Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2022 Dec 6;16(12):e0010946. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010946

Proteomic analysis of Sarcoptes scabiei reveals that proteins differentially expressed between eggs and female adult stages are involved predominantly in genetic information processing, metabolism and/or host-parasite interactions

Tao Wang 1,*,#, Robin B Gasser 1,#, Pasi K Korhonen 1, Neil D Young 1, Ching-Seng Ang 2, Nicholas A Williamson 2, Guangxu Ma 1,3, Gangi R Samarawickrama 4,5, Deepani D Fernando 4, Katja Fischer 4
Editor: Aysegul Taylan Ozkan6
PMCID: PMC9725168  PMID: 36472966

Abstract

Presently, there is a dearth of proteomic data for parasitic mites and their relationship with the host animals. Here, using a high throughput LC-MS/MS-based approach, we undertook the first comprehensive, large-scale proteomic investigation of egg and adult female stages of the scabies mite, Sarcoptes scabiei–one of the most important parasitic mites of humans and other animals worldwide. In total, 1,761 S. scabiei proteins were identified and quantified with high confidence. Bioinformatic analyses revealed differentially expressed proteins to be involved predominantly in biological pathways or processes including genetic information processing, energy (oxidative phosphorylation), nucleotide, amino acid, carbohydrate and/or lipid metabolism, and some adaptive processes. Selected, constitutively and highly expressed proteins, such as peptidases, scabies mite inactivated protease paralogues (SMIPPs) and muscle proteins (myosin and troponin), are proposed to be involved in key biological processes within S. scabiei, host-parasite interactions and/or the pathogenesis of scabies. These proteomic data will enable future molecular, biochemical and physiological investigations of early developmental stages of S. scabiei and the discovery of novel interventions, targeting the egg stage, given its non-susceptibility to acaricides currently approved for the treatment of scabies in humans.

Author summary

Scabies is a neglected tropical disease caused by the parasitic mite Sarcoptes scabiei. The treatment and control of scabies are challenging, as there is no vaccine and the two mostly used broad-spectrum acaricides (i.e. ivermectin and permethrin) do not kill the key developmental stage (egg) of the mite that enables the re-establishment of infection. The availability of a well-assembled genome for S. scabiei now provides a foundation to explore the molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology of this mite. Here, we characterised the first somatic proteome of key developmental stages of S. scabiei using high throughput LC-MS/MS. Bioinformatic analyses of proteomic data indicate that proteins expressed differentially between egg and female adult stages are mainly involved in biological pathways or processes, such as genetic information processing, energy (oxidative phosphorylation), nucleotide, amino acid, carbohydrate and/or lipid metabolism in the mite. These proteomic data should underpin further investigations of early developmental stages of S. scabiei with a focus on identifying novel intervention targets for scabies.

Introduction

Scabies is a disease caused by the parasitic mite Sarcoptes scabiei, and is one the commonest dermatological disorders worldwide, causing major morbidity, disability, stigma and poverty in people [1]. Of the 15 most burdensome dermatologic conditions, evaluated in disability-adjusted life years [DALYs], scabies ranks higher than keratinocyte carcinoma and melanoma [2]. Importantly, scabies can be a major contributing factor to life-threatening Staphylococcus aureus-bacteraemia and severe post-streptococcal sequelae [35], such as glomerulonephritis, rheumatic fever and/or heart disease (RF/RHD), exacerbating the scabies burden [6].

There is no vaccine against scabies, and only few broad-spectrum acaricides, including ivermectin and permethrin, are approved for use in humans [1]. Available drugs kill the motile parasite stages (larvae, nymphs and adults) by interfering with the mite’s nervous system and muscle function. However, control is challenging because the eggs of Sarcoptes are not susceptible to treatment, and the drugs have short half-lives in skin tissues. This means that eggs can survive treatment, and readily hatch and continue to perpetuate infection and the life cycle. Resistance in Sarcoptes against acaricides is emerging [7], emphasising the urgency to find novel and effective acaricides for the treatment and clinical management of scabies, built on a solid understanding of these mites, their relationship with animal host(s) and parasitism at the molecular and biochemical levels.

Advanced nucleic acid sequencing and bioinformatic technologies have enabled an unprecedented number of arthropod genomes to be decoded (e.g., i5K Consortium; http://i5k.github.io/; cf. [8]). Although draft genomes provide investigators with resources to explore parasitic arthropods at the molecular level, the expression profiles and functions of the vast majority of proteins are unknown. Emerging transcriptomic and proteomic data sets are now aiding investigations into the expression, localisation and function of genes.

While transcriptomics can quantify RNAs, such as small and messenger RNAs, advanced proteomics provides a means of identifying and quantifying proteins in whole arthropods, particular developmental stages and/or their tissues [9]. Digital resources to investigate and mine genomic and transcriptomic data sets of arthropods are now readily available. The i5K database [8] and the ‘assembled searchable giant arthropod read database’ (ASGARD; ref. [10]) contain relatively extensive genomic and/or transcriptomic datasets for parasitic arthropods, including mites, and FlyBase 2.0 [11] provides a wealth of information and features for Drosophila melanogaster (vinegar or fruit fly)–the most-studied arthropod. However, a critical appraisal of the current literature reveals that, with the exception of selected mite species, such as the house dust mites Dermatophagoides farinae and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus [9,12], proteomic data sets are scant for most socio-economically important parasitic mites, in spite of the major technological advances made recently in the proteomics field [13,14].

The aim of the present study was to define the proteome of key developmental stages of S. scabiei, using high throughput liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), and explore biological/cellular processes and pathways employing current genomic resources using advanced informatics [15,16]. Given the scant proteomic data available for S. scabiei (i.e., excretory/secretory proteins in mite faeces and pooled developmental stages–larvae, nymphs and adults; cf. [16]), defining the proteome of the key developmental stages of S. scabiei (particularly eggs and reproductively active females) should enable insights into this mite’s unique biology and its ability to survive and maintain a complex relationship with its host animal, and could provide an avenue to discovering new targets for interventions in this and related mites.

Methods

Ethics statement

Animal ethics approval was granted by the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (permit nos. P630 and P2159) and the Ethics Committee of the Queensland Animal Science Precinct (permit SA 2015/03/504).

Procurement of different stages of S. scabiei

Sarcoptes scabiei was produced on pigs (3 months of age), isolated and stored using well-established protocols [17]. Adult female (Af) mites (5 replicates of 500 individuals) were isolated from skin crusts from S. scabiei-infected pigs, incubated in olive oil (Remano, Aldi) at 23°C for 2 h, washed extensively in physiological saline (pH 7.4) and used immediately for protein extraction. In addition, eggs were cumulatively collected from skin crusts taken from pigs on different days. Eggs at an early stage (designated Ee) and eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development (cf. [18]) were collected separately (5 replicates for each Ee (n = 2,500) and El (n = 1,500), washed extensively in saline and snap frozen at -80°C until use. Crude protein extracts were prepared from each of the replicate samples, freeze-dried and resuspended in 200 μl 8 M urea in 100 mM triethylammonium bicarbonate (pH 8.5) with protease inhibitor cocktail set I (Merck, Denmark).

