Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2022 Nov 28;16(11):e0010947. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010947

Identification of potent anti-Cryptosporidium new drug leads by screening traditional Chinese medicines

Mohammad Hazzaz Bin Kabir 1,2,3, Frances Cagayat Recuenco 2,4, Nur Khatijah Mohd Zin 5, Nina Watanabe 1, Yasuhiro Fukuda 1, Hironori Bando 1,6, Kenichi Watanabe 7, Hiroki Bochimoto 5, Xuenan Xuan 2, Kentaro Kato 1,2,*
Editor: Richard Stewart Bradbury8
PMCID: PMC9731497  PMID: 36441814

Abstract

Cryptosporidium spp. are gastrointestinal opportunistic protozoan parasites that infect humans, domestic animals, and wild animals all over the world. Cryptosporidiosis is the second leading infectious diarrheal disease in infants less than 5 years old. Cryptosporidiosis is a common zoonotic disease associated with diarrhea in infants and immunocompromised individuals. Consequently, cryptosporidiosis is considered a serious economic, veterinary, and medical concern. The treatment options for cryptosporidiosis are limited. To address this problem, we screened a natural product library containing 87 compounds of Traditional Chinese Medicines for anti-Cryptosporidium compounds that could serve as novel drug leads and therapeutic targets against C. parvum. To examine the anti-Cryptosporidium activity and half-maximal inhibitory doses (EC50) of these compounds, we performed in vitro assays (Cryptosporidium growth inhibition assay and host cell viability assay) and in vivo experiments in mice. In these assays, the C. parvum HNJ-1 strain was used. Four of the 87 compounds (alisol-A, alisol-B, atropine sulfate, and bufotalin) showed strong anti-Cryptosporidium activity in vitro (EC50 values = 122.9±6.7, 79.58±13.8, 253.5±30.3, and 63.43±18.7 nM, respectively), and minimum host cell cytotoxicity (cell survival > 95%). Furthermore, atropine sulfate (200 mg/kg) and bufotalin (0.1 mg/kg) also showed in vivo inhibitory effects. Our findings demonstrate that atropine sulfate and bufotalin are effective against C. parvum infection both in vitro and in vivo. These compounds may, therefore, represent promising novel anti-Cryptosporidium drug leads for future medications against cryptosporidiosis.

Author summary

Cryptosporidiosis is a major infectious diarrheal disease and death in children in developing countries. Cryptosporidium parvum can cause severe watery diarrhea in infants and immunocompromised individuals. As a result, finding new anti-Cryptosporidium medications is a priority. In order to find anti-Cryptosporidium compounds, we screened a natural product library containing Traditional Chinese Medicines. We performed a Cryptosporidium growth inhibition assay (GIA), and a cytotoxicity assay to reveal the anti-Cryptosporidium ability and half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (EC50) of the natural products. A host cell viability assay and an in vivo experiment were used to determine the compounds toxicity to host cells. Four natural compounds (alisol-A, alisol-B, atropine sulfate, and bufotalin) showed strong anti-Cryptosporidium effects and low cytotoxicity (cell viability > 95%) using C. parvum HNJ-1 strain. Furthermore, atropine sulfate (200 mg/kg) and bufotalin (0.1 mg/kg) reduced oocyst shedding by 67.8% and 78.1%, respectively. The current study discovered that atropine sulfate and bufotalin had inhibitory effects against C. parvum infection in vitro and in vivo, which had never been previously described. As a result, the chemotherapeutic potential of these compounds are discussed for future anti-Cryptosporidium drugs to treat Cryptosporidiosis.

Introduction

Cryptosporidiosis is present all around the world; however, it is more common in areas with poor sanitation and hygiene. Diarrhea is common in infected immunocompromised or immunosuppressed individuals, and can lead to increased morbidity and mortality, especially among AIDS patients [1]. Cryptosporidium parasites are resistant to common disinfectants, including chlorine, making it difficult to eliminate the pathogen [2]. No vaccines are available to prevent the condition, and treatment options are limited, with rehydration therapy being the most common [3].

Only one drug, nitazoxanide, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat cryptosporidiosis [4]. Nitazoxanide remains the most effective current treatment for cryptosporidiosis in immunocompetent individuals, whereas no consistently effective medication exists to treat immunodeficient patients or children under 2 years [5], during HIV coinfection, even long-term NTZ treatment was ineffective [6]. Drug discovery research has recently concentrated on developing novel drugs that are effective against Cryptosporidium spp. With a variety of new chemical entities, recent developments in this area provide reason for optimism [7]. Clofazimine also exhibited efficacy against Cryptosporidium, making it a potentially new cryptosporidiosis treatment and a novel chemical tool for understanding Cryptosporidium biology [8]. In both vivo and in vitro studies, chitosan, a natural polysaccharide, greatly reduced parasite shedding in infected newborn mice [9]. Bicyclic azetidines currently block C. parvum phenylalanyl-tRNA synthetase, allowing for target-based therapeutic development for anticryptosporidial drugs [10]. Several additional chemotherapeutic drugs have been studied in livestock for the treatment of cryptosporidiosis showing efficacy against diarrhea in dairy calves [1113], however, we need more screening to develop and identify new drug lead compounds to combat this infectious pathogen. Some treatments, such as paromomycin, are effective in preventing Cryptosporidium oocyst shedding, clinical disease, and death in calves, lambs, and goat kids, but they are not licensed for use in calves [14]. As a result, the development of new drugs is a priority.

Traditional Chinese Medicines (TCMs), which encompass ancient herbal medicines and wellness practices long embraced in China and its neighboring countries, have been recognized as a model of complementary and alternative medicine that has gained popular international interest and use over time [15]. Compounds in the TCMs are effective against trypanosomiasis [16], malaria [17], toxoplasmosis [18], and cancer [19]. The goal of this study was to find potential new anti-Cryptosporidium compounds from a library of 87 different TCMs. Drug screening analysis was performed both in vitro and in vivo. This screening led to the identification of two compounds that showed growth-inhibitory effects on Cryptosporidium both in vitro and in vivo that could be developed as new drug leads against Cryptosporidiosis.

Methods

Ethical approval

All animal experiments described in this study were approved by the Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine Ethical Committee, and adhered to the relevant laws and regulations on the treatment and use of laboratory animals set forth by the Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine Regulations for Animal Experiments, Japan, (Animal exp: 20–208; Pathogen exp: 201982), and were approved by the Committee on the Animal Experiments of the Tohoku University (2021171).

Compound preparation

The Institute of Natural Medicine, University of Toyama, Japan provided the natural drug library used in this study. There are 96 chemicals in this library. In the experiments, 87 readily available chemicals were used. The compounds were dissolved in DMSO and kept at −80°C at a concentration of 10 mM. Nitazoxanide (Wako, Osaka, Japan) served as standard comparative control for C. parvum. All chemical stock solutions were made fresh on the day of the experiment.

Parasites

Both in vitro and in vivo research used the same parasite strain. C. parvum oocysts, strain HNJ-1 [20], were provided by Dr. Matsubayashi, Osaka Prefecture University, Japan. Oocysts were maintained in experimentally infected SCID mice (CB17/Icr-Prkdcscid/CrlCrlj) and isolated from feces by using discontinuous sucrose as previously described [21] and stored at 4°C in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) (pH 7.4).

In vitro cultures of C. parvum

C. parvum oocysts that were less than 3 months old at the time of collection were used in all tests. The HCT-8 cell line derived from human ileocecal adenocarcinoma (ATCC # CCL-225) was cultured in maintenance medium RPMI 1640 with L-Gln (Nacalai Tesque, Tokyo, Japan) and supplemented with 1 mM sodium pyruvate, 15 mM HEPES, 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), Penicillin (100 U/ml), Streptomycin (100 μg/ml), Amphotericin B (0.25 μg/ml) solution. Every two days, the cells were passaged in vitro at 70–80 percent confluency. The cells were incubated at 37°C, in 5% CO2.

