysis. The red line represents the CanL group, and the blue line represents the control group. Cells were cultured for 48 h at 37°C and 5% CO2 without treatment (medium) and then incubated with monoclonal antibodies. Data are presented as median ± min-max. Asterisks represent statistical significance (Mann–Whitney, *p < 0.05).

miR-21 mimics lead to decreased CD69 expression by B lymphocytes in healthy dogs and those with CanL

To determine whether miR-21 affects the expression of FAS, FASL, CD69, and CCR7, splenic leukocytes were transfected with miR-21 mimics and inhibitors, and after 48 hours, protein expression was measured using flow cytometry. Expression of FAS, FASL, and CCR7 presented no statistically significant difference after transfection with mimics and inhibitors of miR-21 in CanL and healthy groups (S3 Fig). A decrease in CD69 protein expression was found in splenic leukocytes after transfection with miR-21 mimic in the control group (Fig 3A) and the CanL group (Fig 3B).

Fig 3. Expression of CD69 after transfection of splenic leukocytes with mimics and inhibitors of miR-21.

Fig 3

Expression of CD69 protein in splenic leukocytes of the control (A) and CanL group (B). Splenic leukocytes of dogs naturally infected by L. infantum and healthy dogs were transfected with scrambled, miR-21 mimic, and miR-21 inhibitor, all in the presence of Hiperfect, following 48 h in culture at 37°C and 5% CO2. Data are presented as median ± min-max. The asterisk indicates significant differences (Friedman’s multiple comparison test followed by Dunn’s multiple comparisons test (comparing the mean rank of each treatment with every other treatments), * p < 0.05).

To determine which cell subpopulation showed decreased CD69 expression, splenic leukocytes from the CanL group were transfected with miR-21 mimics and inhibitors, and CD69 expression in CD4+, CD8+, and CD21+ cells was obtained by double tagging (S4 Table). We found significantly lower CD69 expression only in B lymphocytes (CD21+) after transfection with miR-21 mimics compared with scrambled (Fig 4).

Fig 4. CD69 expression in T CD4+, T CD8+ and B lymphocytes.

Fig 4

Expression of CD69 protein in (A) CD4+, (B) CD8+ and (C) B lymphocytes (CD21+ cells) in the CanL group. Splenic leukocytes of dogs naturally infected by L. infantum were transfected with scrambled, miR-21 mimic, and miR-21 inhibitor, all in the presence of Hiperfect, following 48 h in culture at 37°C and 5% CO2. Data are presented as median ± min-max, and the asterisk indicates significant differences (Friedman’s multiple comparison test, * p < 0.05).

IL-10 expression decreased in the presence of miR-21 inhibitor

To determine whether miR-21 regulates the expression of cytokines IL-10, TNF-α, IFN-γ, and IL-17, splenic leukocytes from the CanL group were transfected with miR-21 mimics and inhibitors, and after 48 hours, cytokine concentrations were measured by capture ELISA in cell culture supernatants. We observed a decrease in IL-10 in culture supernatants in the presence of miR-21 inhibitor in the CanL group (Fig 5). TNF-α, IFN-γ, and IL-17 showed no significant differences (S4 Fig).

Fig 5. Concentration of IL-10 after transfection of splenic leukocytes with mimics and inhibitors of miR-21.

Fig 5

IL-10 production was quantified in supernatants from splenic leukocytes cultures of dogs naturally infected by L. infantum and transfected with scrambled, miR-21 mimic, and miR-21 inhibitor, all in the presence of Hiperfect, following 48 h in culture. Data represent the median values of the IL-10 + min-max. Asterisks represent significance (p < 0.05) by the Friedman Test with the Dunn multiple comparisons.

Discussion

Dogs naturally infected with L. infantum that develop disease show an inability to mount a specific effective adaptive immune response; miRNAs, including miR-21, could be responsible for modulation of the immune system. To elucidate the role of miR-21 in dogs with CanL, we evaluated targets of miR-21 after transfection with mimics and inhibitors. Real-time PCR confirmed higher expression of miR-21 in dogs with CanL than healthy dogs. In silico analysis showed that miR-21 targets the genes FAS, FASL, CCR7, CD69, TNF-α, and IL-10. Expression levels of proteins FAS, FASL, CCR7, and CD69 were decreased in dogs with CanL. Next, the role of miR-21 was evaluated using splenic leukocyte transfection with miR-21 mimics and inhibitors, and protein expression was studied. We found that FAS, FASL, and CCR7 expression was not regulated by miR-21; however, the miR-21mimic decreased CD69 expression in B lymphocytes and the inhibition of miR-21 decreased IL-10 in culture supernatants from splenic leukocytes.

We observed lower expression levels of CD95 (FAS) and CD178 (FASL) in splenic leukocytes from infected dogs than dogs in the control group. FAS and FASL play critical roles in the immune system, particularly in the death of target cells infected by pathogens and obsolete and potentially dangerous lymphocytes [27]. FASL-FAS signaling triggers apoptosis through recruitment mediated by FADD adapter proteins (FAS-associated protein with death domain, also called MORT1) and caspase-8 activation [27]. Similar to our finding, low FAS and FASL expression levels were observed in spleen and peripheral blood CD4+ cells from dogs with CanL [28]. The increase or decrease in miR-21 in cultures did not alter the expression of FAS and FASL, suggesting that, in dogs, the mRNA of these proteins may not be targets of miR-21. The low transfection rate obtained may not have been sufficient to modulate the expression of these molecules.