Extraction of proteins

Proteins were extracted from each of the five replicates for each developmental stage (i.e., Ee, El and Af). In brief, 500 μL of lysis buffer (8 M urea in 100 mM triethyl ammonium bicarbonate, pH 8.5) was added to individual samples (n = 15), subjected to three freeze (-196°C)–thaw (37°C) cycles [19] and centrifuged at 10000 ×g for 30 sec, ultrasonicated (20 kHz) using a BioRuptor (10 cycles: 30 sec on and 30 sec off) in tubes on ice. Each sample was supplemented with the protease inhibitor cocktail set I (Merck, Denmark) and incubated at 23°C for 30 min. Then, samples were centrifuged at 12000 ×g for 30 min, and the supernatants collected for analyses. Protein concentrations were measured using a BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA).

Digestion of proteins and LC-MS/MS analysis

In-solution digestion was carried out using an established protocol [20]. In brief, samples containing proteins (50 μg) from either the Ee, El or Af stage were reduced with 10 mM Tris (2-carboxyethyl) phosphine (TCEP) at 55°C for 45 min, alkylated with 55 mM iodoacetamide in the dark at 22°C for 30 min, and double-digested with Lys-C/trypsin mix (Promega, USA) at 37°C for 16 h (4 h for Lys-C and 12 h for trypsin digestion). The tryptic samples were acidified with 1.0% (v/v) formic acid, purified using Oasis HLB cartridges (Waters, USA). Then, samples were freeze-dried prior to re-suspension in aqueous 2% w/v acetonitrile and 0.05% w/v trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) prior to LC-MS/MS analysis.

Tryptic peptides were analysed using the Exploris 480 Orbitrap mass spectrometer (Thermo Fisher, USA). The LC system was equipped with an Acclaim Pepmap nano-trap column (Dinoex-C18, 100 Å, 75 μm x 2 cm) and an Acclaim Pepmap RSLC analytical column (Dinoex-C18, 100 Å, 75 μm x 50 cm). The tryptic peptides were injected into the enrichment-column at an isocratic flow of 5 μL/min of 2% v/v CH3CN containing 0.05% v/v TFA for 6 min, applied before the enrichment column was switched in-line with the analytical column. Solvent A was (v/v) 0.1% formic acid, 95% H2O, 5% dimethyl sulfoxide and Solvent B was (v/v) 0.1% formic acid, 95% acetonitrile, 5% dimethyl sulfoxide. The gradient was at 300 nl/min from (i) 0–6 min at 3% B; (ii) 6–95 min, 3–20% B; (iii) 95–105 min, 20–40% B; (iv) 105–110 min, 40–80% B; (v) 110–115 min, 80–80% B; (vi) 115–117 min 85–3% and equilibrated at 3% B for 10 min before injecting the next sample. The Exploris 480 Orbitrap mass spectrometer was operated in the data-dependent mode, whereby full MS1 spectra were acquired in a positive mode (spray voltage of 1.9 kV, source temperature of 275°C), 120000 resolution, AGC target of 3e6 and maximum IT time of 25 ms. The “top 3 second” acquisition method was used and peptide ions with charge states of 2–6 and intensity thresholds of ≥ 5e3 were isolated for MS/MS. The isolation window was set at 1.2 m/z, and precursors were fragmented using higher energy C-trap dissociation (HCD) at a normalised collision energy of 30, a resolution of 15000, an AGC target of 7.5e5 and an automated IT time selected. Dynamic exclusion was set at 30 sec.

Protein identification and quantification

The proteome predicted for S. scabiei (9,174 protein entries) was previously annotated [16] using NCBI non-redundant (nr) protein database [21]. Raw mass spectrometry data were processed using MaxQuant [22] to identify and quantify peptides of S. scabiei. Search parameters were: a precursor tolerance of 20 ppm, MS/MS tolerance of 0.05 Da, fixed modifications of carbamidomethylation of cysteine (+57 Da) and methionine oxidation (+16 Da). The match between-run feature was activated. Proteins and peptides were accepted based on a false discovery rate (FDR) of < 0.01 at both the peptide and protein levels. Proteins were quantified using the LFQ value from MaxQuant employing default settings. For stage-specific identification and relative quantification comparisons, only proteins containing ≥ 2 peptides and detected in ≥ 3 biological replicates of at least one developmental stage were accepted. The data were normalised based on the median protein intensity at each condition. Raw data is available via the PRIDE data repository (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride/; accession number: PXD032148).

Bioinformatic analyses of data sets

The UniProt repository was used for protein annotation (cellular compartment, subcellular location, transmembrane region and/or molecular function). Molecular functions of proteins were assigned according to Gene Ontology (GO) using the program InterProScan [23]. Venn diagrams were drawn using the VennDiagram package in R. Principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) were conducted using Perseus software (v.1.6.1.1) employing default settings [24]. Sequence homology searches were conducted using BLASTP (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE=Proteins). Volcano plot analysis was employed to assess differential protein expression using Perseus software (v.1.6.1.1), with the false discovery rate (FDR) and fold change (FC) set at ≤ 0.01 and > 2, respectively. Biological functions were assigned to differentially expressed proteins using the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database [25]. KEGG pathway annotation was conducted employing KEGG BLASTP hits (E-value: < 10–5) and corresponding KEGG Orthology (KO) terms [26]. KO terms were then assigned to KEGG pathways and KEGG BRITE orthologous protein families by mapping these terms to the KEGG Orthology Based Annotation System (KOBAS) database [27]. Enriched KEGG pathways were identified using a cut-off of P < 0.01 (Fisher’s exact test). KEGG functional enrichments of differentially expressed proteins were integrated and displayed using the program FuncTree [28]. StringApp (v.1.7.1) [29] in the Cytoscape platform (v.3.9.1) [30] was used to conduct protein-protein interaction networking of proteins differentially expressed among three developmental stages (i.e. Ee, El and Af). Since S. scabiei data are not included in STRING database, the homologues of the red spider mite, Tetranychus urticae, were used for networking. The full STRING network-type was selected and a confidence (score) cut-off of > 0.9 implemented. Multi-algorithm cluster analysis was conducted with clusterMaker2 (v.2.2) [31] using the Markov clustering algorithm in Cytoscape. Only clusters containing more than four proteins were included.