In vitro C. parvum growth inhibition assay

The primary screening of compounds for C. parvum was performed as follows: HCT-8 cells were seeded in 96-well plates at a density of 2 × 104 cells/well and allowed to grow overnight. Before infecting cells, Cryptosporidium oocysts were excysted to sporozoites. 87 compounds were tested against C. parvum at a single concentration of 1 μM. Each compound was tested once. Infected HCT-8 cells and uninfected HCT-8 cells were used as positive and negative controls, respectively, in medium containing 0.1% DMSO. Nitazoxanide was used as a standard comparative drug. In vitro inhibition assays were carried out as previously described [22, 23]. Briefly, oocysts were suspended in 1 ml of 0.1% sodium hypochlorite in PBS, incubated for 5 min at 4°C, centrifuged for 10 min at 3000 rpm, and washed three times in PBS. The oocysts were then suspended in excystation solution consisting of 0.75% sodium taurocholate and 0.25% trypsin dissolved in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (with 93.4 mM K2HPO4 and 6.5 mM KH2PO4; pH 8.0) and incubated at 37°C for 1 h. The oocyst/sporozoite suspensions were then rinsed in 1 x PBS (with 137 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, 8 mM Na2HPO4, and 2 mM KH2PO4; pH 7.5) once more before being filtered through a 5-μm pore-size PVDF filter (Millipore, Burlington, MA, USA) with 5 ml syringe to remove the oocyst wall. HCT-8 cells were seeded in 96-well plates (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., MA, USA) and incubated overnight. The cells were then infected with C. parvum sporozoites (4 ×104 sporozoites/well) containing in RPMI-1640 medium for 3 h. After 3h inoculation, the non-infected parasite or debris were washed with new RPMI-1640 media. At this point, in RPMI-1640 medium containing 1 μM library compounds were added. Infected cells were incubated for an additional 45 h. Following incubation, the infected cells were fixed for 10 minutes in ice-cold 100% methanol at room temperature. Plates were then carefully rinsed 3 times with PBS. The parasite infected cells were then blocked with 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA) in PBS for 30 minutes and then stained with Sporo-Glo (an anti-Cryptosporidium polyclonal antibody) (Waterborne Environmental, Inc., VA, USA) protected from light for 1 h at room temperature. Finally, cells were washed twice with 1 x PBS-T (1 x PBS supplemented with 0.01% Tween). A Keyence BZ-II 9000 was used to capture the images (KEYENCE, Osaka, Japan). The plates were imaged with a HS all-in-one fluorescence microscope using a 20 x objective. The image output was imported into Microsoft excel for data organization and analyses. All C. parvum parasite in the well were counted. Compounds that showed more than 60% inhibition of C. parvum growth relative to the DMSO control were selected as hit compounds.

For a second investigation, four selective hit compounds were used to determine the half-maximum inhibitory concentration (EC50). The parasites were treated with various doses of compounds (ranging from 0.008–1 μM). HCT-8 cells (2 × 104 cells/well) were grown for 24 h before being infected with 4 × 104 C. parvum sporozoites in 96-well plates. The sporozoites that did not invade were washed with RPMI-1640 3 h after inoculation and treated with the four hit compounds from the original screening at 0.008–1 μM, then incubated for another 45 h. Sporo-Glo was used for C. parvum staining as described above. Fluorescence microscopy with a Keyence BZ-II 9000 imager was used to count all Cryptosporidium in the wells (KEYENCE, Osaka, Japan). EC50 vales were determined by analyzing dose-response curves made by GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Software, CA, USA).

Host cell viability assay

HCT-8 cells (4 × 104 cells/well) 100 μl were seeded in 96-well plates, cultured for 24 h, and then treated for 48 h with different concentrations of hit compounds (101, 1, 10−1, 10−2, 10−3, 10−4 μM). After a 48-h incubation period, equilibrate the 96-well plates in room temperature (RT) for 30 minutes. Then, equal volume of Cell-Titer Glo (Promega) reagent was added to each treated well, the plate was shaken on an orbital shaker for 2 minutes then incubated for 10 minutes at RT. The luminescence was quantified by the GloMax Navigator plate reader (Promega, Japan) and the cell viability was evaluated as directed by the kit manufacturer. The luminescence signal of control wells containing DMSO was set to 100% cell viability. HCT-8 cells were treated with various concentrations of four selective target compounds (ranging from 1.56–200 μM) to determine the half-maximal cellular cytotoxic concentration (CC50) values. Graph Pad Prism 7.0.1 was used to determine CC50 values.

In vivo C. parvum growth inhibition assay

The growth inhibitory effect of the hit compounds was assessed in a mouse model infected with C. parvum oocysts. In this experiment, four-week-old female SCID mice (Charles River Laboratories, Shizuoka, Japan) were used. In the infected groups, mice were orally inoculated with 1.0 × 105 C. parvum oocysts by using sterile gavage needles. Initially, four compounds were tested at different concentrations to figure out the optimum dosages. Six groups of mice were given oral dosages of 50, 25, and 12.5 mg/kg body weight (BW) of two compounds (alisol-A and alisol-B). Another six groups of mice were given oral doses of atropine sulfate (100, 50, and 25 mg/kg BW) and bufotalin (1, 0.5, and 0.1 mg/kg BW, respectively). Based on their survivability, two compounds were chosen: atropine sulfate and bufotalin. Each compound group had three concentrations, and had three mice in each group. One group of mice was orally administered atropine sulfate at doses of 200, 100, and 50 mg/kg BW. Bufotalin was given orally at three different doses to the other mouse group: 0.1, 0.05, and 0.025 mg/kg BW. In another mouse group, nitazoxanide was given orally at 100 mg/kg BW as a standard comparative drug. The positive control group consisted of infected and untreated mice, whereas the negative control group consisted of noninfected and untreated mice. Treatment began on the third day after infection and lasted until the thirteenth day. The body weight and condition were checked every day, and treatment was given based on the body weight. On days 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, fecal samples were taken. The total number of oocysts per gram was calculated after counting the oocysts in the feces using the sugar flotation method. The treated and untreated mice were euthanized by cervical dislocation on day 14, and a thorough necropsy was performed.

Histopathological analysis and immunohistochemistry

We performed a histopathological analysis to evaluate the growth inhibitory effects and toxicity of the hit compounds in C. parvum-infected mice. In brief, ileum was collected, fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin, and paraffin-embedded. Each section was cut to a thickness of 4 μm for hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining and immunohistochemistry. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed following standard techniques using the Envision+ system (Agilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA) and 3,3-diaminobenzidine (DAB)(Dojindo, Kumamoto, Japan). Anti-Toxoplasma gondii (RH strain) rabbit polyclonal IgG (Abcam, Cambridge, UK) was used as the primary antibody. The antibody cross reacts with C. Parvum. To reduce the endogenous peroxidase activity, the sections were incubated with 3% H2O2 for 5 minutes. Sections were incubated with primary antibodies overnight at 4°C. After washing with PBS with Tween 20 (PBST), sections were incubated with Envision+ single polymer solution (Agilent Technologies Inc.) for 30 minutes at room temperature. Sections were counterstained with Mayer’s hematoxylin. The severity of C. parvum infection was evaluated in the most severe area, and scored from—to 3+ (-, no oocysts; 1+, mild focal infection; 2+, moderate multifocal infection; 3+, severe diffuse infection). Sub-effects of drugs (hepatocellular damage) were evaluated for major histological changes in karyomegaly, hepatocellular hypertrophy, and interstitial fibrosis/inflammation. We also checked the organs (liver, heart, lung, kidney, and intestines) alteration at necropsy whether it has abnormal or normal.

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) assay

We used SEM to see examine the effects of the chemicals on the tissues of the bowel. Tissue samples from each experimental animal’s distal ileum were biopsied and immediately immersed in a fixative combination of 2% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (PB, pH 7.4) for 1 week at 4°C. The samples were then carefully washed three times with 0.1 M PB and immersed in 1% tannic acid for 2 h at 4°C. After rinsing with 0.1 M PB, the samples were further treated with 1% osmium tetroxide in 0.1 M PB for conductive staining [24]. The conductive-stained samples were then dehydrated in a succession of increasing ethanol concentrations (70, 80, 90, 95, and 100%), transferred to t-butyl alcohol, and dried in a freeze drier (VFD-21S, Vacuum Device, Ibaraki, Japan). The dried samples were mounted on an aluminum metal plate and osmium coated by an osmium coater (HPC-1SW, Vacuum Device, Ibaraki, Japan). Following the procedure outlined above, the specimens were examined using a field emission SEM (Regulus 8100, Hitachi High Technologies, Tokyo, Japan).

