Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T00:11:47.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparative transcriptomics from intestinal cells of permissive and non-permissive hosts during Ancylostoma ceylanicum infection reveals unique signatures of protection and host specificity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2023

Andrea Langeland
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA
Emilia Grill
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Tropical Medicine, The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA
Amol C. Shetty
Affiliation:
Institue for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Damien M. O'Halloran*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA
John M. Hawdon*
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Tropical Medicine, The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Damien M. O'Halloran, E-mail: damienoh@gwu.edu; John M. Hawdon, E-mail: jhawdon@gwu.edu
Author for correspondence: Damien M. O'Halloran, E-mail: damienoh@gwu.edu; John M. Hawdon, E-mail: jhawdon@gwu.edu

Abstract

Soil-transmitted nematodes (STNs) place a tremendous burden on health and economics worldwide with an estimate of at least 1.5 billion people, or 24% of the population, being infected with at least 1 STN globally. Children and pregnant women carry the heavier pathological burden, and disease caused by the blood-feeding worm in the intestine can result in anaemia and delays in physical and intellectual development. These parasites are capable of infecting and reproducing in various host species, but what determines host specificity remains unanswered. Identifying the molecular determinants of host specificity would provide a crucial breakthrough towards understanding the biology of parasitism and could provide attractive targets for intervention. To investigate specificity mechanisms, members of the hookworm genus Ancylostoma provide a powerful system as they range from strict specialists to generalists. Using transcriptomics, differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in permissive (hamster) and non-permissive (mouse) hosts at different early time points during infection with A. ceylanicum were examined. Analysis of the data has identified unique immune responses in mice, as well as potential permissive signals in hamsters. Specifically, immune pathways associated with resistance to infection are upregulated in the non-permissive host, providing a possible protection mechanism that is absent in the permissive host. Furthermore, unique signatures of host specificity that may inform the parasite that it has invaded a permissive host were identified. These data provide novel insight into the tissue-specific gene expression differences between permissive and non-permissive hosts in response to hookworm infection.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Transcriptome analysis of host responses to A. ceylanicum infection. (a) Transcriptome summary with number and percentage of reads mapped to the mouse and hamster genomes when infected with A. ceylanicum across time. (b, c) Venn diagram showing the upregulated and downregulated DEGs at 16, 24 and 36 h in (b) mouse and (c) hamster. Upregulated and downregulated DEGs represent a minimum log2 (fold change) of ±1 for each time point, and an adjusted P value < 0.05 across all time points.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Gene set enrichment analysis of a non-permissive host during infection. (a) GO enrichment analysis of suppressed (downregulated) and activated (upregulated) DEGs at 16 h, (b) 24 h and (c) 36 h post-infection with A. ceylanicum. The colour represents the P-adjusted value, and size represents the number of genes that fall into each GO category. GeneRatio is the fraction of genes with the given GO term.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Gene set enrichment analysis of a permissive host during infection. (a) GO enrichment analysis of suppressed (downregulated) and activated (upregulated) DEGs at 16 h, (b) 24 h and (c) 36 h post-infection with A. ceylanicum. The colour represents the P-adjusted value, and size represents the number of genes that fall into each GO category. GeneRatio is the fraction of genes with the given GO term.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Enrichment analysis and overlap of statistically enriched GO terms in a non-permissive host. (a) Heatmap of enrichment analysis of statistically enriched GO terms for each infection time point. (b) Heatmap of enrichment analysis of all statistically enriched transcription factor targets for each infection time point. (c) Circos plot showing identical DEGs (purple) and GO term overlap (blue) across time points. Outer arcs represent the listed time points, while dark orange arcs represent DEGs that hit multiple time points. Gene ontologies that are unique to a time point are shown under the light orange arc.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Enrichment analysis and overlap of statistically enriched GO terms in a permissive host. (a) Heatmap of enrichment analysis of statistically enriched GO terms for each infection time point. (b) Heatmap of enrichment analysis of all statistically enriched transcription factor targets across various time points. (c) Circos plot showing identical DEGs (purple) and GO term overlap (blue) across time points. Outer arcs represent the listed time points, while dark orange arcs represent DEGs that hit multiple time points. Gene ontologies that are unique to a time point are shown under the light orange arc.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Transcriptome analysis of candidate DEGs responsible for infection outcome. Averaged normalized gene expressions from 4 time points with 3 mouse (orange) and 3 hamster (green) samples per time point (0, 16, 24 and 36 h). Error bars represent the standard deviation. Each gene colour correlates to their location in the proposed mechanism against hookworms shown in Fig. 7.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Representative schematic of the small intestine during helminth infection. After larval migration through the lungs and intestinal mucosa, epithelial cells secrete various alarmins in response to intestinal damage and ESPs, including IL-33 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP). These products together with IL-25 and leukotrienes produced by G protein-coupled receptor signalling in tuft cells promote the activation and differentiation of type 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2) and CD4 T helper 2 (Th2) cells. ILC2-derived IL-13 will promote tuft and goblet cell differentiation and hyperplasia, ultimately expelling the worm. Th2 secretion of IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 lead to eosinophil activation, differentiation of M2 macrophages, induction of parasite-specific IgG and IgE, and contributes to the smooth-muscle cell contractility, intestinal permeability and RELM-beta secretion. The additional proposed mechanisms here consist of the transcription factor SOX4 which may promote differentiation of tuft cells, while G protein-coupled receptors, such as GNG11, activate tuft cells in response to unknown helminth ESPs. The protease CTSL may downgrade ESPs and process antigens, while TLR3 binds parasitic nucleic acids to activate JUN regulation of Th1 and Th2 response, by either promoting the classical M1 polarization, or IL-4, which will activate the alternative M2 phenotype. Signalling by TRPM6 acts as a positive signal in a permissive host by providing nutrients such as Mg to the parasite to survive and conduct their biological processes within the host.

Supplementary material: PDF

Langeland et al. supplementary material

Langeland et al. supplementary material 1

Download Langeland et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 169.7 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Langeland et al. supplementary material

Langeland et al. supplementary material 2

Download Langeland et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 71.8 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Langeland et al. supplementary material

Langeland et al. supplementary material 3

Download Langeland et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 70.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Langeland et al. supplementary material

Langeland et al. supplementary material 4

Download Langeland et al. supplementary material(File)
File 12.8 KB