Results

Proteomes of egg and adult female stages of S. scabiei

We identified and quantified a total of 1,761 proteins to represent eggs at an early stage (Ee), eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development and the adult female stage (Af) of S. scabiei. This number represents 19.2% of the proteins predicted for S. scabiei [16]. Of the 268 (15.2%) orphan proteins (with unknown identity and function) identified, 84.8% (n = 1,493) had relatively conserved homologs in various mites (including Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Psoroptes ovis and Euroglyphus maynei) and the flies Drosophila melanogaster and Rhagoletis zephyria (tephritid).

Most proteins identified were in the El stage (n = 1,493), followed by Af (1,386) and Ee (1,261). The full list of proteins identified in individual developmental stages is given in S1 Table, and the numbers unique to, or shared by, stages are shown in a Venn diagram (Fig 1A). Overall, most proteins (n = 1382; 78.5%) were shared by two of the three S. scabiei stages studied. Of these shared proteins, more than half (n = 997; 56.6%) were detected in all three stages. The relative ratios of proteins expressed within individual stages ranged from 2.5% to 15.5%. Notably, the largest stage-specific set of proteins identified was in Af (n = 215; 15.5%), followed by El (n = 132; 8.8%) and Ee (n = 32; 2.5%).

Fig 1. Sarcoptes scabiei proteins and molecular functions.

Fig 1

(A) Venn diagram showing the numbers of proteins unique to, or shared by, different developmental stages of Sarcoptes scabiei: eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development; adult female (Af) stage. (B) The distribution of the molecular functions (Gene Ontology (GO)–level 2) of proteins quantified in each developmental stage. Distribution was expressed as a percentage of the total number of proteins identified in a particular developmental stage, to allow quantitative comparisons between or among the three stages of S. scabiei (see S2 Table).

Comparison of molecular functions

The distribution of the molecular functions (GO level 2) of proteins identified in each developmental stage, according to GO, is summarised in Fig 1B. Most proteins were associated with binding (GO: 0005488; 42.1–46.4%) and catalytic activity (GO: 0003824; 34.8–39.8%) in individual stages. Each of these two major functional categories (binding and catalytic activity) contained at least 480 annotated proteins, whereas proteins involved in structure, transporter and antioxidant activities were less represented. A more detailed appraisal of molecular functions (GO level 3) revealed proteins involved predominantly in the binding of compounds, ions, proteins and small molecules, while hydrolase molecules were represented mainly by the ‘catalytic activity’ category (S2 Table). In terms of the percentages of proteins classified in each GO sub-category, there was no obvious difference among the three developmental stages studied (Fig 1B).

Differential protein expression between/among stages

Principal component analysis (PCA) of the proteome of the three developmental stages (Ee, El and Af) of S. scabiei showed that individual stages clustered relatively tightly together (Fig 2A). Interestingly, the difference between stages Ee and El was substantial. Following the PCA analysis, hierarchical clustering showed a clear division of the proteomic data set into three distinct groups representing individual stages of S. scabiei (Fig 2B). Pairwise comparisons showed extensive differential protein expression among these stages (Fig 3). Markedly more proteins (n = 295) were upregulated in Ee compared with El, and 53 proteins were down-regulated in Ee compared with El (Fig 3A). More differences were observed between Ee and Af than between El and Af. Specifically, 409 proteins were up-regulated and 275 down-regulated in Ee compared with Af (Fig 3B), and 267 were up-regulated and 373 proteins down-regulated in El compared with Af (Fig 3C). The full list of proteins differentially expressed among the three stages of S. scabiei (upon pairwise comparison) is given in S3 Table.

Fig 2. Analyses of the somatic proteome of Sarcoptes scabiei.

Fig 2

(A) Principal component analysis (PCA) of the somatic proteomes of eggs at an early stage (Ee), eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development, and adult females (Af) of Sarcoptes scabiei, respectively. (B) Heatmap displaying the expression profiles for these three distinct developmental stages. Normalised protein abundance is shown in a grey-to-blue scale (i.e., low to high abundance).

Fig 3. Volcano plots of proteins differentially expressed among eggs at an early stage (Ee), eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development, and adult females (Af) of Sarcoptes scabiei (upon pairwise comparison).

Fig 3

(A) Proteins differentially expressed between Ee (up-regulated, red) and El (up-regulated, blue). (B) Proteins differentially expressed between Ee (up-regulated, red) and Af (up-regulated, blue). (C) Proteins differentially expressed between El (up-regulated, red) and Af (up-regulated, blue).

Involvement of differentially expressed proteins in biological pathways and processes

Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analysis showed that proteins expressed differentially between at least two developmental stages were involved in one to four biological categories (i.e., cellular processes, genetic information processing, organismal systems and/or metabolism), and linked to key components of parasite growth and metabolism (S4 Table). In the Ee stage, differentially expressed proteins were mainly associated with genetic information processing (n = 24), and a small number with cellular processes (n = 4) and/or metabolism (n = 2) (Fig 4; S4 Table). In the genetic information processing category, transcription (16 proteins in the mRNA surveillance pathway) and DNA replication/repair (8 proteins) were the two most enriched processes in the Ee stage; four proteins were inferred to link to cell growth or death (cellular processes), and two to nucleotide metabolism (metabolism). In contrast to the Ee stage, none of the differentially expressed proteins was involved in cellular processes. Notably, more than 50% (i.e., 27 of 50) of the differentially expressed proteins in El were enriched in metabolic pathways, including energy metabolism (n = 10; oxidative phosphorylation) as well as nucleotide (n = 9; purine), amino acid (n = 4; 4.1 tyrosine) and carbohydrate (n = 4; propanoate) metabolism. Similar to the El stage, most differentially expressed proteins (n = 87 of 94; 92.6%) enriched in the Af stage were in the metabolism category (Fig 4), being represented predominantly by energy (n = 28), carbohydrate (n = 20) and lipid (n = 18) metabolism. Least differentially expressed proteins (n = 7) enriched in the Af stage were assigned to genetic information processing, and inferred to be involved in protein export (S4 Table).

Fig 4. Enriched biological processes and associated pathways (KEGG) of proteins differentially expressed among eggs at an early stage of embryonation/development (Ee), at a late stage (El) of development, and adult females (Af) of Sarcoptes scabiei (upon pairwise comparison).

Fig 4

Enriched annotations of highly expressed proteins [fold change (FC) of > 2; false discovery rate (FDR) of < 0.05] are listed. Dot sizes indicate the counts of proteins which are significantly highly expressed (see also S2 Table).