Statistical analysis

Microsoft Excel was used to calculate the percentage of inhibition. The EC50 vales were calculated by using a nonlinear regression sigmoidal dose-response curve fit, available in GraphPad Prism 7.01. (GraphPad Software Inc., USA). The difference in parasitemia between control and drug-treated groups was considered statistically significant for P < 0.05 by using a one-way ANOVA with the post-hoc Tukey HSD test.

Results

In vitro screening of Traditional Chinese Medicines (TCMs)

Initial screening of TCM library products was carried out to identify compounds that inhibit C. parvum growth by more than 60% at a concentration of 1 μM. Nine of the 87 compounds tested inhibited C. parvum growth (Fig 1 and Table 1); their structures are shown in Fig 2.

Fig 1. Scatter plot of tested compounds after primary screening at the single concentration of 1 μM.

Fig 1

The growth of C. parvum HNJ-1 strain after exposure to each compound at a single concentration of 1 μM for 45 h, as determined by means of fluorescence microscopy. The percent inhibition is presented as the percentage of inhibited parasites compared with the positive control (untreated wells) after subtraction of the negative control (uninfected HCT-8 cells). Compounds with a growth reduction of more than 60% (dot line) were considered to be compound that inhibit C. parvum parasite growth. Blue dots represent the compounds and the red dot represents the comparative drug nitazaxonide (10 μM). This is single experiment with the means of triplicate wells.

Table 1. The nine lead anti-C. parvum compounds identified in the first screen at a concentration of 1 μM and tested against the C. parvum HNJ-1 strain.

Compound Parasite inhibition (%) Host cell viability (%)
Alisol-A 78.1 99.5
Alisol-B 92.9 97.6
Atropine sulfate 72.3 97.7
Bufotalin 82.9 95.1
Cinobufotalin 70.7 97.8
Dihydrocapsaicin 70.8 98.4
Ginsenoside-Re 71.2 98.7
Ginsenoside-Rg1 67.9 99.1
Shikonin 66.2 NT*

*NT = Not tested

Parasite growth inhibition values with C. parvum; host cell viability values with HCT-8 cells.

Fig 2. Chemical structures of the hit compounds.

Fig 2

The nine compounds identified in the primary in vitro screen using 1 μM as the highest concentration. The most effective compounds are indicated by boldface letters. These compound structures were obtained from PubChem (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

Host cell viability assay

Using HCT-8 cells as a model, we determined the cytotoxicity of these compounds. The eight compounds were tested for their effect on the viability of HCT-8 cells. Alisol-A, alisol-B, atropine sulfate, and bufotalin were selected as target compounds because they inhibited parasite development by a high percentage (72.3%–92.9%) and cell viability was greater than 95% in the presence of these four compounds (Table 1). In addition, the half-maximal cellular cytotoxicity (CC50) of these four compounds ranged from 10.9–59.6 μM (Table 2).

In vitro C. parvum growth inhibition

The half-maximal inhibitory concentration (EC50) values of alisol-A, alisol-B, atropine sulfate, and bufotalin were found to be 122.9±6.7, 79.58±13.8, 253.5±30.3, and 63.43±18.7 nM respectively (Fig 3). Furthermore, the calculated selectivity index (SI) of alisol-A, alisol-B, atropine sulfate, and bufotalin were 484.4, 460.6, 69.9, and 172.3, respectively, as a measure of therapeutic efficacy (Table 2). These results indicated that these selected four compounds have minimum cytotoxicity in mammalian host cells.

Fig 3. Dose-response curves and growth inhibitory effects of four hit compounds on C. parvum.

Fig 3

The growth of C. parvum HNJ-1 strain after exposure to various concentrations of four hit compounds for 45 h, as determined by means of fluorescence microscopy. The EC50s were determined from dose response curves using non-linear regression (curve fit analyses). The values from triplicate experiments are shown. (A) Dose-response curves and the half maximum inhibition concentration (EC50) value of alisol-A for C. parvum (122.9± 6.7 nM), (B) Dose-response curves and the (EC50) value of alisol-B (79.58±13.8 nM), (C) Dose-response curves and the (EC50) value of atropine sulfate (253.5±30.3 nM), (D) Dose-response curves and the (EC50) value of bufotalin (63.43±18.7 nM).

Table 2. Biological activity of hit compounds evaluated against the in vitro growth of C. parvum.

Compound EC50 value (nM)a CC50 (μM)b 95%CIc Selectivity indexd
Alisol-A 122.9±6.7 59.6 104.9–144.0 484.4
Alisol-B 79.58±13.8 36.7 61.0–103.8 460.6
Atropine sulfate 253.5±30.3 17.7 205.1–312.4 69.9
Bufotalin 63.43±18.7 10.9 54.5–73.9 172.3

Growth inhibitory effects (aEC50 values) of lead compounds were evaluated in vitro by using a fluorescence assay in three separate experiments. Each compound concentration was tested in triplicate in each experiment, and the final EC50 values are the mean values obtained from the three separate experiments.

b The CC50 values on HCT-8 cells.

c 95%CI, 95% confidence intervals for EC50 values.

d Selectivity indices were calculated based on the ratio of CC50 /EC50 for each compound.

In vivo C. parvum growth inhibition

The chemotherapeutic efficacy of single daily doses of all four compounds at different dose levels was evaluated in vivo in the mouse model. Mice treated with alisol-A and alisol-B at 50, 25, and 12.5 mg/kg, respectively, experienced adverse effects and died at concentrations of 50 and 25 mg/kg body weight. Moreover, there was no significant reduction in the numbers of oocysts discharged in the feces of these mice and no significant difference in their body weight (S1 Fig and S1 Table). Both histopathological and scanning electron microscopy findings showed that treatment with alisol-A or alisol-B led to no notable reduction of oocysts (S2 Fig). We, therefore, focus on the other two compounds. Atropine sulfate at 200 mg/kg showed modest efficacy (67.8% inhibition) against C. parvum, and bufotalin demonstrated significant inhibitory activity (78.1% inhibition) at 0.1 mg/kg and led to a rapid reduction in the number of oocysts in feces compared to the control group (Fig 4 and Table 3).

Fig 4. In vivo infected mice treated with compounds showed growth inhibition of C. parvum.

Fig 4

Two compounds (atropine sulfate and bufotalin) reduce the number of oocysts shedding in mice compared to control drugs. C. parvum oocysts were inoculated orally into SCID mice. Infected mice left untreated served as a positive control. The mice were treated with 200 μl of atropine sulfate or bufotalin 3 days after infection (i.e., from Day 3) until Day 13 at three different concentrations for each compound (atropine sulfate: 200, 100, and 50 mg/kg; bufotalin: 0.1, 0.05, 0.025 mg/kg). Nitazaxonide was administered orally at 100 mg/kg as a comparative drug. The number of oocysts in the feces was determined by using the sugar flotation method, and the total number of oocysts per gram (OPG) was calculated. Data shown are the mean and SEM (n = 3 mice in each group). Asterisks indicate levels of statistical significance as evaluated by the difference in parasitemia between the control and drug-treated groups by use of a one-way ANOVA with the post-hoc Tukey HSD test, *: p < 0.05, **: p<0.01.

Table 3. Efficacies of TCM compounds with nitazoxanide for reducing oocyst shedding from the distal colon of C. parvum-infected neonatal SCID mice.