CCR7 protein showed lower expression in splenic leukocytes from the CanL group than the control group. CCR7, a chemokine receptor important for cell migration, is expressed in dendritic cells and its mRNA is a target of miR-21 in human CD4+ T cells [29]. Dendritic cells from mice infected with L. donovani showed impairment of migration from the marginal zone to the periarteriolar region of the spleen, partly attributed to the inhibition of CCR7 expression [30]. The interaction between T cells and dendritic cells is essential to generate an adaptive immune response; mature dendritic cells from mice with CCR7 deficiency do not migrate to draining lymph nodes after activation, making it impossible to mount a rapid response of primary B or T cells. [31]. These findings suggest that it is possible in CanL that the low expression of CCR7 compromises cell migration; nevertheless, we did not observe regulation of the expression of CCR7 by miR-21, which may be due to low transfection rates.

We also found lower expression of CD69 in splenic leukocytes from dogs with CanL than healthy dogs. CD69 gene is a target of miR-21 in splenic leukocytes of dogs with CanL. CD69 is a cell surface molecule and is one of the first to be expressed after activation of T and B lymphocytes and other cells of hematopoietic origin [32,33]. CD69 expression rapidly increases after activation in most leukocytes, highlighting its widespread use as a marker of activated lymphocytes and NK cells [21]. In addition to its intrinsic value as an activation marker, CD69 is also an essential regulator of immune responses [21]. Therefore, it is crucial to elucidate the role of CD69 expression in the function of immune cells in L. infantum infection of dogs.

A decrease in CD69 expression was observed in splenic leukocytes in the presence of miR-21 mimic compared to the negative control (scrambled), both in dogs with CanL and in healthy dogs. The low expression of CD69 observed in dogs with CanL contrasts with results in experimental models in mice infected with L. infantum, where an increase in the percentage of CD69+ cells was observed in the spleen in the acute phase [34] and in the chronic phase of the disease where activation of protective immunity reduces the splenic parasitic load [35]; this is not seen in CanL, where the disease is progressive. These results suggest that miR-21 reduces the expression of CD69 by B cells, possibly regulating B lymphocyte function.

There was a decrease in the expression of IL-10 in the presence of miR-21 inhibitor in the CanL group. IL-10 is the primary cytokine suppressing the immune response in humans and a murine model of VL [36,37]. In CanL, increased levels of IL-10 were described [38], and this increase was associated with the detection of parasitic DNA [15], confirming the regulatory role of IL-10 in the spleen. Differently to our finding, in naive T cells from healthy humans, the induction of miR-21 led to an increase in IL-10 expression [39]. These findings suggest that the parasite may be using IL-10 as an escape mechanism, modulating immune responses through miR-21.

We conclude that L. infantum infection in dogs increases expression miR-21 that regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression, essential proteins involved in the immune response to the parasite.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. PCR-RFLP.

Restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of ITS1-PCR fragments amplified from DNA samples using Hae III enzyme. NC: Negative control (water); M: molecular marker (123 bp); La: Leishmania amazonensis (IOC / L0575-MHOM / BR / 1967 / PH8); Lb: Leishmania braziliensis (IOC / L0566-MHOM / BR / 1975 / M2903); Li: Leishmania infantum (IOC / L0575-MHOM / BR / 2002 / LPC-RPV); C1 to C5: control group; CanL 1 to CanL10: CanL group. CanL sample profiles were identical to L. infantum.

(TIFF)

S2 Fig. Control of transfection.

Representative histogram obtained from flow cytometry analysis. The red line represents the cells cultured with reagent Cell Death, and the black line represents the cells cultures without any transfection reagent. Cells were cultured for 48 h at 37°C and 5% CO2.

(TIFF)

S3 Fig. Expression of FAS, FASL and CCR7 after transfection of splenic leukocytes with mimics and inhibitors of miR-21.

Expression of FAS (A), FASL (B) and CCR7 (C) proteins in splenic leukocytes of the CanL and Control groups. Splenic leukocytes of dogs naturally infected by L. infantum and healthy dogs were transfected with scrambled, miR-21 mimic, and miR-21 inhibitor, all in the presence of Hiperfect, following 48 h in culture at 37°C and 5% CO2. Data are presented as median ± min-max. The asterisk indicates significant differences (Friedman’s multiple comparison test, * p < 0.05).

(TIFF)

S4 Fig. Concentration of IL-10, TNF-α, IFN-γ, and IL-17 after transfection of splenic leukocytes with mimics and inhibitors of miR-21.

Splenic leukocytes from the CanL group were transfected with miR-21 mimics and inhibitors, and after 48 hours, cytokine concentrations were measured by capture ELISA in cell culture supernatants. Data represent the median values + min-max. Asterisks represent significance (p < 0.05) by the Friedman Test with the Dunn multiple comparisons.

(TIFF)

S1 Table. Biochemical profiles of CanL and control groups.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Complete blood counts of CanL and control groups.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. CD69 expression in lymphocytes.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. CD69 expression in lymphocytes.

Mean±SD of CD69 in CD4+, CD8+ and CD21+ cells measured by flow cytometry in splenic leukocytes of CanL group after transfection with miR-21 mimics and inhibitors for 48h at 37°C and 5% CO2.