Protein-protein interaction networks for differentially-expressed proteins

Protein-protein interaction network analysis inferred distinct interaction modules among the distinct developmental stages (Ee, El and Af) of S. scabiei studied here (S5 Table). In total, 246, 424 and 346 differentially expressed proteins with T. urticae homologous (S5 Table) were identified in Ee, El and Af, which were used to construct interaction networks. Analyses revealed 5, 9 and 8 protein-protein interaction networks for the Ee, El and Af stages, respectively. For Ee, there were 34 nodes/proteins which formed 5 networks (S5 Table); three networks were associated with genetic information processing, including DNA replication (network 1 with 9 nodes/proteins), RNA processing and splicing (network 1 with 8 nodes/proteins), and nuclear pore complex (network 5 with 5 nodes/proteins). For El, 9 networks were constructed from 62 nodes/proteins (S5 Table); in addition to RNA processing and splicing (network 1 with 14 nodes/proteins), DNA replication (network 2 with 7 nodes/proteins) and nuclear pore complex (network 5 with 5 nodes/proteins), additional networks linked to genetic information processing were identified in this stage, including ribosomal protein (network 4 with 7 nodes/proteins), the SWI/SNF complex (network 5 with 6 nodes/proteins) and DNA-directed RNA polymerase complexes (network 6 with 6 nodes/proteins). Unlike the results for the two egg stages (Ee and El), networks for the Af stage represented predominantly by metabolic functions or energy production, such as mitochondrial protein (network 1), metabolic enzymes (networks 3 and 4), NADH dehydrogenase (network 6) and ATPase complexes (network 7), whereas networks associated with signal recognition (network 2) and muscle movement and structure (network 5) were less conspicuous (S5 Table). Notably, the largest network of mitochondrial complex-related proteins was inferred to contain 26 nodes/proteins.

Discussion

By defining a proteome for three key developmental stages (Ee, El and Af) of S. scabiei, we have been able to provide the first insights, at the protein level, into key biological processes and pathways enriched in stages of this parasitic mite, some of which likely play relevant roles in parasitism on human and other animal hosts. S. scabiei, eggs develop in vitro from Ee (within ~ 24 h) to El, which hatch within further ~30-48 h to larvae. Larval and nymphal stages establish on host skin, feed on dermal and epidermal tissues as well as secretions, and rapidly grow, develop into adult male or female mites and reproduce within a period of ~10–15 days [32]. During this transition, one might expect profiles of expression for particular protein groups relating to feeding, the acquisition and digestion of essential nutrients, metabolism and body structure and integrity, to meet major demands for mite growth and development on the host animal, and molecular processes (including parasite-host cross-talk) that ensure the survival and reproduction of the mite. These profiles were reflected in the enriched pathways and protein-protein interaction networks for the proteomes of distinct developmental stages of S. scabiei.

The results of the proteomic analysis show substantial variation among the three stages investigated (Fig 1; S1 and S5 Tables). The findings suggest that the adults rely heavily on the catabolism of carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleotides for survival once the mite is established on the host. Peptidases, including aminopeptidase, carboxypeptidase, endopeptidase, metallopeptidases and serine peptidases, are recognised as crucial molecules in the degradation of skin tissues (epidermis and dermis), sebum and skin exudate, and are likely to be essential for the growth, development and survival of S. scabiei. Select aminopeptidases (n = 3), dipeptidases (n = 3), a metallopeptidase, a serine peptidase, a cysteine peptidase and an aspartic peptidase were conspicuous in one or more of the three stages of S. scabiei (S1 Table), in accord with previous transcriptomic findings [16]. We propose that Af-enriched proteins linked to genetic information processing (protein export) are involved in reproductive processes including egg production in S. scabiei.

Both the pathway enrichment and protein-protein interaction network analyses revealed a substantial increase in distinct metabolic processes (from 7% to >90%), reflecting major energy and nutrient requirements for growth and development during the transition to the reproductive stage of S. scabiei. Enriched pathways included carbohydrate, amino acid, energy and lipid/fatty acid metabolism (Fig 4). Lipid metabolism is up-regulated in S. scabiei when this mite reaches the Af stage. While a significant enrichment in lipid-related metabolism was detected in this stage, we identified 18 relatively abundantly expressed proteins to be involved in the fatty acid biosynthesis pathway in Af. Given the intimate association between the mite and skin tissues, we propose that S. scabiei upregulates its lipid metabolism (e.g., energy storage lipids—triradylglycerols), because of the availability of essential fatty acids from secretions/excretions and tissues of host skin. This hypothesis warrants future investigation.

S. scabiei develops from an egg to a reproductively active adult within ~ 2 weeks, and is associated with rapid embryonic development, metamorphosis and moulting to the protonymph/tritonymph/adult stages. Although only two vitellogenin-like proteins were identified in the mite proteome, these embryonic development-related proteins were recorded as abundantly expressed in all stages studied (i.e. Ee, El and Af). Due to their high aqueous solubility and distinctiveness in sequence (i.e. 48–49%) from homologues of two house dust mite species (D. farinae and D. pteronyssinus) [33,34], these vitellogenin-like proteins have been considered as diagnostic markers for scabies [35]–a proposal warranting experimental evaluation. Additionally, it is believed that the moulting process in S. scabiei is similar to that of other acarids, involving regeneration (i.e. digestion of the old cuticle and production of a new one) and hardening of the cuticle [36].

In the present study, at least 9 cuticular proteins and two collagens were represented in the Af stage, compared with 15 in the egg stages. Although there are differences in the numbers of predicted collagens, 11 of them are shared among all of these stages (Ee, El and Af; S1 Table). These proteins are likely crucial for the maintenance of body shape and integrity by the mite, and for skin burrowing, and contact and cross-talk with the host. An analysis of relative abundance indicated that these collagens and cuticular proteins are expressed mainly in the El and Af stages (S1 Table). All 15 collagens and cuticular proteins identified have significant sequence similarity (45–85%) to homologs in other mites, including D. farinae, D. pteronyssinus, Euroglyphus maynei (dust mites) and Tyrophagus putrescentiae (mould or cheese mite) (S6 Table). The collagens of S. scabiei are only distantly related to those of cuticle of D. melanogaster (i.e., adult cuticle proteins 1 and 65Aa; accession nos. NP_477115 and NP_477282; ref. [37]), indicating significant differences in cuticle synthesis between S. scabiei and the vinegar fly. This appears to be reflected in the changes in number and/or abundance of cuticular proteins (including chitin, chitinase and papilin) from El (n = 6) to Ee (4) and then Af (1) (cf. S1 Table).

In addition, we identified 13 and 15 muscle proteins, such as myosin and troponin, in the proteome of the El and Af stages, respectively, whereas 10 were found in the Ee stage. The abundance of these molecules was consistent with a previous somatic proteomic study of mixed-developmental stages of S. scabiei [38], but we have been able to discern that the increased number and abundance in the Af stage (S1 Table) is likely linked to higher demand of muscle movement in the adult stage on and in the skin, particularly during burrowing in the stratum granulosum.