Days of treatment Treatment compounds with dose (mg/kg BW) No. of mice No. of oocysts % reduction in oocyst sheddingc p-valued
Meanb SD 95% CI
11 Atropine sulfate 200 3 71.1 31.1 96.1–46.2 67.8 0.017*
11 Atropine sulfate 100 3 91.1 33.3 117.8–64.4 58.7 0.034*
11 Atropine sulfate 50 3 96.6 29.8 120.5–72.7 56.2 0.039*
11 Bufotalin 0.1 3 48.5 20.1 64.6–32.3 78.1 0.007**
11 Bufotalin 0.05 3 86.6 32.6 112.7–60.5 60.8 0.029*
11 Bufotalin 0.025 3 92.3 30.9 117.1–67.5 58.2 0.034*
11 Nitazoxanide 100 3 81.1 31.6 106.4–55.8 63.3 0.024*
Controla 3 221.1 125.4 321.5–120.7 00.0

a Untreated mice infected with HNJ-1 strain C. parvum oocysts.

b The mean number of oocysts that shed on days of 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14.

c Microsoft excel was used to calculate the percent inhibition of infection as follows: 1-(mean number of parasites in drug treated group/mean number of parasites in control group) X 100.

d Pairwise comparisons using a one-way ANOVA with the post-hoc Tukey HSD test were used to determine whether reductions in numbers of oocysts for treated vs. untreated control mice were statistically significant. Results were considered to be significant for

*P < 0.05 or **P < 0.01.

Histopathological observations with immunohistochemistry

On examining a part of the small intestine, C. parvum infection and inflammation was most prominent in the ileum. In the positive control group (non-treated group), thickening of the mucosal layer, interstitial fibrosis, and inflammatory cell infiltration were observed (Fig 5D and 5E; the severity of C. parvum infection; Score: 3+) compared to the negative control group (Fig 5A–5C; Score: -). C. parvum oocysts were observed as tiny round basophilic organisms in the Hematoxylin & Eosin (HE), attached to the surface of the small intestinal villi of the intestinal crypt (Fig 5E, 5H, 5K and 5N). In immunohistochemical experiments, C. parvum oocyst showed a positive reaction and were clearly distinct from those observed in the HE (Fig 5F, 5I, 5L and 5O). For the nitazoxanide-treated groups, a number of attached C. parvum oocysts were also observed in the ileum (Fig 5G–5I; Score: 2+). In the atropine-sulfate-treated groups, C. parvum infection led to a smaller number of oocysts being attached to the intestinal villi than in the positive control group (Fig 5J–5L; Score: 2+). Bufotalin-treated mice showed a significant reduction in the number of oocysts compared to the positive control group (Fig 5M–5O; Score: 1+). These results indicate that bufotalin is the most effective of the compounds tested in terms of anti-Cryptosporidium activity in vivo. Some histological findings (karyomegaly, hepatocellular hypertrophy, or interstitial inflammation) were observed in all examined livers (S3 Fig), it suspected sub-effect of compounds or infection, but there was no difference in distribution and severity between experimental groups.

Fig 5. Histological observation with immunohistochemistry detection of C. parvum infection in ileum tissues.

Fig 5

Histological sections of small intestine (ileum) of different animal groups (treated with nitazoxanide, atropine-sulfate, bufotalin, and control groups). Except for the negative control group, all mice were orally inoculated with Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts (1×105), then treated with each compound. The left column is the lower magnification for hematoxylin and eosin (HE), the middle column is the higher magnification for HE, and the right column is immunohistochemistry for C. parvum. The severity of C. parvum infection was scored from–to 3+. (A-C) Ileal sections of uninfected mouse (negative control) (Score: -). (D-F) Ileal sections of non-treated mouse (positive control) showing inflammatory cell infiltration of the mucosal layer. Numerous C. parvum oocysts are attached to the intestinal villi (Score: 3+) (arrowheads: C. parvum oocysts). Ileal sections of nitazoxanide-treated groups (G-I), Nitazoxanide-treated group (Score: 2+) showing a number of oocysts. (J-L) Atropine sulfate-treated group showing less reduction of oocysts (Score: 2+). (M-O) Bufotalin-treated group showing markedly reduced number of oocysts (Score: 1+). Bar = 100 μm.

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

Next, we looked to see if there were any differences in the effects of the TCM compounds on host cells and tissues following C. parvum invasion. To achieve this, we examined the intestines of mice infected with C. parvum under SEM. SEM observation revealed ileal tissues on the surface of the intestine mucosa after infection with C. parvum and treatment with the TCM compounds. No abnormalities were detected in the intestinal epithelial tissues except that we found parasite oocysts attached to the ileal mucosa in mice treated with the comparative drug nitazoxanide (Fig 6G–6I). However, atropine sulfate- (Fig 6J–6L) and bufotalin (Fig 6M–6O)-treated mice showed no visible parasites in their intestine relative to the control groups (Fig 6A–6F), thereby confirming our findings in this study (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) findings the compound’s effects of ileum tissues.

Fig 6

The SEM images of intestinal ileum tissue of different groups of mice infected with C. parvum and treated with hit compounds, as well as the negative (A-C) and positive (D-F) control groups, and comparative drug (nitazaxonide)-treated group (G-I). Atropine sulfate- (J-L) and bufotalin- (M-O) treated mice showed no abnormalities or visible parasites in the intestine. The SEM shows the intracellular structures as well as the surface of C. parvum attached to the host cells. These compounds had no adverse effects on the ileum tissue.

Discussion

TCMs have a great variety of chemical structures, as well as extremely powerful pharmacological activity and relatively mild toxicities [25]. TCMs include a huge number of active chemicals, some of which have been used to generate novel medications to treat important diseases such as vascular disease and cancer [26]. Infection and transmission of Cryptosporidium parasites are difficult to manage; new medications to control infection and decrease the growth of apicomplexan parasites are needed. In this study, we found that atropine sulfate and bufotalin displayed the most anti-Cryptosporidium activity of 87 TCM compounds investigated. Bufotalin is widely used in anticancer therapy [27]. Previously, these TCM compounds were tested against Plasmodium falciparum and four (berberine chloride, coptisine chloride, palmatine chloride, and dehydrocorydaline nitrate) were found to have anti-malarial activity [17]. Moreover, TCM compounds have been tested against Toxoplasma gondii [18], with baicalein and luteolin being shown to have potential as anti-toxoplasmosis drugs. Notably, these TCM compounds that were effective in earlier studies were not effective against cryptosporidiosis. It is surprising that there is no overlap in the hits vs. Plasmodium and Toxoplasma, given the related of these species with Cryptosporidium. It might be due to the different enzyme related to metabolic cyclic pathways or functions related to either host or parasite factors. Our study is thus the first to reveal the inhibitory effects of atropine sulfate and bufotalin against Cryptosporidium parasite in vitro and in vivo.

Alisol-A, alisol-B, atropine sulfate, and bufotalin have low EC50 values, implying that they could be useful in developing a new anti-cryptosporidiosis compounds. All four compounds were also shown to have minimum cytotoxicity in human intestinal cells (HCT-8). Earlier report mentioned that bufotalin has modest cytotoxicity in mammals and was active against trypanosomiasis [28]. Also, bufotalin effectively suppressed the growth of xenografted R-HepG2 cells in an in vivo investigation, with minimal body weight loss or spleen toxicity [29]. With an IC50 of 3.7 μM against Cryptosporidium parvum, nitazoxanide is the only limited-activity medication currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of cryptosporidiosis in humans [30]. Atropine sulfate and bufotalin had a strong inhibitory impact in vitro but appeared to have a considerable inhibitory effect in vivo in SCID mice, and bufotalin had the greatest inhibitory effect. In this study, bufotalin showed a significant reduction in oocyst excretion at a concentration of 0.1 mg/kg, whereas atropine sulfate showed a moderate reduction in oocyst excretion at a concentration of 200 mg/kg. Moreover, bufotalin had potent inhibitory effects at lower doses than nitazoxanide. It is unclear why alisol-A and alisol-B inhibit C. parvum growth in vitro but have no effect in vivo. One of the factors might be the lack of adequate intestinal exposure to these drugs. Because it is likely that prolonged intestinal exposure of these TCMs is crucial for the efficacy in vivo. This is important because it may be that modifications of alisol-A and alisol-B would produce compounds with better intestinal exposure and in vivo efficacy. The nature of the chemical compounds, whether the drug compounds are permeable or less permeable to the small intestine would be the other factors [31]. However, variables such as host cell metabolism or the parasite’s capacity to target only specific molecules could restrict the compound’s effectiveness.