(DOCX)

S1 Raw images

(PDF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) (www.fapesp.br), grant 2018/17261-5 and 2018/16239-6; National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), process 302165/2018-5 and 140460/2018-7. This study was also partially financed by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) - Finance Code 001 (student supported: (GTR, JHF, MOS, SFC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. VMFL GRANT FAPESP 2018/17261-5 JPB SCHOLARSHIP FAPESP 2018/16239-6.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization (WHO). Leishmaniasis. Apr 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/leishmaniasis.
  • 2.Moreno J, Alvar J. Canine leishmaniasis: Epidemiological risk and the experimental model. Trends Parasitol. 2002;18: 399–405. doi: 10.1016/s1471-4922(02)02347-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mancianti F, Gramiccia M, Gradoni L, Pieri S. Studies on canine leishmaniasis control: Evolution of infection of different clinical forms of canine leishmaniasis following antimonial treatment. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1988;82: 566–7. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(88)90510-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Badaró R, Jones TC, Lorenço R, Cerf BJ, Sampaio D, Carvalho EM, et al. A prospective study of visceral leishmaniasis in an endemic area of Brazil. J Infect Dis. 1986;154: 639–49. doi: 10.1093/infdis/154.4.639 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Solano-Gallego L, Koutinas A, Miró G, Cardoso L, Pennisi MG, Ferrer L, et al. Directions for the diagnosis, clinical staging, treatment and prevention of canine leishmaniosis. Vet Parasitol. 2009;165: 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.05.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Barbiéri CL. Immunology of canine leishmaniasis. Parasite Immunol. 2006;28: 329–337. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3024.2006.00840.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Papadogiannakis EI, Koutinas AF. Cutaneous immune mechanisms in canine leishmaniosis due to Leishmania infantum. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2015;163: 94–102. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2014.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pinelli E, Killick-Kendrick R, Wagenaar J, Bernadina W, del Real G, Ruitenberg J. Cellular and humoral immune responses in dogs experimentally and naturally infected with Leishmania infantum. Infect Immun. 1994;62: 229–35. doi: 10.1128/iai.62.1.229-235.1994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Alexander J, Satoskar AR, Russell DG. Leishmania species: models of intracellular parasitism. J Cell Sci. 1999;112 Pt 18: 2993–3002. doi: 10.1242/jcs.112.18.2993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Liu G, Abraham E. MicroRNAs in immune response and macrophage polarization. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2013;33: 170–177. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.112.300068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Melo LM, Bragato JP, Venturin GL, Rebech GT, Costa SF, Garcia LE, et al. Induction of miR 21 impairs the anti-Leishmania response through inhibition of IL-12 in canine splenic leukocytes. PLoS One. 2019;14: 1–19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bragato JP, Melo LM, Venturin GL, Rebech GT, Garcia LE, Lopes FL, et al. Relationship of peripheral blood mononuclear cells miRNA expression and parasitic load in canine visceral leishmaniasis. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0206876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206876 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Corrêa APFL, Dossi ACS, de Oliveira Vasconcelos R, Munari DP, de Lima VMF. Evaluation of transformation growth factor β1, interleukin-10, and interferon-γ in male symptomatic and asymptomatic dogs naturally infected by Leishmania (Leishmania) chagasi. Vet Parasitol. 2007;143: 267–274. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lage RS, Oliveira GC, Busek SU, Guerra LL, Giunchetti RC, Corrêa-Oliveira R, et al. Analysis of the cytokine profile in spleen cells from dogs naturally infected by Leishmania chagasi. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2007;115: 135–145. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2006.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Boggiatto PM, Ramer-Tait AE, Metz K, Kramer EE, Gibson-Corley K, Mullin K, et al. Immunologic indicators of clinical progression during canine Leishmania infantum infection. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2010;17: 267–73. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00456-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shi L, Guo H, Li Z, Wang Y, Wang Y, Cui Y. Adenovirus-mediated down-regulation of miR-21-5p alleviates experimental autoimmune uveoretinitis in mice. Int Immunopharmacol. 2019;74. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2019.105698 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wang H, Xu W, Shao Q, Ding Q. miR-21 silencing ameliorates experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis by promoting the differentiation of IL-10- producing B cells. Oncotarget. 2017;8: 94069–94079. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.21578 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Solano-Gallego L, Montserrrat-Sangrà S, Ordeix L, Martínez-Orellana P. Leishmania infantum-specific production of IFN-γ and IL-10 in stimulated blood from dogs with clinical leishmaniosis. Parasites and Vectors. 2016;9. doi: 10.1186/s13071-015-1240-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nascimento MSL, Albuquerque TDR, Nascimento AFS, Caldas IS, Do-Valle-Matta MA, Souto JT, et al. Impairment of Interleukin-17A Expression in Canine Visceral Leishmaniosis is Correlated with Reduced Interferon-γ and Inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase Expression. J Comp Pathol. 2015;153: 197–205. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpa.2015.10.174 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nascimento MSL, Carregaro V, Lima-Júnior DS, Costa DL, Ryffel B, Duthie MS, et al. Interleukin 17A acts synergistically with interferon γ to promote protection against leishmania infantum infection. J Infect Dis. 2015;211: 1015–1026. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiu531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cibrián D, Sánchez-Madrid F. CD69: from activation marker to metabolic gatekeeper. Eur J Immunol. 2017;47: 946–953. doi: 10.1002/eji.201646837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Martín P, Gómez M, Lamana A, Cruz-Adalia A, Ramírez-Huesca M, Ursa MÁ, et al. CD69 Association with Jak3/Stat5 Proteins Regulates Th17 Cell Differentiation. Mol Cell Biol. 2010;30: 4877–4889. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00456-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.De Lima VMF, Biazzono L, Silva AC, Correa APFL, Luvizotto MCR. Serological diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis by an enzyme immunoassay using protein a in naturally infected dogs. Pesqui Vet Bras. 2005;25: 215–218. doi: 10.1590/s0100-736x2005000400005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sanches L da C, Martini CC de, Nakamura AA, Santiago MEB, Dolabela de Lima B, Lima VMF de. Natural canine infection by Leishmania infantum and Leishmania amazonensis and their implications for disease control. Rev Bras Parasitol Veterinária. 2016;25: 465–469. doi: 10.1590/s1984-29612016071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lima VMF de Fattori KR, de Souza F Eugênio FR, Santos PSP dos Rozza DB, et al. Apoptosis in T lymphocytes from spleen tissue and peripheral blood of L. (L.) chagasi naturally infected dogs. Vet Parasitol. 2012;184: 147–153. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.08.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lima VMF, Gonçalves ME, Ikeda FA, Luvizotto MCR, Feitosa MM. Anti-leishmania antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid from dogs with visceral leishmaniasis. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2003;36: 485–489. doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2003000400010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Strasser A, Jost PJ, Nagata S. The Many Roles of FAS Receptor Signaling in the Immune System. Immunity. 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2009.01.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Silva KLO, Melo LM, Perosso J, Oliveira BB, Santos PSP dos, Eugênio F de R, et al. CD95 (FAS) and CD178 (FASL) induce the apoptosis of CD4+ and CD8+ cells isolated from the peripheral blood and spleen of dogs naturally infected with Leishmania spp. Vet Parasitol. 2013;197: 470–476. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2013.07.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Smigielska-Czepiel K, van den Berg A, Jellema P, Slezak-Prochazka I, Maat H, van den Bos H, et al. Dual Role of miR-21 in CD4+ T-Cells: Activation-Induced miR-21 Supports Survival of Memory T-Cells and Regulates CCR7 Expression in Naive T-Cells. PLoS One. 2013;8: 1–10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Ato M, Stäger S, Engwerda CR, Kaye PM. Defective CCR7 expression on dendritic cells contributes to the development of visceral leishmaniasis. Nat Immunol. 2002;3: 1185–91. doi: 10.1038/ni861 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Förster R, Schubel A, Breitfeld D, Kremmer E, Renner-Müller I, Wolf E, et al. CCR7 coordinates the primary immune response by establishing functional microenvironments in secondary lymphoid organs. Cell. 1999;99: 23–33. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80059-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Testi R, D’Ambrosio D, De Maria R, Santoni A. The CD69 receptor: a multipurpose cell-surface trigger for hematopoietic cells. Immunol Today. 1994;15: 479–483. doi: 10.1016/0167-5699(94)90193-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Borrego F, Robertson MJ, Ritz J, Peña J, Solana R. CD69 is a stimulatory receptor for natural killer cell and its cytotoxic effect is blocked by CD94 inhibitory receptor. Immunology. 1999;97: 159–65. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2567.1999.00738.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Christodoulou V, Messaritakis I, Svirinaki E, Tsatsanis C, Antoniou M. Leishmania infantum and Toxoplasma gondii: Mixed infection of macrophages in vitro and in vivo. Exp Parasitol. 2011;128: 279–84. doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2011.02.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tsagozis P, Karagouni E, Dotsika E. CD8(+) T cells with parasite-specific cytotoxic activity and a Tc1 profile of cytokine and chemokine secretion develop in experimental visceral leishmaniasis. Parasite Immunol. 2003;25: 569–79. doi: 10.1111/j.0141-9838.2004.00672.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bacellar O, D’oliveira A, Jerônimo S, Carvalho EM. IL-10 and IL-12 are the main regulatory cytokines in visceral leishmaniasis. Cytokine. 2000;12: 1228–31. doi: 10.1006/cyto.2000.0694 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Barral A, Barral-Netto M, Yong EC, Brownell CE, Twardzik DR, Reed SG. Transforming growth factor β as a virulence mechanism for Leishmania braziliensis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90: 3442–3446. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.8.3442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Almeida BFM de Silva KLO, Chiku VM Leal AAC, Venturin GL Narciso LG, et al. The effects of increased heme oxygenase-1 on the lymphoproliferative response in dogs with visceral leishmaniasis. Immunobiology. 2017;222: 693–703. doi: 10.1016/j.imbio.2016.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Namdari H, Ghayedi M, Hadjati J, Rezaei F, Kalantar K, Rahimzadeh P, et al. Effect of MicroRNA-21 transfection on in-vitro differentiation of human naive CD4+ T cells to regulatory T cells. Iran J Allergy, Asthma Immunol. 2017;16: 235–244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Paulo Lee Ho