A panel of allergens (n = 31), including Sar s 1 and 3 allergens, was identified in S. scabiei somatic proteome, consistent with findings from previous molecular studies [16,39,40]. Conspicuous were two protease families, i.e. the scabies mite inactivated serine protease paralogues (SMIPP-S) and scabies mite inactivated cysteine protease paralogues (SMIPP-C), in the different developmental stages (S1 Table). In particular, two SMIPP-S and three SMIPP-C proteins were highly and constitutively expressed (S1 Table), indicating that they play key roles in mite biology and/or parasitism. Published evidence indicates that the SMIPP-S proteins inhibit complement activation and a serine proteases closely related to the SMIPP-S family is involved in the digestion of filament aggregating protein (filaggrin) in human skin [39,41], whereas SMIPP-C molecules have been demonstrated experimentally to promote cutaneous blood coagulation and to inhibit plasmin-induced fibrinolysis [42]. Further work is warranted to explore the precise roles of individual SMIPP-S and SMIPP-C members in mite biology, parasite-host cross-talk and parasitism.

A genomic investigation [16] inferred the genes coding for allergens in S. scabiei, 85 of which were specifically transcribed in mixed-developmental stages. The original number of allergens predicted (n = 85) was substantially higher than the 31 proteins detected here, 21 of which matched those in proteomic data set representing excretory/secretory proteins (n = 236) [16], 15 of which have homologs of known allergens in D. farinae and D. pteronyssinus [33,34]. The discrepancy in numbers between this proteomic and the previous transcriptomic study [16] is very plausible and can be explained by the detectable proteins being present exclusively in the soma of the mite, and/or by an inability of the present, quantitative proteomic approach to detect minute amounts of proteins in a complex suspension of molecules from the mite. Further work is required to explore the composition and structure of gene families encoding the different types of allergens, and their expression and transcription profiles throughput development, and in mite faeces, to better understand which stages/components/excreta induce the most pronounced allergic responses in people. In addition, a detailed investigation of all developmental stages of the mite to establish the precise nature and composition of the allergenome at the protein and transcriptomic levels would be informative.

Conclusions

Here, we explored the somatic proteome of egg and adult female stages of the scabies mite–one of the most important cutaneous pathogens of humans globally. Originally, in order to achieve optimal quantitation, we considered using a combination of data-independent acquisition (DIA) and data-dependent acquisition (DDA) methods to quantify mite proteins, but such a workflow would have required larger amounts of mite materials (stages) for protein extraction, which, obviously is a major challenge, in practice, for some stages (particularly eggs) of the mite. Using our shotgun LC-MS/MS-based approach, we quantified a total of 1,761 proteins in these developmental stages and observed a marked proteomic differentiation among these select stages, particularly for molecules that are likely to play essential roles in development, including genetic information processing (including DNA replication/repair, transcription or protein export), a small number of cellular processes and metabolism (energy/respiratory, nucleotide, amino acid, carbohydrate and/or lipid), and host-parasite cross-talk. Although the identification of abundant proteins, such as peptidases and SMIPPs, suggested roles for them in parasitism, detailed molecular investigations are needed to test this proposal. More work is also needed to assess the potential of select vitellogenin-like proteins as immuno- or molecular-diagnostic markers and S. scabiei-specific proteins as potential drug or vaccine targets. Thus, the present proteomic findings clearly provide some new insight into the biology of this fascinating and highly significant parasitic mite, enhance the value of existing genomic and transcriptomic data sets, and might assist the future discovery of new acaricides against this and related mites, and the study of their modes/mechanisms of action. This work shows clearly the advantages of using a high throughput LC-MS/MS-based methodology for proteomic investigations of tiny and socio-economically significant parasitic acarines.

Supporting information

S1 Table. The full list of proteins quantified in the Sarcoptes scabiei proteome of key different developmental stages (i.e., eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development; adult female (Af)).

(XLSX)

S2 Table. The number of quantified proteins inferred to be involved in the molecular function (levels 2 and 3) in each stage of Sarcoptes scabiei (eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of development; adult female (Af)), according to the Gene Ontology (GO) categories.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. The full list of differentially expressed proteins in different developmental stages of Sarcoptes scabiei (i.e., eggs at an early stage of development (Ee); eggs at a late stage of development (El) of embryonation/development; and adult female (Af)).

(XLSX)

S4 Table. Enriched biological categories, biological processes and KEGG pathways of differentially expressed proteins in different developmental stages of Sarcoptes scabiei (i.e., eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development; and adult female (Af)).

(XLSX)

S5 Table. STRING networks for upregulated proteins in the Sarcoptes scabiei proteome of key different developmental stages (i.e., eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development; adult female (Af)).

(XLSM)

S6 Table. The full list of quantified collagens and cuticular proteins in the proteome of Sarcoptes scabiei representing key different developmental stages (i.e., eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development; and adult female (Af)).

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Sara Taylor for helping with mite isolation, and Chelsea Baker, Sheree Boisen, Scott Cullen and Milou Dekkers at the Queensland Animal Science Precinct, University of Queensland, Gatton Campus, Australia, for maintaining the porcine S. scabiei model, and Yuanting Zheng at the University of Melbourne for some bioinformatic support.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available from PRIDE data repository (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride/) with the identifier (PXD032148).