Although the molecular mechanisms of the anti-Cryptosporidium activity of TCMs remain unclear, they may target enzyme-related molecules. Earlier studies reported, according to an ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) and toxicity study, atropine crosses the blood-brain barrier, which is crucial for efficient treatment of viral illness [32]. Moreover, submicronic atropine sulfate respiratory fluid has the potential to be employed as a prophylactic strategy against organophosphorous poisoning, with various advantages over intramuscular injection, including early blood absorption and atropinization [33]. Calcium-dependent protein kinases play important roles in calcium signaling in T. gondii and C. parvum, making them interesting targets for antiparasitic drug research [34, 35]. In addition, the regulation of calcium ions is required for the activity of calcium-dependent protein kinases (CDPKs), which are found in C. parvum [36]. Furthermore, alisol-B is known to inhibit the endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ ATPase [37], and most believe that nitazoxanide anticryptosporidial effect is off-target, as Cryptosporidium species has an alternative PFOR that nitazoxanide and more potent PFOR inhibitors have no effect in vitro [38]. It may be that atropine sulfate and bufotalin suppress Cryptosporidium via a different target(s) than that of nitazoxanide.

Bufotalin, one of the naturally occurring bufodienolides, has pharmacological and toxicological features that include anticancer activity and cardiotoxicity [39]. Bufotalin was found to be less harmful to Het-1A human esophageal squamous cells, implying that it has a high selectivity for cancer cells [40]. Atropine sulfate was found to have a considerable inhibitory impact and bufotalin had a potent inhibitory impact, which could be attributed to blocking a parasite metabolic route or the targeting of several enzymes in host cell-dependent pathways. Our future studies will explore the mechanisms of these compounds against enzyme-related molecules because it is unknown if these compounds are working by virtue of inhibiting Cryptosporidium factors or host factors.

In conclusion, our findings suggest that the compounds atropine sulfate and bufotalin could be useful in the development of new anti-Cryptosporidium medications. More research is needed, however, to understand the exact mechanism behind the anti-Cryptosporidium activity of these compounds.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The Effect of TCMs treated compounds on the body weight during C. parvum infection in mice.

The body weights of mice infected with C. parvum are shown with the following drugs. Control: Infected-untreated mice, Alisol-A: Infected mice treated with different concentration of alisol-A at 50, 25, and 12.5 mg/kg for 11 consecutive days, Alisol-B: Infected mice treated with different concentration of alisol-B at 50, 25, and 12.5 mg/kg for 11 consecutive days, Atr-S: Infected mice treated with different concentration of atropine-sulfate at 100, 50, 25mg/kg for 11 consecutive days, Bufotalin: Infected mice treated with different concentration of bufotalin at 1, 0.5, and 0.1 mg/kg for 11 consecutive days. Treated mice values were not significant compared with those of uninfected mice.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Histological and SEM observation of C. parvum infected ileum tissues treated with compounds.

(A) Histological sections of the small intestine (ileum) of different animal groups (treated with alisol-A and alisol-B). All mice were orally inoculated with Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst (1×105), then treated with each compound. The severity of C. parvum infection was scored from–to 3+. Ileal sections of treated groups [Alisol-A (Score: 3+) and Alisol-B (Score: 2+)] showing no remarkable reduction in the number of oocysts (arrowheads: C. parvum oocysts). HE. Bar = 100 μm. (B) Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) images of intestinal ileum tissue of two groups of mice infected with C. parvum. The SEM shows the intracellular structures as well as the surface of C. parvum attached to the host cells.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Histological observation of C. parvum-infected liver tissues treated with compounds.

The higher magnification for the histological sections of the liver of different animal groups. Except for the negative control group, all mice were orally inoculated with Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts (1×105), then treated with each compound. (A) Uninfected mouse (negative control) showing karyomegaly and hepatocellular hypertrophy. (B) Non-treated mouse (positive control) showing hepatocellular hypertrophy and inflammation of the hepatocytes. (C) Nitazoxanide-treated groups showing karyomegaly and hepatocellular hypertrophy. (D) Atropine sulfate-treated group showing inflammation. (E) Bufotalin-treated group showing also inflammation and hepatocellular hypertrophy. Hematoxylin and eosin (HE) stain, Bar = 50 μm.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Comparative efficacies of four hit compounds treated for reducing oocysts shedding of C. parvum-infected neonatal SCID mice.

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Excel spreadsheet containing the underlying numerical data and statistical analysis for Fig 1.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the Institute of Natural Medicine (The University of Toyama, Toyoma, Japan) for providing the chemical compounds. We thank Dr. M. Matsubayashi (Osaka Prefecture University, Japan) for providing the C. parvum HNJ-1 strain used in this study.