3 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-21939

miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. de Lima,

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

1) The authors should provide experiments and controls for the transfection efficacy of the micro RNA to be sure that the effect was due to the action or not of the transfected micro RNA;

2) Please, see the comments raised by the both reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paulo Lee Ho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding participant consent from the owners of the animals. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding the dogs used in your study and ensure you have described the source. For more information regarding PLOS' policy on materials sharing and reporting, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-materials

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section

In your Funding Information please provide the grant number for:

coordenação de aperfeiçoamento de pessoal de nível superior 

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002322

Valéria Marçal Felix de Lima

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data

8. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper entitles “miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasis” by de Lima et al., submitted for consideration in PLOS ONE journal (PONE-D-21-21939), shows interesting results in naturally Leishmania infected dogs regarding immune regulation by miRNA 21. However, some critical aspects should be addressed, particularly concerning the limitation of the work.

The paper was easy to read but needed some improvement in the discussion section.

Please see my comments below.

Table S1, please add this table as main table 1.

Figure 1: Please indicate in the Y-axis “fold change of miRNA 21”. How the fold change of miRNA 21 expression was calculated is not completely clear. Would you please clarify this information in the figure legend?

Figure 2: Please indicate reference description in Figure 2 for blue and red histograms.

In the result section, please correct the title of the figure, as “Expression of miR-21 targets gene in splenic leukocytes of CanL and healthy dogs ”. Same comment for figure legend 2

Figure 3: Please indicate in Figure legend 3 title, transfection of what is referring to.

In the result section, indicate the reason for using miRNA mimics and inhibitors. Have you been waiting for opposite results?

Figure 4: Please also include data of CD4 and CD8 in Figure 4.

Discussion section.

Even though your results showed no changes in the regulation of FAS, FASL, and CCR7 by miRNA 21, these results could be related to low transfection efficacy, not adequate concentration range of mimic or inhibitor, among others. Did you try different concentrations? Please discuss these aspects very carefully and include them as limitations of the work

This sentence is unclear; please revise “FAS and FASL play critical roles in the immune system, particularly in the death of target cells infected by pathogens and autoreactive lymphocytes' death.

Same comment as above regarding the effect of miRNA 21 mimic and inhibitor on CD4 and CD8. Did you perform a doses resp

Reviewer #2: Dr. Bragato and colleagues have submitted a manuscript entitled: "miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasis." The study explored the role of miR-21 in dogs with CanL comparing the expression of miR-21 targets in samples from infected and non-infected dogs. Additionally, they performed an in vitro experiment with cells transfected with miR-21 mimics and inhibitors. The authors found higher expression of miR-21 in infected dogs and a decrease expression in miR-21 targets in this population. In vitro inhibition of miR-21 decreased CD69 expression in B lymphocytes and IL-10 in supernatants. The authors concluded miR-21 may be a target for CanL.

Line 101: The authors stated that “Splenic fragments in control dogs were removed by surgical excision [25]”. I wish to understand if the Animal Ethics Committee approved the collection of splenic fragments from healthy animals. If yes, could you please clarify in which circumstances? Please, provide the Animal Ethics certificate. Also, it is unclear why reference 25 was used.

Line 105: Please, explain how the fragments were macerated.

Line 110: Please provide the description or the commercial reference for the red blood cell lysis buffer

Line 136: Confirm if the DNA was extracted from cells or directly from tissue

Line 157: The authors stated “To confirm that miR-21 is upregulated in dogs with CanL obtained by [11],” Please, explain why reference 11 was used.

Line 169: A pool of which cDNAs was used for normalization - control, infected, or both? Please explain where the absolute quantification of miR-21 was used.

Line 173: Please, insert the reference or complete description for SNORD96A

Results

Figure 1 legend: Please, insert the number of animals (samples) analyzed.

Figure 2 legend: Please, detail which range is referring, min-max, SD? I suggest presenting the control group first in the graph (same order as in figure 1).

Figures 4 and 5 legends: Please, detail which range is referring, min-max, SD?

I am concerned about the validation of the transfection. The authors did not show a control condition for the experiment (a condition with the transfection reagent only, without the scrambled sequence). Did you perform a pilot experiment with i.e., cells treated with transfection reagent only? Also, it is mandatory to validate the expression of miR-21 after transfection. How do the authors know the transfection efficiency relative to miR-21 inhibition? Is it possible to run an experiment to evaluate the miRNA expression after transfection? Do the authors have frozen samples? Gene expression should be similar in both untransfected cells and cells transfected with the negative control. Comment, please.

Besides that, the average CD69 expression in the control group was around 40000 (figure 2). When the cells of this group were transfected with the scrambled sequence, the average expression was around 75000 (figure 3). It seems that the scrambled condition is increasing the expression. At the same time, the inhibitor condition is achieving an expression around 40000, similar to the control group expression in figure 2. Results from the negative control should be compared to results from untransfected cells. It seems that adequate controls are missing. Comment, please.

The authors found significantly less expression of CD69 in control and canL groups when miR-21 was mimic on the other side the inhibition did not produce the opposite effect. Comment, please.

Discussion:

Line 334-335: Maybe the low transfection rate of this study does not support the previous sentence “suggesting that, in dogs, these proteins may not be targets of miR-21.” Please, comment.

**********

6. 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

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

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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0265192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265192.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Sep 2021

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript No.: PONE-D-21-21939

Title: miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasis

Dear Editor,

We appreciate the careful review of our manuscript by the reviewers. Their constructive comments and suggestions are much appreciated, and the new version of the manuscript has benefited considerably from their assistance Please note that all changes made in the text are highlighted in red.

Editor Comment:

The authors should provide experiments and controls for the transfection efficacy of the micro RNA to be sure that the effect was due to the action or not of the transfected micro RNA;

R: The experiment that represents transfection efficacy was added to supporting information;.

Reviewer Comments:

Author’s answer to Reviewer Comments: We thank the referee for providing constructive comments to improve the article. All criticisms and detailed corrections have been addressed and the following revisions have been made.

We have accepted all the suggestions and requests made by the Editor and Reviewers in the manuscript.

Sincerely yours,

Valéria Marçal Felix de Lima, MSc, PhD

São Paulo State University – UNESP

Reviewer #1

Author’s answer: We thank the referee for providing constructive comments to improve the article. All criticisms and detailed corrections have been addressed and the following revisions have been made.

Reviewer #1’s comments Answers

Table S1, please add this table as main table 1

R: Table 1 was put as main table as recommended.

Figure 1: Please indicate in the Y-axis “fold change of miRNA 21”. How the fold change of miRNA 21 expression was calculated is not completely clear. Would you please clarify this information in the figure legend?

R: The required information was added to the figure legend.

Figure 2: Please indicate reference description in Figure 2 for blue and red histograms. In the result section, please correct the title of the figure, as “Expression of miR-21 targets gene in splenic leukocytes of CanL and healthy dogs”. Same comment for figure legend 2

R: The information was modified in the text.