Funding Statement

Support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (K.F., R.B.G. and D.D.F.) and the Australian Research Council (ARC; R.B.G., N.D.Y. and P.K.K.) is gratefully acknowledged. K.F. held an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Romani L, Steer AC, Whitfeld MJ, Kaldor JM. Prevalence of scabies and impetigo worldwide: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(8):960–7. Epub 2015/06/20. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00132-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Karimkhani C, Colombara DV, Drucker AM, Norton SA, Hay R, Engelman D, et al. The global burden of scabies: a cross-sectional analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17(12):1247–54. Epub 2017/09/25. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30483-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gear RJ, Carter JC, Carapetis JR, Baird R, Davis JS. Changes in the clinical and epidemiological features of group A streptococcal bacteraemia in Australia’s Northern Territory. Trop Med Int Health. 2015;20(1):40–7. Epub 2014/10/31. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Romani L, Koroivueta J, Steer AC, Kama M, Kaldor JM, Wand H, et al. Scabies and impetigo prevalence and risk factors in Fiji: a national survey. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(3):e0003452. Epub 2015/03/05. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Boyd R, Patel M, Currie BJ, Holt DC, Harris T, Krause V. High burden of invasive group A streptococcal disease in the Northern Territory of Australia. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144(5):1018–27. Epub 2015/09/15. doi: 10.1017/S0950268815002010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lynar S, Currie BJ, Baird R. Scabies and mortality. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17(12):1234. Epub 2017/11/28. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30636-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fischer K, Holt D, Currie B, Kemp D. Scabies: important clinical consequences explained by new molecular studies. Adv Parasitol. 2012;79:339–73. Epub 2012/06/26. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-398457-9.00005-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gonzalez VL, Devine AM, Trizna M, Mulcahy DG, Barker KB, Coddington JA. Open access genomic resources for terrestrial arthropods. Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2018;25:91–8. Epub 2018/04/01. doi: 10.1016/j.cois.2017.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cui Y, Yu L, Teng F, Zhang C, Wang N, Yang L, et al. Transcriptomic/proteomic identification of allergens in the mite Tyrophagus putrescentiae. Allergy. 2016;71(11):1635–9. Epub 2016/08/09. doi: 10.1111/all.12999 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zeng V, Extavour CG. ASGARD: an open-access database of annotated transcriptomes for emerging model arthropod species. Database (Oxford). 2012;2012:bas048. Epub 2012/11/28. doi: 10.1093/database/bas048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Thurmond J, Goodman JL, Strelets VB, Attrill H, Gramates LS, Marygold SJ, et al. FlyBase 2.0: the next generation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(D1):D759–D65. Epub 2018/10/27. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Waldron R, McGowan J, Gordon N, McCarthy C, Mitchell EB, Fitzpatrick DA. Proteome and allergenome of the European house dust mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0216171. Epub 2019/05/03. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Saviola AJ, Negrao F, Yates JR, III. Proteomics of select neglected tropical diseases. Annu Rev Anal Chem (Palo Alto Calif). 2020;13(1):315–36. Epub 2020/02/29. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anchem-091619-093003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yates JR III. Recent technical advances in proteomics. F1000Res. 2019;8. Epub 2019/04/19. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.16987.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Korhonen PK, Young ND, Gasser RB. Making sense of genomes of parasitic worms: Tackling bioinformatic challenges. Biotechnol Adv. 2016;34(5):663–86. Epub 2016/03/10. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2016.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Korhonen PK, Gasser RB, Ma G, Wang T, Stroehlein AJ, Young ND, et al. High-quality nuclear genome for Sarcoptes scabiei-A critical resource for a neglected parasite. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(10):e0008720. Epub 2020/10/02. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008720 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mounsey KE, Willis C, Burgess ST, Holt DC, McCarthy J, Fischer K. Quantitative PCR-based genome size estimation of the astigmatid mites Sarcoptes scabiei, Psoroptes ovis and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Parasit Vectors. 2012;5:3. Epub 2012/01/05. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-5-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Arlian LG, Morgan MS. A review of Sarcoptes scabiei: past, present and future. Parasit Vectors. 2017;10(1):297. Epub 2017/06/22. doi: 10.1186/s13071-017-2234-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Caito SW, Aschner M. Quantification of glutathione in Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr Protoc Toxicol. 2015;64:6 18 1–6 6. Epub 2015/08/27. doi: 10.1002/0471140856.tx0618s64 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ang CS, Binos S, Knight MI, Moate PJ, Cocks BG, McDonagh MB. Global survey of the bovine salivary proteome: integrating multidimensional prefractionation, targeted, and glycocapture strategies. J Proteome Res. 2011;10(11):5059–69. Epub 2011/09/10. doi: 10.1021/pr200516d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pruitt KD, Tatusova T, Brown GR, Maglott DR. NCBI Reference Sequences (RefSeq): current status, new features and genome annotation policy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(Database issue):D130–5. Epub 2011/11/29. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr1079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cox J, Mann M. MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26(12):1367–72. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mitchell A, Chang HY, Daugherty L, Fraser M, Hunter S, Lopez R, et al. The InterPro protein families database: the classification resource after 15 years. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D213–21. Epub 2014/11/28. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tyanova S, Cox J. Perseus: a bioinformatics platform for integrative analysis of proteomics data in cancer research. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1711:133–48. Epub 2018/01/19. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7493-1_7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kanehisa M, Sato Y, Kawashima M, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. KEGG as a reference resource for gene and protein annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(D1):D457–62. Epub 2015/10/18. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv1070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mao X, Cai T, Olyarchuk JG, Wei L. Automated genome annotation and pathway identification using the KEGG Orthology (KO) as a controlled vocabulary. Bioinformatics. 2005;21(19):3787–93. Epub 2005/04/09. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Xie C, Mao X, Huang J, Ding Y, Wu J, Dong S, et al. KOBAS 2.0: a web server for annotation and identification of enriched pathways and diseases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(Web Server issue):W316–22. Epub 2011/07/26. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Uchiyama T, Irie M, Mori H, Kurokawa K, Yamada T. FuncTree: functional analysis and visualization for large-scale omics data. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0126967. Epub 2015/05/15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Szklarczyk D, Gable AL, Lyon D, Junge A, Wyder S, Huerta-Cepas J, et al. STRING v11: protein-protein association networks with increased coverage, supporting functional discovery in genome-wide experimental datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(D1):D607–13. Epub 2018/11/22. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Doncheva NT, Morris JH, Gorodkin J, Jensen LJ. Cytoscape StringApp: network analysis and visualization of proteomics. J Proteome Res. 2019;18(2):623–32. Epub 2018/12/05. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.8b00702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Morris JH, Apeltsin L, Newman AM, Baumbach J, Wittkop T, Su G, et al. clusterMaker: a multi-algorithm clustering plugin for Cytoscape. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011;12:436. Epub 2011/11/09. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ljunggren EL. Molecular analysis of Sarcoptes scabiei. PhD Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 2005. Available from: https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/828/
  • 33.Waldron R, McGowan J, Gordon N, McCarthy C, Mitchell EB, Doyle S, et al. Draft genome sequence of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, the European house dust mite. Genome Announc. 2017;5(32). Epub 2017/08/12. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00789-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chan TF, Ji KM, Yim AK, Liu XY, Zhou JW, Li RQ, et al. The draft genome, transcriptome, and microbiome of Dermatophagoides farinae reveal a broad spectrum of dust mite allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;135(2):539–48. Epub 2014/12/03. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.09.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Akuta T, Minegishi D, Kido N, Imaizumi K, Nakaoka S, Tachibana SI et al., Development of a rapid scabies immunodiagnostic assay based on transcriptomic analysis of Sarcoptes scabiei var. nyctereutis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):6455. Epud 19/03/21. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85290-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Arlian LG, Morgan MS, Rider SD. Sarcoptes scabiei: genomics to proteomics to biology. Parasit Vectors. 2016;9(1):380. Epub 2016/07/01. doi: 10.1186/s13071-016-1663-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Matthews BB, Dos Santos G, Crosby MA, Emmert DB, St Pierre SE, Gramates LS, et al. Gene model annotations for Drosophila melanogaster: Impact of high-throughput data. G3 (Bethesda). 2015;5(8):1721–36. Epub 2015/06/26. doi: 10.1534/g3.115.018929 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Morgan MS, Arlian LG, Rider SD, Grunwald WC Jr, Cool DR Jr. A proteomic analysis of Sarcoptes scabiei (Acari: Sarcoptidae). J Med Entomol. 2016;53(3):553–61. Epub 2016/01/20. doi: 10.1093/jme/tjv247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bergstrom FC, Reynolds S, Johnstone M, Pike RN, Buckle AM, Kemp DJ, et al. Scabies mite inactivated serine protease paralogs inhibit the human complement system. J Immunol. 2009;182(12):7809–17. Epub 2009/06/15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0804205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Beckham SA, Boyd SE, Reynolds S, Willis C, Johnstone M, Mika A, et al. Characterization of a serine protease homologous to house dust mite group 3 allergens from the scabies mite Sarcoptes scabiei. J Biol Chem. 2009;284:34413–22. Epub 2009/12/04. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.061911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Reynolds SL, Pike RN, Mika A, Blom AM, Hofmann A, Wijeyewickrema LC, et al. Scabies mite inactive serine proteases are potent inhibitors of the human complement lectin pathway. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(5):e2872. Epub 2014/05/22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002872 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Fenando DD, Reynolds SL, Hartel G, Cribier B, Ortonne N, Jones MK, et al. A unique group of scabies mite pseudoproteases promotes cutaneous blood coagulation and delays plasmin-induced fibrinolysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(1):e0008997. Epub 2021/01/06. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010946.r001

Decision Letter 0

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan, Jo Middleton

9 Aug 2022

Dear Dr Wang,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Proteins differentially expressed in Sarcoptes scabiei between eggs and female adults are predominantly involved in genetic information processing and metabolism" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

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

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

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

Sincerely,

Jo Middleton

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

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

Reviewer #1: 1. Study methods are all very solid and well described in the text. Sample sizes also seem sufficient and statistical analysis is very robust.

2. Can the authors confirm if the adult females selected for the analysis also contained eggs or if care was taken to select non-gravid Af mites in order to prevent cross contamination of egg proteins into the Af proteome?

3. Raw data has been deposited in PRIDE but no accession is provided so it is not possible to check this at this stage, a full accession should be provided ahead of publication.

Reviewer #2: The study methodology is well mentioned. The objective of the study is well described and hypothesis is novel. Although the sample size calculation is not mentioned, the nature of the study and the number of the proteins analyzed appears adequate. The statistical analysis used is appropriate.

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

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

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

Reviewer #1: Results are clearly described but please see General Comments section for a more detail assessment of what is required to add further impact to the manuscript. Figures are good and clearly presented but Figure 2B could use a more obvious colour scheme in order to more clearly show the variation in gene expression between life cycle stages and replicates - perhaps a blue/yellow scheme would be more obvious.

Reviewer #2: The analysis results presented are in the line of the study objective

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

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

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

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: The conclusions are clearly supported by the results of the study, however I really do feel that more can be made of the analysis by adding further discussion of the individual proteins identified and also through an interaction network to really draw out the pathways and protein connections involved between stages. See General Comments section for further details

Reviewer #2: The conclusion presented is more like a summary. It can be modified to include their main findings and its public health implications along with limitation and future direction of research.

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

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

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

Reviewer #1: A few minor editorial changes are required as described here:

1. Line 37: "Scabies is a neglected tropical disease......"

2. Line 56: "Scabies is a disease caused by the ectoparasitic mite Sarcoptes scabiei...."

3. Line 93: Remove: "one of the most important parasitic mites of humans and other animals (e.g. pig, dog and wombat) worldwide"

4. Line 98: "defining the proteome of the key developmental stages...."

5. Line 112: I'm not sure that production is the correct terminology for "rearing/maintaining" scabies mites.

6. Line 124: The title of this section is repeated from the previous section and needs to be changed to "Protein extraction and characterisation" or something similar..

7. Line 344: ".. in D. farinae and ...."

Reviewer #2: None

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

Summary and General Comments

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

Reviewer #1: This is a very well written and well described article providing a really excellent characterisation of the Scabies mite proteome across key reproductive life cycle stages. The study has been conducted very well and the analysis and results presented are robust and clearly add significantly to the existing scientific knowledge of this highly important mite.

However, in my opinion the paper does require some further analysis/exploitation of the existing data before it can be considered suitable for publication in PLOS NTD. In particular more needs to made of the really impressive proteomic dataset that was generated from the study and this should involve at a minimum a protein-protein interaction network, for example as can be achieved with a tool such as StringDB. Whilst I appreciate that Sarcoptes scabiei is not annotated within StringDB then the annotation for a closely related mite such Tetranychus urticae should be used instead. I feel that this analysis will be important to provide further information on the connections between the proteins identified, especially in the context of the differential expression analysis between life cycle stages.

This also comes on to my second point, which is the current lack of in depth discussion around specific protein classes and families that were identified from the differential expression analysis as well as from the standard characterisation of the proteome of the mite. For example, there is little if any discussion around key allergens, i.e. house dust mite homologues, vitellogenins and other proteins involved in reproduction and nutrient provision for the developing embryos and also cuticular proteins and structural muscle proteins, i.e. myosin/troponins etc. Also further discussion is required around the enzyme classes identified, including the scabies mote pseduoproteases, SMIPPs which were identified in the initial analysis. The current manuscript title and the analysis of results presented are underwhelming and I feel that a lot more can be made of this impressive dataset by carrying out the further analysis described above.

Finally, Figure 2 may be further improved by adding hierarchical clustering of proteins at both the sample (column) and protein (row) levels as this may also help to identify clusters of proteins between life cycle stages.

The conclusions section then needs to be made stronger, for example what outcomes from the study will help to identify novel acaricides in the future?

Reviewer #2: The authors have analyzed proteins form S. scabiei to find the relation of such proteins with different developmental stages. The liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry technology was used for detection of such proteins is using. The study methodology is well mentioned and results are well presented. However, the abstract presented can be structured and and limitation of the study can be mentioned.

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

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes: Stewart Burgess

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

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

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010946.r003

Decision Letter 1

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

10 Nov 2022

Dear Dr Wang,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Proteomic analysis of Sarcoptes scabiei reveals that proteins differentially expressed between eggs and female adult stages are involved predominantly in genetic information processing, metabolism and/or host-parasite interactions" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

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

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

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

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

Sincerely,

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan, M.D., Ph.D.,

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

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

Methods

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

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

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Although no clearly articulated single hypothesis is tested in the paper, this work is an example of a well-prepared, novel study presenting new knowledge essential in human disease studies/epidemiology and general mite biology and parasitology. Nonetheless, the work has an ambitious aim, which has been accomplished. Only the presentation of the problem and the new data obtained provide a source for hypotheses that can be tested in further research, as the authors have suggested in the Discussion. I advise that one sentence be included to make it even more explicit that this work can be (and probably will be) a starting point for further, more detailed, or, i.e., purely experimental studies.

The study design is appropriate to address the stated objectives. Of course, more methods and objectives could be stated, but it is impossible to carry out so many tasks in one study (this statement applies to all studies).

There is no information why exactly such a sample size has been analysed but taking into account the prevalence of parasitic mites in general, difficulties in obtaining a decent number of individuals, etc. The sample size seems to be adequate for the conducted study.

At least, as far as my knowledge and the authors' descriptions of methodological approaches provided, together with references to those commonly used and practised in a similar type of research, allow me to conclude I see no objection to the methods used in this investigation. In addition, the authors provided information and results of the relevant statistical analysis.

The authors supplied information on ethics approval due to the study with animals. It fulfils all the ethical requirements regarding the type of studies conducted.

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

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The analysis performed during the research and after that presented in the Results section of the manuscript adequately matches the plan outlined in its previous parts.

It is worth noting the thorough presentation of the results, with many references to the extracted data constituting the supplementary material and that deposited in the public database. Also, unexaggerated comparisons and explanations of submitted figures indicate a satisfactory reporting of the exciting findings.

Figures are of sufficient general quality. The data in the tables are precise, mainly when explained directly in the manuscript. However, I must say that:

a) shades of colours in Figure 1B may be challenging to read, especially for people with impaired vision, as some are pretty similar. I would consider changing the colours to obtain better contrast before releasing the potential publication so that the results presented were not questionable,

b) Fig. 2B should be stretched vertically because the branches of the tree are remarkably close together, hence quite unreadable,

c) and the last issue of the graphical representation of biological processes and associated protein pathways in Fig. 4. I use the 4K monitor, and I had a problem seeing them at all at first glimpse. The lines of those pathways should be thicker.

I think that my proposed corrections may improve the readability of graphs for the readers.

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

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

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

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The presented data support conclusions.

There is much to say about the limitations, although the authors provided some degree of it. The sentence “Originally…” (line 428) would be better if provided as an example of such limitation instead of unsuccessful original plans (maybe you will enrich the topic soon).

The authors discuss how these data can help advance our understanding of the topic under study.

The public health relevance is mentioned, but it only makes an impression as a formal addition. Meanwhile, the research presented in this manuscript shows how many exciting things remain to be discovered about the parasitic mite of man, which was probably first mentioned in the literature by Aristotle. I suggest adding something more related to public health here.

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

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Lines 68-72. Some reference would be welcomed.

Line 87. I think there should be “mite genomic….”

Line 117. Production might be the correct word for, e.g., pigs if they are sold for meat. Also, even mass production of predatory mites of the family Phytoseiidae is used for natural control of mainly spider mites (Tetranychidae) as they damage many cultivated plants. In this case (even if there are examples in some literature), “production” is an incorrect term, and I advise the word “rearing” instead of the former one.

Line 360. Sarcoptes is the genus name. Also, we do not know if the results can be expanded to other species classified to it. Hence, “S. scabiei individuals/representatives/…” sounds better without ambiguities.

Line 395. For the general reader, it would be helpful to explain what “stratum granulosum” is. The same is true for “cross-talk” (lines 337, 378, 408, 438).

Lines 93, 369, 413. There are mistakes in the specific epithet; please replace “farina” with “farinae.”

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

Summary and General Comments

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

Reviewer #1: The authors have clearly addressed the comments raised in the review and I would now be happy to see this paper published in its current form.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript submitted, in addition to the enormous effort to deliver the research results undertaken therein, is worthy of being considered for publication in the PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases journal. The mistakes are only nominal, most of them in the form of editorial amendments. However, the copyeditors could not cope with this task given the poorly represented scientific field. Nevertheless, the oversights found, or details that need ONLY MINOR improvements, oblige me to propose a 'Minor review' as my recommendation for the Editor at that moment. My comments and suggestions are intended to ensure that the contributors will publish a paper of the highest possible quality. After correcting and considering a few things already mentioned in my review, the manuscript should be accepted.

I agree to disclose my name to the authors to build better, transparent science that is a core for the PLOS non-profit corporation. I declare that I have no conflict of interest. I congratulate the authors for their excellent work and the Editor for inviting me to review.

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

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 #3: Yes: Mateusz Zmudzinski

Figure Files:

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

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

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.

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010946.r005

Decision Letter 2

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

14 Nov 2022

Dear Dr Wang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Proteomic analysis of Sarcoptes scabiei reveals that proteins differentially expressed between eggs and female adult stages are involved predominantly in genetic information processing, metabolism and/or host-parasite interactions' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan, M.D., Ph.D.,

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010946.r006

Acceptance letter

Aysegul Taylan Ozkan

18 Nov 2022

Dear Dr Wang,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Proteomic analysis of Sarcoptes scabiei reveals that proteins differentially expressed between eggs and female adult stages are involved predominantly in genetic information processing, metabolism and/or host-parasite interactions," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. The full list of proteins quantified in the Sarcoptes scabiei proteome of key different developmental stages (i.e., eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development; adult female (Af)).

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. The number of quantified proteins inferred to be involved in the molecular function (levels 2 and 3) in each stage of Sarcoptes scabiei (eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of development; adult female (Af)), according to the Gene Ontology (GO) categories.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. The full list of differentially expressed proteins in different developmental stages of Sarcoptes scabiei (i.e., eggs at an early stage of development (Ee); eggs at a late stage of development (El) of embryonation/development; and adult female (Af)).

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. Enriched biological categories, biological processes and KEGG pathways of differentially expressed proteins in different developmental stages of Sarcoptes scabiei (i.e., eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development; and adult female (Af)).

    (XLSX)

    S5 Table. STRING networks for upregulated proteins in the Sarcoptes scabiei proteome of key different developmental stages (i.e., eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development; adult female (Af)).

    (XLSM)

    S6 Table. The full list of quantified collagens and cuticular proteins in the proteome of Sarcoptes scabiei representing key different developmental stages (i.e., eggs at an early stage (Ee); eggs at a late stage (El) of embryonation/development; and adult female (Af)).

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rejoinder_TW2_rbg1_rbg2_rbg3.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rejoinder_TW.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available from PRIDE data repository (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride/) with the identifier (PXD032148).


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

    RESOURCES