Data Availability

This information will only be available after acceptance.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for young scientists, Japan (ID No. P21101; JSPS/OF498 to MHBK and KK), Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B:20H03476 to KK) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, Sports, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan and a Livestock Promotional Subsidy from the Japan Racing Association (JRA to KK). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Leitch GJ, He Q. Cryptosporidiosis-an overview. J Biomed Res. 2012; 25(1):1–16. doi: 10.1016/S1674-8301(11)60001-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chalmers RM, Davies AP, Tyler K. Cryptosporidium. Microbiology. 2019; 165(5):500–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Meganck V, Hoflack G, Opsomer G. Advances in prevention and therapy of neonatal dairy calf diarrhoea: a systematical review with emphasis on colostrum management and fluid therapy. Acta Vet Scand. 2014; 56(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s13028-014-0075-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Miyamoto Y, Eckmann L. Drug development against the major diarrhea-causing parasites of the small intestine, Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Front Microbiol. 2015; 6:1208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Rossignol JF. Cryptosporidium and Giardia: treatment options and prospects for new drugs. Exp Parasitol. 2010; 124(1):45–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Amadi B, Mwiya M, Sianongo S, Payne L, Watuka A, Katubulushi M, et al. High dose prolonged treatment with nitazoxanide is not effective for cryptosporidiosis in HIV positive Zambian children: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2009; 9:195. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-9-195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ashigbie PG, Shepherd S, Steiner KL, Amadi B, Aziz N, Manjunatha UH, et al. Use-case scenarios for an anti-Cryptosporidium therapeutic. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021; 15(3):e0009057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Love MS, Beasley FC, Jumani RS, Wright TM, Chatterjee AK, Huston CD, et al. A high-throughput phenotypic screen identifies clofazimine as a potential treatment for cryptosporidiosis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017; 11(2):e0005373. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005373 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mammeri M, Chevillot A, Thomas M, Polack B, Julien C, Marden JP, et al. Efficacy of chitosan, a natural polysaccharide, against Cryptosporidium parvum in vitro and in vivo in neonatal mice. Exp Parasitol. 2018; 194:1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Vinayak S, Jumani RS, Miller P, Hasan MM, McLeod BI, Tandel J, et al. Bicyclic azetidines kill the diarrheal pathogen Cryptosporidium in mice by inhibiting parasite phenylalanyl-tRNA synthetase. Sci Transl Med. 2020; 12(563):eaba8412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Stebbins E, Jumani RS, Klopfer C, Barlow J, Miller P, Campbell MA, et al. Clinical and microbiologic efficacy of the piperazine-based drug lead MMV665917 in the dairy calf cryptosporidiosis model. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018; 12(1):e0006183. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lunde CS, Stebbins EE, Jumani RS, Hasan MM, Miller P, Barlow J, et al. Identification of a potent benzoxaborole drug candidate for treating cryptosporidiosis. Nat Commun. 2019; 10(1):2816. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10687-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schaefer DA, Betzer DP, Smith KD, Millman ZG, Michalski HC, Menchaca SE, et al. Novel bumped kinase inhibitors are safe and effective therapeutics in the calf clinical model for cryptosporidiosis. J Infect Dis. 2016; 214(12):1856–1864. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiw488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Viu M, Quílez J, Sánchez-Acedo C, del Cacho E, López-Bernad F. Field trial on the therapeutic efficacy of paromomycin on natural Cryptosporidium parvum infections in lambs. Vet Parasitol. 2000; 90(3):163–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cheng JT. Review: drug therapy in Chinese traditional medicine. J Clin Pharmacol. 2000; 40(5):445–450. doi: 10.1177/00912700022009198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lacombe OK, Zuma AA, da Silva CC, de Souza W, Motta MC. Effects of camptothecin derivatives and topoisomerase dual inhibitors on Trypanosoma cruzi growth and ultrastructure. J Negat Results Biomed. 2014; 13(1):11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nonaka M, Murata Y, Takano R, Han Y, Kabir MHB, Kato K. Screening of a library of traditional Chinese medicines to identify anti-malarial compounds and extracts. Malar J. 2018; 17(1):244. doi: 10.1186/s12936-018-2392-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Saito H, Murata Y, Nonaka M, Kato K. Screening of a library of traditional Chinese medicines to identify compounds and extracts which inhibit Toxoplasma gondii growth. J Vet Med Sci. 2020; 82(2):184–187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nie J, Zhao C, Deng LI, Chen J, Yu B, Wu X, et al. Efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine in treating cancer. Biomed Rep. 2016; 4(1):3–14. doi: 10.3892/br.2015.537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Satoh M, Kimata I, Iseki M, Nakai Y. Gene analysis of Cryptosporidium parvum HNJ-1 strain isolated in Japan. Parasitol Res. 2005; 97(6):452–457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Arrowood MJ, Donaldson K. Improved purification methods for calf-derived Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts using discontinuous sucrose and cesium chloride gradients. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 1996; 43(5):89S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Murakoshi F, Bando H, Sugi T, Adeyemi OS, Nonaka M, Nakaya T, et al. Nullscript inhibits Cryptosporidium and Toxoplasma growth. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist. 2020; 14:159–166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Inomata A, Murakoshi F, Ishiwa A, Takano R, Takemae H, Sugi T, et al. Heparin interacts with elongation factor 1alpha of Cryptosporidium parvum and inhibits invasion. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:11599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bochimoto H, Kondoh D, Ishihara Y, Kabir MHB, Kato K. Three-dimensional fine structure of feeder organelle in Cryptosporidium parvum. Parasitol Int. 2019; 73:101958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhang W, Huai Y, Miao Z, Qian A, Wang Y. Systems pharmacology for investigation of the mechanisms of action of traditional Chinese medicine in drug discovery. Front Pharmacol. 2019; 10:743. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dong Y, Chen H, Gao J, Liu Y, Li J, Wang J. Bioactive ingredients in Chinese herbal medicines that target non-coding RNAs: promising new choices for disease treatment. Front Pharmacol. 2019; 10:515. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yu C, Hou H. Plasma pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of bufotalin in mice following single-bolus injection and constant-rate infusion of bufotalin solution. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2011; 35(3–4):115–121. doi: 10.1007/s13318-010-0017-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rodriguez C, Ibanez R, Mojica L, Ng M, Spadafora C, Durant-Archibold AA, Gutierrez M. Bufadienolides from the skin secretions of the neotropical toad Rhinella alata (Anura bufonidae): anti protozoal activity against Trypanosoma cruzi. Molecules. 2021; 26(14):4217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhang DM, Liu JS, Tang MK, Yiu A, Cao HH, Jiang L, et al. Bufotalin from Venenum bufonis inhibits growth of multidrug resistant HepG2 cells through G2/M cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2012; 692(1–3):19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2012.06.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bessoff K, Sateriale A, Lee KK, Huston CD. Drug repurposing screen reveals FDA-approved inhibitors of human HMG-CoA reductase and isoprenoid synthesis that block Cryptosporidium parvum growth. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013; 57(4):1804–1814. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Arnold SLM, Choi R, Hulverson MA, Schaefer DA, Vinayak S, Vidadala RSR, et al. Necessity of bumped kinase inhibitor gastrointestinal exposure in treating Cryptosporidium infection. J Infect Dis. 2017; 216(1):55–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kumar S, Maurya VK, Kabir R, Nayak D, Khurana A, Manchanda RK, et al. Antiviral activity of belladonna during Japanese encephalitis virus infection via inhibition of microglia activation and inflammation leading to neuronal cell survival. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2020; 11(21):3683–3696. doi: 10.1021/acschemneuro.0c00603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mittal G, Kumar N, Rawat H, Jaimini A, Chhillar M, Bhatnagar A. Development and clinical study of submicronic-atropine sulphate respiratory fluid as a novel organophosphorous poisoning antidote. Drug Deliv. 2016; 23(7):2255–2261. doi: 10.3109/10717544.2014.965801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sugi T, Kato K, Kobayashi K, Watanabe S, Kurokawa H, Gong H, et al. Use of the kinase inhibitor analog 1NM-PP1 reveals a role for Toxoplasma gondii CDPK1 in the invasion step. Eukaryot Cell. 2010; 9(4):667–670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Murphy RC, Ojo KK, Larson ET, Castellanos-Gonzalez A, Perera BG, Keyloun KR, et al. Discovery of potent and selective inhibitors of calcium-dependent protein kinase 1 (CDPK1) from C. parvum and T. gondii. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2010; 1(7):331–335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zhang Q, Guo Y, Li N, Li Y, Su J, Xu R, et al. Characterization of calcium-dependent protein kinases 3, a protein involved in growth of Cryptosporidium parvum. Front Microbiol. 2020; 11:907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Law BY, Wang M, Ma DL, Al-Mousa F, Michelangeli F, Cheng SH, et al. Alisol B, a novel inhibitor of the sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum Ca(2+) ATPase pump, induces autophagy, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and apoptosis. Mol Cancer Ther. 2010; 9(3):718–30. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0700 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bartelt LA, Bolick DT, Kolling GL, Stebbins E, Huston CD, Guerrant RL, et al. Amixicile reduces severity of cryptosporidiosis but does not have in vitro activity against Cryptosporidium. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018; 62(12):e00718–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dai ZR, Ning J, Sun GB, Wang P, Zhang F, Ma HY, et al. Cytochrome P450 3A enzymes are key contributors for hepatic metabolism of bufotalin, a natural constitute in Chinese medicine chansu. Front Pharmacol. 2019; 10:52. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lin S, Lv J, Peng P, Cai C, Deng J, Deng H, et al. Bufadienolides induce p53-mediated apoptosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo. Oncol Lett. 2018; 15(2):1566–1572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010947.r001

Decision Letter 0

Alain Debrabant, Richard Stewart Bradbury

10 Aug 2022

Dear Dr. Kato,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Identification of potent anti-Cryptosporidium drug candidates by screening traditional Chinese medicines" 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,

Richard Stewart Bradbury, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Alain Debrabant, PhD

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

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? Some issues - detailed in review

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? YES

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

Reviewer #2: 1) objectives are clear

2) study design is appropriate

3) sample size may be too small (3 mice per group in final efficacy study)

4) one-way ANOVA with correction was used and is appropriate--they need to show the statistics in table 3 in addition to stars in figure 4

5) no ethical concerns

Reviewer #3: For the analysis of the data in figure 4, a more appropriate statistical test would be repeated measures ANOVA (also available in GraphPad). This test compares the overall curves of each group rather than the data at different days. It is highly unlikely that there will be any difference in outcomes using this test, but it is just a better choice for the type of experiment performed.

Reviewer #4: In the methods, this reviewer has the following concerns for the authors to consider:

1) The hit rate is quite high at 1 μM (9 out of 87 compounds), which is uncommon for a random collection of natural products. It is necessary to ensure that the phenotypic HTS assay used in the study is reliable.

For the in vitro screen and efficacy assays, fluorescence-imaging based quantification assay using Sporo-Glo (that also labels intracellularly developing C. parvum) is not one of the well-established assays. There is a need to show the quality of the assay, including: 1) standard curves (signal intensity vs. # of parasite inoculums) to show the linearity and linear dynamic range of the assay, and 2) dose-dependent curve of a standard control compound for comparison (e.g., NTZ or PRM).

There is also a need to describe how the fluorescence data were analyzed. Some representative images of the control and treated specimens will also be helpful in assessing the assay quality.

For the compound library, there is a need to give a brief description on the background of the 87-compound library, and citations if available.

2) In animal experiments using SCID mice:

A) Only female mice were used, and the oocyst shedding in SCID mice (max. at ~120 oocysts/gram of feces) was much lower than previous reported (typically in mg scale). The authors may want to add some discussion on the fact, and mention that there might be a need to further validate the in vivo efficacy in other models with both male and female animals.

B) Please clarify some important technical details, including: 1) how fecal pellets were collected from individual mice (e.g., all pellets dropped in past 24 h or fresh pellets dropped in the past 1 h); and 2) how oocysts were counted/quantified after sugar flotation method, plus critical details of the “sugar flotation method”.

3) For the parasite strain (C. parvum strain HNJ-1): Please provide a GP60-based genotype/subtyping info (as an important parameter for comparison with other data in the literature).

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

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: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? Mostly YES

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? NO

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

Reviewer #2: 1) analysis presented is appropriate

2) results are clearly presented but the authors have not yet made all data available, which they state will be done upon acceptance. More information re statistics is needed in Table 3. The nature of the error bars in Figure 4 needs to be indicated in the figure legend.

3) the figures and tables are clear--as above, clarifications/additions are needed for table 3 and figure 4

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The results were reasonably well presented. Here are a few comments for clarification:

1) For clarity, it is suggested to change IC50 (recommended for use of 50% inhibition on a drug target in biochemical assays) to EC50 (recommended for use of 50% inhibition on parasite growth in vitro).

2) Histological images: Some local high-resolution images showing the parasites can be helpful.

3) In Table 2: please define the parameter for the 95% CI (95% CI for EC50 or CC50 values?).

4) Primary screen data (anti-cryptosporidial activities in vitro of the 87 compounds at 1 μM) can be provided in spreadsheet as part of the supplementary materials.

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

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: Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? Not completely

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? No

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

-Is public health relevance addressed? Not completely

Reviewer #2: 1) The general conclusions are supported by the data. That said, it is an overstatement to indicate they have identified drug candidates in the title, abstract, lay summary and throughout the paper. That is not the case based on how candidate is generally used in drug development. They have identified new lead compounds.

2) limitations are described--editorial suggestions for additions indicated below

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The conclusions are generally supported by the data presented.

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

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: It is clear the authors first language is not English, it is not the worst written manuscript I have read but would benefit from someone reading and correcting the grammar prior to submission.

Reviewer #2: Editorial suggestions:

1) Candidates is an overstatement, as implies optimization and derisking have been completed. More appropriate drug leads--same in abstract and throughout the manuscript

2) Line 75 about clofazimine is out of date. This repurposing screening hit was tested in a clinical trial in HIV patients with cryptosporidiosis and it was ineffective (see Clinical Infect Dis. 2021. 73: 183-91 and Clinical Infect Dis. 2021. 73: 192-4.)

3) Line 82 indicating a lack of studies showing compounds in cattle that reduce clinical symptoms is incorrect. Many studies have now been published for compounds in development showing efficacy against diarrhea in dairy calves (see PMID 31249291, PMID 29309415, PMID 28562588, and PMID 27923949).

4) Line 134--use of nitazoxanide as comparative drug. Specify what concentration of nitazoxanide was used for this control. Was it 1 micromolar like the screening compounds? Nitazoxanide lacks potency and is inactive at 1 micromolar in our hands and also published literature.

5) Figure 4: please specify what the error bars are in the figure legend. Are these standard deviation or standard error?

6) Table 3: a column should be added or asterisks, etc and a definition to indicate the results of statistical analysis. Also, for calculation of percent inhibition, are these comparisons vs control for a single time point or for area under the curves shown in figure 4?

7) Discussion lines 306-309: It is surprising and a little concern that there is no overlap in the hits vs Plasmodium and Toxoplasma, given the related of these species with Cryptosporidium. While differences in PK/PD requirements for in vivo efficacy can easily account for in vivo differences, most studies show an enrichment of active compounds in vitro (e.g. screens that have been done using the MMV Malaria Box; PMID 24566188 and PMID 29339392). More discussion of this would be of interest.

8) Line 327: lack of in vivo efficacy for Alisol-A and -B. This discussion needs to be expanded some. There is considerable data at this point suggesting that in vivo efficacy vs. Cryptosporidium is dependent on prolonged intestinal exposure. Lack of adequate intestinal exposure is the likely explanation (see PMID 28541457). This is important because it may be that modifications of Alisol-A and -B would produce compounds with better intestinal exposure and in vivo efficacy.

9) Line 341 re mechansim of nitazoxanide: While nitazoxanide is a PFOR inhibitor, there is considerable evidence that that is not its mechanism of action against Cryptosporidium species. Cryptosporidium species have an alternative PFOR that nitazoxanide and more potent analogs don't inhibit (see PMID 30297368).

10) Line 348 re future studies of mechanism: you should note also that it is unknown if these compounds are working by virtue of inhibiting Cryptosporidium factors or host factors. There are many publications demonstrating dependence on host factors (e.g. protein kinase C (PMID 35099276) and aquaporin (PMID 15851691)).

Reviewer #3: Lines 24-25 and 44 are oddly worded--the authors likely intended to state that cryptosporidiosis is the 2nd most common diarrheal disease, with rotavirus being the most common. But as worded, it sounds like cryptosporidiosis only occurs after someone has rotavirus infection.

The placement of a sentence about the anti-cancer effects of bufotalin in lines 77-78, between 2 sentences discussing compounds with anti-cryptosporidial activity is odd and at first gives the impression that bufotalin has previously been tested against cryptosporidia. It is probably best to move this sentence to the discussion.

Similarly, the sentence about bufotalin selectivity in lines 344-345 is oddly placed and breaks the flow of the paragraph. Perhaps the authors should create a separate paragraph discussing the effects of bufotalin in other studies.

Reviewer #4: 1) In reviewing anti-cryptosporidial drug discovery, there are several other good review articles and original research articles reporting phenotypic-based HTS. A more relevant one is the HTS of natural products (PubMed PMID: 31551955; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6736568).

2) Line 23, Abstract, first sentence: “Cryptosporidium spp. are intestinal opportunistic protozoan parasites…”: change intestinal to gastrointestinal (as there are also gastric Cryptosporidium species such as C. muris).

3) Other language and grammatical issues:

Line 46 and many other places: Please make “Cryptosporidium” (anti-Cryptosporidium) and “C. parvum” in italic.

Line 67 and other places if any: change the first letter in “Nitazoxanide” to lowercase (nitazoxanide) unless it starts a sentence. The same applies to other compound names and terms such as “Paromomycin”, “Malaria”, “Toxoplasmosis” and “Cancer” (lines 89 -90).

Some other irregular usages. For example, leave a space between a number and unit (e.g., line 164, 100μl could be 100 μL; line 172, the μ in μM does not need to be in italics …).

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

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 determine the effect of a series of compounds used in traditional Chinese medicine on the in vitro and in vivo growth of Cryptosporidium parvum. The results indicate the potential of bufotalin and possibly atropine sulfate for the chemotherapy of Cryptosporidosis, which currently lacks a robust chemotherapeutic strategy. Overall, the data is interesting and would be a useful guide to researchers in the field potentially leading to new chemotherapies for this neglected disease. In it’s present form there are many inconsistencies that should be addressed; some of these are grammatical and are easy fixes, but there are also some technical problems in the methodology that should be addressed prior to publication.

Specific comments:

1. Summary – line 46 change ‘top goal’ to priority

2. Summary – line 54 replace ‘also showed in vivo inhibitory effects’ with reduced oocyst shedding by 68% and 78%, respectively.

3. Summary – line 56-57 Could be good candidates … sounds as if the authors are uncertain of the potential better to state: The chemotherapeutic potential of these compounds are discussed.

4. Introduction – line 70 should add or children under 2 years after immunodeficient patients.

5. Methods – line 131 delete ‘To begin’

6. Methods – line 139 the composition and concentration of phosphate buffer should be stated.

7. Methods - line 140 similarly the composition and concentration of phosphate buffered saline should be stated, and the filter conditions described – what pore-size filter, syringe or pump driven, etc.

8. Methods – line 141 the HCT-8 cells were ‘treated’ with C. parvum? Do they mean ‘infected’

9. Methods – line 142 are the compounds in the 1 uM library dissolved in DMSO? The statement ‘uninvaded parasites’ is misleading and should be changed – the host cells are invaded?

10. Methods – line 144 the description sounds like the compounds added twice? Is this correct.

11. Methods – line 145-147 The fixation step needs more details, is the medium removed prior to addition of methanol? Also the statement ‘the cells were blocked…’ is vague, what cells host, parasite? And Sporo-Glo primarily stains sporozoites that are extracellular, motile stages, which are presumably removed by the washing? Is this method staining intracellular meront stages if so an explanation is needed.

12. Methods line – 180 What are the C. parvum oocysts suspended in?

13. Methods line – 185 What unfavorable effects?

14. Methods line – 193-195 In mouse model infections oocyst shedding does not occur under 5 days? How were the oocysts detected, using a modified acid-fast stain, Crypt-a-Glo?

15. Methods line – 199 side effects should be changed to toxicity.

16. Methods line – 210-212 The opening statement to this section indicates evaluation of growth inhibition and toxicity bit it is not clear how will toxicity be evaluated using this method?

17. Methods paragraph starting line – 214 A statement indicating what structural features are being looked at to evaluate toxicity should be added.

18. Results – why did the authors double the dose for atropine from 100 to 200 mg/kg when it is clear that 100 mg/kg did not cure? This is especially relevant since bufotalin was used at a fraction of this dose 0.1-0.025 mg/kg. With a mouse dose of 200 mg/kg it would scale to >10 g to treat a human?

19. Results – The data in Table 2 should be at best to one decimal place, the confidence in two decimal places is not supported by the analysis used.

20. Results – since the in vitro method used to evaluate parasites fixes them, the autors do not know if what they detect are non-viable stages which can give misleading data. Do the authors know if parasites can recover after treatment, this could have been done by taking a sample from in vitro incubation with the compound for a fixed time and infecting mice. Alternatively using RT-PCR of parasite 18-S RNA which has a short half-life would be a better indicator of viable parasite load. The uncertainty of parasite viability post compound treatment might explain some of the differences between in vitro and in vivo data obtained.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript from Hazzaz Bin Kabir reports screening and initial in vitro and in vivo follow up of a collection of compounds based on traditional Chinese medicines against Cryptosporidium parvum. These compounds haven't previously been screened against Cryptosporidium and several new leads with activity in a mouse model of infection were identified. The methods used are well established and standard, and the work appears to have been executed well. Overall, the results are of interest, as additional lead compounds are needed to develop better drugs for cryptosporidiosis. The importance of the results is somewhat over-represented by use of the word "candidate" as far more work is needed before any of these compounds would be considered candidates, which implies a far more thorough evaluation regarding PK, dose-scaling, and toxicology. That said, the compounds do represent interesting new leads worthy of further evaluation. I have additional fairly minor editorial suggestions as noted above.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: In this manuscript, Bin Kabir et al. reported the identification of anti-cryptosporidium activity of four compounds from traditional Chinese medicine herbs in vitro and in vivo (SCID mice), i.e., alisol-A, alisol-B, atropine sulfate and bufotalin. The four hits showed excellent, nanomolar anti-cryptosporidial activities (EC50 = ~80 to ~250 μM). Two compounds (atropine sulfate and bufotalin) were further evaluated in vivo, showing efficacy against the infection of C. parvum (reduction of oocyst shedding).

These observations are very interesting and important by providing new structures for potentially further development of anti-cryptosporidial therapeutics.

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

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: Nigel Yarlett

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Guan Zhu

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.0010947.r003

Decision Letter 1

Alain Debrabant, Richard Stewart Bradbury

14 Nov 2022

Dear Dr. Kato,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Identification of potent anti-Cryptosporidium new drug leads by screening traditional Chinese medicines' 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,

Richard Stewart Bradbury, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Alain Debrabant, PhD

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: The objectives are clearly stated; the study design is appropriate; the in vitro and in vivo experiments are appropriate for the study; the sample size is sufficient for statistical analysis of the results. No ethical concerns.

Reviewer #2: Objectives: yes

design appropriate: yes

population: na

sample size: saw statistically significant effects, so sample size with adequate power. It appears only one mouse experiment was performed, which is a concern re reproducibility and rigor, e.g. if something as simple as mislabeling tubes occurred.

analysis appropriate: yes

no ethical concerns

Reviewer #4: Authors have addressed the concerns on the Methods in the revised manuscript.

**********

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

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

Reviewer #1: The analysis is consistent with the proposed study; The results are clearly presented; The Figs are of a sufficient quality.

Reviewer #2: yes, analysis matches plan

clearly presented

figures, tables, etc are clear

Reviewer #4: Authors have addressed the concerns.

**********

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 supported by the data presented; the limitations are not discussed but I do not consider this an issue for this study where the study design is consistent with current methods;The authors discuss the relevance of their findings with respect to the development of new therapies for this disease. Relevance to public health is discussed.

Reviewer #2: Yes, these issues all in-line in the modified manuscript

Reviewer #4: The conclusions are supported by the presented data.

**********

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: One minor comment, on Line 69: add abbrev (NTZ) after nitazoxanide.

Reviewer #2: see below

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 addressed the comments satisfactorily. The manuscript will be a useful addition to the literature on drug development for the treatment of cryptosporidosis.

Reviewer #2: The authors adequately addressed all of my prior concerns in this revised manuscript. The conclusions and discussion are in-line with the data presented.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript has been revised to the satisfaction of this reviewer.

**********

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: Nigel Yarlett

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Guan Zhu

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010947.r004

Acceptance letter

Alain Debrabant, Richard Stewart Bradbury

25 Nov 2022

Dear Dr. Kato,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Identification of potent anti-Cryptosporidium new drug leads by screening traditional Chinese medicines," 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 Fig. The Effect of TCMs treated compounds on the body weight during C. parvum infection in mice.

    The body weights of mice infected with C. parvum are shown with the following drugs. Control: Infected-untreated mice, Alisol-A: Infected mice treated with different concentration of alisol-A at 50, 25, and 12.5 mg/kg for 11 consecutive days, Alisol-B: Infected mice treated with different concentration of alisol-B at 50, 25, and 12.5 mg/kg for 11 consecutive days, Atr-S: Infected mice treated with different concentration of atropine-sulfate at 100, 50, 25mg/kg for 11 consecutive days, Bufotalin: Infected mice treated with different concentration of bufotalin at 1, 0.5, and 0.1 mg/kg for 11 consecutive days. Treated mice values were not significant compared with those of uninfected mice.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Histological and SEM observation of C. parvum infected ileum tissues treated with compounds.

    (A) Histological sections of the small intestine (ileum) of different animal groups (treated with alisol-A and alisol-B). All mice were orally inoculated with Cryptosporidium parvum oocyst (1×105), then treated with each compound. The severity of C. parvum infection was scored from–to 3+. Ileal sections of treated groups [Alisol-A (Score: 3+) and Alisol-B (Score: 2+)] showing no remarkable reduction in the number of oocysts (arrowheads: C. parvum oocysts). HE. Bar = 100 μm. (B) Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) images of intestinal ileum tissue of two groups of mice infected with C. parvum. The SEM shows the intracellular structures as well as the surface of C. parvum attached to the host cells.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Histological observation of C. parvum-infected liver tissues treated with compounds.

    The higher magnification for the histological sections of the liver of different animal groups. Except for the negative control group, all mice were orally inoculated with Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts (1×105), then treated with each compound. (A) Uninfected mouse (negative control) showing karyomegaly and hepatocellular hypertrophy. (B) Non-treated mouse (positive control) showing hepatocellular hypertrophy and inflammation of the hepatocytes. (C) Nitazoxanide-treated groups showing karyomegaly and hepatocellular hypertrophy. (D) Atropine sulfate-treated group showing inflammation. (E) Bufotalin-treated group showing also inflammation and hepatocellular hypertrophy. Hematoxylin and eosin (HE) stain, Bar = 50 μm.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Comparative efficacies of four hit compounds treated for reducing oocysts shedding of C. parvum-infected neonatal SCID mice.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Excel spreadsheet containing the underlying numerical data and statistical analysis for Fig 1.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    This information will only be available after acceptance.


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

    RESOURCES