Figure 3: Please indicate in Figure legend 3 title, transfection of what is referring to. In the result section, indicate the reason for using miRNA mimics and inhibitors. Have you been waiting for opposite results?

R: The legend of the figure was modified. We used both mimics and inhibitor because increased and decreased expression could facilitate the understanding of how miR-21 does the regulation.

Figure 4: Please also include data of CD4 and CD8 in Figure 4.

R: The figure was added.

Discussion section. Even though your results showed no changes in the regulation of FAS, FASL, and CCR7 by miRNA 21, these results could be related to low transfection efficacy, not adequate concentration range of mimic or inhibitor, among others. Did you try different concentrations? Please discuss these aspects very carefully and include them as limitations of the work.

R: We tested all the different concentrations recommended by the manufacturer in order to optimize the transfection rate, and used the concentrations that gave the best results.

This sentence is unclear; please revise “FAS and FASL play critical roles in the immune system, particularly in the death of target cells infected by pathogens and autoreactive lymphocytes' death.

R: This sentence was reformulated.

Same comment as above regarding the effect of miRNA 21 mimic and inhibitor on CD4 and CD8. Did you perform a doses resp

R: Yes, we tested different doses to optimize the results.

Reviewer #2

Author’s answer: We thank the referee for providing constructive comments to improve the article. All criticisms and detailed corrections have been addressed and the following revisions have been made.

Reviewer #2’s comments Answers

Line 101: The authors stated that “Splenic fragments in control dogs were removed by surgical excision [25]”. I wish to understand if the Animal Ethics Committee approved the collection of splenic fragments from healthy animals. If yes, could you please clarify in which circumstances? Please, provide the Animal Ethics certificate. Also, it is unclear why reference 25 was used.

R: Animal Ethics Committee approved the collection of splenic fragments from healthy animals. The owners assigned a term of consentient authorizing the procedure. Reference 25 was used to describe the surgical procedure.

Line 105: Please, explain how the fragments were macerated.

R: The information was added to the text.

Line 110: Please provide the description or the commercial reference for the red blood cell lysis buffer

R: The information was added to the text.

Line 136: Confirm if the DNA was extracted from cells or directly from tissue

R: DNA was extracted from cells.

Line 157: The authors stated “To confirm that miR-21 is upregulated in dogs with CanL obtained by [11],” Please, explain why reference 11 was used.

R: Reference 11 was used to show that the waiting result has already been observed in other paper.

Line 169: A pool of which cDNAs was used for normalization - control, infected, or both? Please explain where the absolute quantification of miR-21 was used.

R: A pool of both cDNAs. Absolute quantification was used in all samples of both groups.

Line 173: Please, insert the reference or complete description for SNORD96A.

R: The information was added to the text.

Results

Figure 1 legend: Please, insert the number of animals (samples) analyzed.

Figure 2 legend: Please, detail which range is referring, min-max, SD? I suggest presenting the control group first in the graph (same order as in figure 1).

Figures 4 and 5 legends: Please, detail which range is referring, min-max, SD?

R: All modifications were done.

I am concerned about the validation of the transfection. The authors did not show a control condition for the experiment (a condition with the transfection reagent only, without the scrambled sequence). Did you perform a pilot experiment with i.e., cells treated with transfection reagent only? Also, it is mandatory to validate the expression of miR-21 after transfection. How do the authors know the transfection efficiency relative to miR-21 inhibition? Is it possible to run an experiment to evaluate the miRNA expression after transfection? Do the authors have frozen samples? Gene expression should be similar in both untransfected cells and cells transfected with the negative control. Comment, please.

According the manufacturer, “The expression of an endogenous gene, which is known to be a target of the miRNA under study, is measured after mimic/inhibitor transfection. The effect of the mimic/inhibitor is determined by comparing this result with the gene expression in untransfected cells or cells transfected with a negative control. Gene expression is often measured at the protein level, for example, by western blot, as miRNAs often inhibit translation of their target genes and do not cause degradation of the target transcript. This means that the effect of a miRNA mimic or inhibitor can often not be determined using quantitative, real-time PCR.”

Besides that, the average CD69 expression in the control group was around 40000 (figure 2). When the cells of this group were transfected with the scrambled sequence, the average expression was around 75000 (figure 3). It seems that the scrambled condition is increasing the expression. At the same time, the inhibitor condition is achieving an expression around 40000, similar to the control group expression in figure 2. Results from the negative control should be compared to results from untransfected cells. It seems that adequate controls are missing. Comment, please.

Although the numbers are different, the analysis was performed and there was no statistical difference.

According to manufacturer, “A negative control should be transfected in every experiment and will indicate if results are nonspecific. Comparison of results from the negative control with results from the miRNA mimic under study can be used to confirm that the observed results are specific to the miRNA mimic under study.”

The graph below represents the control group containing comparative analyzes with non-transfected cells and using only the transfection reagent (HiperFect), demonstrating that there was no statistical difference between the other groups.

The authors found significantly less expression of CD69 in control and canL groups when miR-21 was mimic on the other side the inhibition did not produce the opposite effect. Comment, please.

The amount of miR-21 present in the samples can be so high that the concentration used in the inhibitor and indicated by the manufacturer was not enough to show an opposite effect.

Discussion:

Line 334-335: Maybe the low transfection rate of this study does not support the previous sentence “suggesting that, in dogs, these proteins may not be targets of miR-21.” Please, comment.

The low transfection rate obtained may not have been sufficient to modulate the expression of these molecules.

In Other experimental models, these proteins are targets of miR-21:

1- Liu Y, Ren L, Liu W, Xiao Z. MiR-21 regulates the apoptosis of keloid fibroblasts by caspase-8 and the mitochondria-mediated apoptotic signaling pathway via targeting FasL. Biochem Cell Biol. 2018 Oct;96(5):548-555. doi: 10.1139/bcb-2017-0306. Epub 2018 Mar 10. PMID: 29527928.

2- Shang C, Guo Y, Hong Y, Liu YH, Xue YX. MiR-21 up-regulation mediates glioblastoma cancer stem cells apoptosis and proliferation by targeting FASLG. Mol Biol Rep. 2015 Mar;42(3):721-7. doi: 10.1007/s11033-014-3820-3. Epub 2014 Nov 14. PMID: 25394756.

3- Marega LF, Teocchi MA, Dos Santos Vilela MM. Differential regulation of miR-146a/FAS and miR-21/FASLG axes in autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome due to FAS mutation (ALPS-FAS). Clin Exp Immunol. 2016 Aug;185(2):148-53. doi: 10.1111/cei.12800. Epub 2016 May 24. PMID: 27060458; PMCID: PMC4954998.

4- Sayed D, He M, Hong C, Gao S, Rane S, Yang Z, Abdellatif M. MicroRNA-21 is a downstream effector of AKT that mediates its antiapoptotic effects via suppression of Fas ligand. J Biol Chem. 2010 Jun 25;285(26):20281-90. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.109207. Epub 2010 Apr 19. PMID: 20404348; PMCID: PMC2888441.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Paulo Lee Ho

26 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-21939R1miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. de Lima,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process: 1) Review the statistic accordingly to reviewer #2 comments;2) Please, answer to the comments raised by both reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paulo Lee Ho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have made most of the solicited changes, but some additional changes are still needed for a clear presentation of the data. This reviewer considers that the paper can be accepted after performing the following suggested corrections.

Figure 1: Include “fold change of miRNA 21” on the Y-axis of the Graph. This will help the reader to quickly understand what fold changes are referring to in that graph.

Figure 4: The Y-axis of the 3 Graphs showing data of CD69 expression on CD4, CD8, and CD21 positive cells are incorrectly labeled. Those graphs should state “Mean Fluorescence Intensity of CD69 on CD4+ cells, or CD8+ cells or CD21+ cells” instead of the current labels that are very confusing, Mean CD8+ cells (FL1)/CD69+ cells (FL2). Please correct accordingly.

S2 Fig. It is not clear what the authors are measuring as the control of transfection. What do more dead cells (7ADD+) mean in regard to transfection efficacy? please clarify this point in result section.

Reviewer #2: The authors answered all points addressed by the reviewer. Unfortunately, the authors were not able to solve the main issue raised by the reviewer. Although the author affirms that there is no difference among scrambled, untransfected, and HiperFect conditions, only in two samples in the scrambled condition the CD69 expression is high. So, my point is that the mimic is not decreasing the expression, but something happens in the scrambled that resulted in a higher expression. I still wish to see the raw data of all of them.

I strongly suggest a statistical review as in my checking (with the raw data available) there were no defferences in CD69 expression in control and CanL groups (ANOVA followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test).

**********

7. 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

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

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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 20211022_Plos_revision.docx

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0265192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265192.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


29 Oct 2021

The response to reviewers is also attached as a Microsoft Word doc.

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript No.: PONE-D-21-21939

Title: miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasis

Dear Editor,

We appreciate the careful review of our manuscript by the reviewers. Their constructive comments and suggestions are much appreciated, and the new version of the manuscript has benefited considerably from their assistance Please note that all changes made in the text are highlighted in red.

Reviewer Comments:

Author’s answer to Reviewer Comments: We thank the referee for providing constructive comments to improve the article. All criticisms and detailed corrections have been addressed and the following revisions have been made.

We have accepted all the suggestions and requests made by the Reviewers in the manuscript.

Sincerely yours,

Valéria Marçal Felix de Lima, MSc, PhD

São Paulo State University – UNESP

Reviewer #1

Author’s answer: We thank the referee for providing constructive comments to improve the article. All criticisms and detailed corrections have been addressed and the following revisions have been made.

Reviewer #1’s comments Answers

Figure 1: Include “fold change of miRNA 21” on the Y-axis of the Graph. This will help the reader to quickly understand what fold changes are referring to in that graph.

R: The y-axis was renamed as recommended.

Figure 4: The Y-axis of the 3 Graphs showing data of CD69 expression on CD4, CD8, and CD21 positive cells are incorrectly labeled. Those graphs should state “Mean Fluorescence Intensity of CD69 on CD4+ cells, or CD8+ cells or CD21+ cells” instead of the current labels that are very confusing, Mean CD8+ cells (FL1)/CD69+ cells (FL2). Please correct accordingly.

R: The Y-axis title was modified.

S2 Fig. It is not clear what the authors are measuring as the control of transfection. What do more dead cells (7ADD+) mean in regard to transfection efficacy? please clarify this point in result section.

R: The information to better explain the transfection rates was added in the methods section.

Reviewer #2

Author’s answer: We thank the referee for providing constructive comments to improve the article. All criticisms and detailed corrections have been addressed and the following revisions have been made.

Reviewer #2’s comments Answers

The authors answered all points addressed by the reviewer. Unfortunately, the authors were not able to solve the main issue raised by the reviewer. Although the author affirms that there is no difference among scrambled, untransfected, and HiperFect conditions, only in two samples in the scrambled condition the CD69 expression is high. So, my point is that the mimic is not decreasing the expression, but something happens in the scrambled that resulted in a higher expression. I still wish to see the raw data of all of them. I strongly suggest a statistical review as in my checking (with the raw data available) there were no defferences in CD69 expression in control and CanL groups (ANOVA followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test).

CD69 expression in untransfected cells in CanL and Control group

Normality test (don’t pass)

Non parametric test to compare the expression in CanL and Control group (Mann Whitney test).

Analysis post transfection with mimics and inhibitors of miR-21:

CanL group data

Normality test (don’t pass)

Friedman test (non parametric)

Post test (Dunn’s multiple comparisons)

Control Group data

Normality test

Friedman test

Dunn’s multiple comparison test

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Paulo Lee Ho

24 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-21939R2miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. de Lima,

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

1) Provide the statistical analysis as requested by the reviewer #2.2) Please, answer all the comments raised by both the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paulo Lee Ho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have included all suggestions and clarified pending questions. I do not have further comments.

Reviewer #2: I strongly suggest (again) a revision in the statistics of the results in figure 3.

Data of different conditions (mimic, inhibitor, scrambled, hiperfect, and untransfected) must be analyzed by ANOVA followed by multicomparison's posttest for canine and control groups.

I guess you used Dunn's multiple comparisons test to compare the mean rank of each condition with the mean rank of a control group. Did you use scrambled as a control? Why didn’t you compare the mean rank of each column with the mean rank of every other column?

I checked the statistics with the data provided using Prism version 8.2.1.

Please, send me the Prism file.

**********

7. 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

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

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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0265192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265192.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


30 Nov 2021

We appreciate the reviewers' suggestions. All of them have been answered. The file with the requested statistic data was sent by email.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Paulo Lee Ho

4 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-21939R3miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. de Lima,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 18 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paulo Lee Ho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: According to the Prism file provided by the authors, the statistical analysis of CD69 expression after transfection must be performed with a parametric test (ANOVA) for the CONTROL group instead of the nonparametric test used. Also, data of HiperFect buffer and untransfected cells must be provided in figure 3. Update methods and results section accordingly.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

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

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. Registration is free. 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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0265192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265192.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


13 Feb 2022

Figure 3 was modified and HiperFect and untransfected cells data were added.

To claim that our data has a normal distribution, we rigorously pass three different normality tests. Since of the three, only 1 test showed normality in the data, while the other 2 showed that n is too small to present a normal distribution. Given this, we chose to use a non-parametric test, which best represents our data.

Similar experiment has already been published by our research group, using this same statistical test, in the work of MELO, et al., 2019.

Attached are some links to works with values of n similar to ours, which used non-parametric tests.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4029133/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7023135/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6905561/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5962361/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6962187/

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 4

Paulo Lee Ho

28 Feb 2022

miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasis

PONE-D-21-21939R4

Dear Dr. de Lima,

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

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

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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

Kind regards,

Paulo Lee Ho, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. 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 #2: No

Acceptance letter

Paulo Lee Ho

9 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-21939R4

miRNA-21 regulates CD69 and IL-10 expression in canine leishmaniasis

Dear Dr. de Lima:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Paulo Lee Ho

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. PCR-RFLP.

    Restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of ITS1-PCR fragments amplified from DNA samples using Hae III enzyme. NC: Negative control (water); M: molecular marker (123 bp); La: Leishmania amazonensis (IOC / L0575-MHOM / BR / 1967 / PH8); Lb: Leishmania braziliensis (IOC / L0566-MHOM / BR / 1975 / M2903); Li: Leishmania infantum (IOC / L0575-MHOM / BR / 2002 / LPC-RPV); C1 to C5: control group; CanL 1 to CanL10: CanL group. CanL sample profiles were identical to L. infantum.

    (TIFF)

    S2 Fig. Control of transfection.

    Representative histogram obtained from flow cytometry analysis. The red line represents the cells cultured with reagent Cell Death, and the black line represents the cells cultures without any transfection reagent. Cells were cultured for 48 h at 37°C and 5% CO2.

    (TIFF)

    S3 Fig. Expression of FAS, FASL and CCR7 after transfection of splenic leukocytes with mimics and inhibitors of miR-21.

    Expression of FAS (A), FASL (B) and CCR7 (C) proteins in splenic leukocytes of the CanL and Control groups. Splenic leukocytes of dogs naturally infected by L. infantum and healthy dogs were transfected with scrambled, miR-21 mimic, and miR-21 inhibitor, all in the presence of Hiperfect, following 48 h in culture at 37°C and 5% CO2. Data are presented as median ± min-max. The asterisk indicates significant differences (Friedman’s multiple comparison test, * p < 0.05).

    (TIFF)

    S4 Fig. Concentration of IL-10, TNF-α, IFN-γ, and IL-17 after transfection of splenic leukocytes with mimics and inhibitors of miR-21.

    Splenic leukocytes from the CanL group were transfected with miR-21 mimics and inhibitors, and after 48 hours, cytokine concentrations were measured by capture ELISA in cell culture supernatants. Data represent the median values + min-max. Asterisks represent significance (p < 0.05) by the Friedman Test with the Dunn multiple comparisons.

    (TIFF)

    S1 Table. Biochemical profiles of CanL and control groups.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Complete blood counts of CanL and control groups.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. CD69 expression in lymphocytes.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. CD69 expression in lymphocytes.

    Mean±SD of CD69 in CD4+, CD8+ and CD21+ cells measured by flow cytometry in splenic leukocytes of CanL group after transfection with miR-21 mimics and inhibitors for 48h at 37°C and 5% CO2.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Raw images

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 20211022_Plos_revision.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES