A rotifer-derived paralytic compound prevents transmission of schistosomiasis to a mammalian host.

Schistosomes are parasitic flatworms that infect over 200 million people, causing the neglected tropical disease, schistosomiasis. A single drug, praziquantel, is used to treat schistosome infection. Limitations in mass drug administration programs and the emergence of schistosomiasis in nontropical areas indicate the need for new strategies to prevent infection. It has been known for several decades that rotifers colonizing the schistosome's snail intermediate host produce a water-soluble factor that paralyzes cercariae, the life cycle stage infecting humans. In spite of its potential for preventing infection, the nature of this factor has remained obscure. Here, we report the purification and chemical characterization of Schistosome Paralysis Factor (SPF), a novel tetracyclic alkaloid produced by the rotifer Rotaria rotatoria. We show that this compound paralyzes schistosome cercariae and prevents infection and does so more effectively than analogous compounds. This molecule provides new directions for understanding cercariae motility and new strategies for preventing schistosome infection.

Introduction

Schistosomiasis—caused by parasitic flatworms of the genus Schistosoma—is a major neglected tropical disease, affecting over 200 million people, with over 700 million people at risk of infection [1-3]. Praziquantel is currently the only drug used for treating schistosomiasis. Concerns about the emergence of drug resistance [4,5], as well as limitations observed in mass drug administration programs [6-9], highlight the need to devise new strategies for preventing infection by these parasites. This need is amplified by the recent identification of people infected with human-livestock hybrid schistosomes and the geographical expansion of schistosomiasis to temperate regions [10-12].

Schistosomes have a complex life cycle that alternates between an intermediate host (snail) and a definitive host (mammal) via 2 free-living, water-borne forms called miracidia and cercariae, respectively [13] (Fig 1A). For decades, inconsistency in cercarial production by snails and infectivity of mammalian hosts has been observed in most schistosome laboratories [14]. Intriguingly, Stirewalt and Lewis reported that rotifer colonization on shells of the snail intermediate host (Biomphalaria glabrata) significantly reduced cercariae output, motility, and infectivity [15]. Furthermore, they observed that cercarial motility was affected not only by the presence of rotifers but also by rotifer-conditioned water, indicating that rotifers released water-soluble molecules with paralytic activity. Almost 40 years have passed since this important finding, yet this factor’s identity has remained a mystery.

Fig 1

R. rotatoria–conditioned water paralyzes Schistosoma mansoni cercariae.

(A) Life cycle of S. mansoni. Adult parasites, residing in the mammalian host vasculature, lay eggs (not shown). Upon exposure to fresh water, eggs release miracidia, which infect the appropriate snail host. Inside the snail, the parasite reproduces asexually, ultimately producing large numbers of free-swimming infective larvae (cercariae) that can penetrate mammalian skin to continue the life cycle (adapted from [16]). (B and C) Nomarski differential interference contrast microscopy images of R. rotatoria and Philodina acuticornis (arrowhead indicates the rostrum in R. rotatoria, which is lacking in P. acuticornis). Scale bars: 100 μm. (D and E) Maximum intensity projection (5 s, 150 frames) of cercariae motility after treatment with R. rotatoria– or P. acuticornis–conditioned water.

Results and discussion

Purification of the rotifer-derived compound

Encouraged by this anticercarial effect and its potential to prevent schistosome infection, we sought to purify this paralyzing agent. We isolated individual rotifers from snail shells and found 2 species, R. rotatoria (Fig 1B) and Philodina acuticornis (Fig 1C), as previously reported by Stirewalt and Lewis [15]. To identify which rotifer was responsible for the paralytic effect, we grew clonal isolates of each species, producing rotifer-conditioned artificial pond water (APW). Adding R. rotatoria-conditioned APW to freshly collected cercariae resulted in gradual paralysis within 5 min (Fig 1D). Most cercariae stopped swimming and sank to the bottom of the dish. Tapping the dish could stimulate their movement, but their response was limited to writhing on the dish bottom or short-distance swimming before becoming paralyzed again. In contrast, P. acuticornis–conditioned water had no effect (Fig 1E).

To purify the paralyzing agent, we performed molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) filtration of rotifer-conditioned water and found that the activity was present in the <650 Da fraction. The <650 Da filtrate was fractionated by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC; Fig 2A), and each fraction was tested on cercariae. Paralysis was only observed following treatment with a peak eluting at 25 to 27 min (Fig 2B). As expected, this peak was detected only in R. rotatoria–but not P. acuticornis–conditioned water (Fig 2B). A second round of HPLC on this peak revealed one peak (eluting at 24–26 min) with paralytic activity (Fig 2C). A predominant signal of 273.16 Da (protonated molecular ion [M+H]) in this peak was revealed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (MALDI-MS; Fig 2D). Consistent with the paralysis assay, this signal (m/z 273.16) was detected exclusively in the fraction eluting at 24 to 26 min but not in the fractions before or after (Fig 2E). These results suggested that the component with m/z 273.16 was the paralyzing agent, which we named “Schistosome Paralysis Factor” (SPF). We then determined the monoisotopic mass for protonated SPF using high-resolution quadrupole time-of-flight (Q-TOF) MS, 273.1595 Da (Fig 2F), suggesting C16H20N2O2 as the best-fitting formula for SPF.

Fig 2

SPF is a novel tetracyclic alkaloid.

(A) Flowchart for SPF purification. (B) First HPLC plots of R. rotatoria–and P. acuticornis–conditioned water. All fractions were tested for bioactivity; the red arrowhead indicates the only active peak. (C) Second HPLC plot of the bioactive fraction (red arrowhead in panel B). All peaks were tested for bioactivity; the blue arrowhead indicates the only peak containing activity. (D) MS showing the dominant signal of m/z 273.1601 from the peak (blue arrowhead). (E) MS plots showing this signal (asterisk, m/z 273.1601) was only detected in the fraction eluting at 24 to 26 min. (F) Tandem MS acquired from high-resolution Q-TOF analysis. (G and H) NOESY resolved the relative stereochemistry of 3 chiral centers and narrowed it down to 2 possible configurations. HPLC, high-performance liquid chromatography; MS, mass spectrometry; MWCO, molecular weight cut-off; NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance; NOESY, Nuclear Overhauser effect spectroscopy; Q-TOF, quadrupole time-of-flight; SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor.

SPF is a novel tetracyclic alkaloid

To elucidate its structure, we purified approximately 0.1 mg SPF from 25 L R. rotatoria–conditioned water. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy revealed a novel tetracyclic structure. Briefly, 1H spectra showed the presence of 19 protons in the compound (S1 Fig), which agrees with the best-fitting formula and Hydrogen/Deuterium exchange mass spectrometry (MS) analysis (S2 Fig). Heteronuclear single quantum coherence spectroscopy (HSQC) revealed 3 methyl, 2 methylene, 6 methine groups, and 5 quaternary carbons (S3 Fig). Total correlation spectrometry (TOCSY) showed that aliphatic protons, except 2 methyl groups, are from one spin system (S4 Fig). The connectivity of the neighboring groups was derived from correlation spectroscopy (COSY) and heteronuclear multiple-bond correlation (HMBC) spectra (S5 Fig and S6 Fig). Overall, the aliphatic region is composed of a dimethylpyrrolidine structure, which is linked to an indole via a CH2 group and an oxygen. Nuclear Overhauser effect spectroscopy (NOESY) suggested (R, S, S) or (S, R, R) configurations on the chiral centers (S7 Fig). Altogether, combined NMR analysis led to 2 possible structures (Fig 2G and 2H and S1 Table).

SPF and its analogs paralyze cercariae in a dose-dependent manner

To test its dose dependency, we examined the paralytic effect of serially diluted SPF on cercariae by quantifying their movement over time. In the absence of SPF, over 82% of cercariae were free swimming over 3 min (Fig 3A and S1 Data). In 2.5 nM SPF, the percentage of free-swimming cercariae dropped to 67% 3 minutes after drug treatment. As the concentration of SPF increased, so did the rate of paralysis, and more cercariae were paralyzed at the end of treatment. We observed maximum effects in 250 nM and 2.5 μM SPF, with the majority of cercariae paralyzed within 30 s.

Fig 3

Structure-activity relationships of SPF and related compounds as measured by cercarial motility assays.

(A–G) Percentage of cercariae (approximately 50) continuing to swim over 3 min after addition of each compound at specified final concentrations. Triplicates were performed. Data are mean ± SD. Serotonin structure in SPF is outlined in red. See S1 Data for corresponding raw data. SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor.

Two natural compounds from Streptomyces sp., ht-13-A and ht-13-B, are structurally related to SPF; they were isolated based on their affinities for human serotonin receptors [17]. All 3 alkaloids share a novel oxepineindole framework fused with a pyrrolidine ring (Fig 3A–3C and S1 Data; note the serotonin backbone highlighted in red in Fig 3A). Although synthesis of SPF has not been achieved, total syntheses of ht-13-A and ht-13-B have been reported [18-20]. To test whether this shared tetracyclic scaffold is responsible for the paralytic effect, we analyzed structure-activity relationships by using ht-13-A, ht-13-B, 3 ht-13-A derivatives [18], and one epimer in cercarial paralysis assays. Importantly, ht-13-A, although not as potent as SPF, also had a paralytic effect on cercariae (Fig 3B and S1 Data). In contrast, ht-13-B did not paralyze cercariae, suggesting that the extra methyl group disrupts interaction with the target (Fig 3C and S1 Data). Of the 3 ht-13-A analogs, only ht-13-A-pr effectively paralyzed cercariae; it was more potent than ht-13-A, indicating that the nature of the side chain is important for proper target interaction (Fig 3D and 3E and S1 Data). In contrast to ht-13-A and Ht-13-A-pr, the epimer was unable to paralyze cercariae; these results support the (R, S) configuration of SPF at C12, 13 as the biologically active form (Fig 2G).

SPF prevents mammalian infection

Because motility of the cercarial tail is essential for swimming and provides force for skin penetration [21-23], we examined whether SPF prevented infection. We treated approximately 200 cercariae with different concentrations of SPF for 10 min and then tested their infectivity by exposing them to mouse tails for 30 min (N = 6 for each condition). Six weeks post infection, we euthanized the mice, counted schistosomes recovered after hepatic portal vein perfusion, and examined liver pathology. From controls, we recovered 83 adult worms on average (Fig 4B and S2 Data), consistent with typical recoveries of approximately 40% [24]. Livers from these mice appeared dark and contained extensive granulomas (Fig 4A). In contrast, we did not recover any adult worms from mice after treatment with 250 nM or 2.5 μM SPF (Fig 4B and S2 Data), and no granulomas were observed (Fig 4A). Histological examination confirmed that these livers were free of schistosome eggs (Fig 4E and S2 Data), suggesting complete inhibition of infection. These data are consistent with the full paralysis observed after treatment with 250 nM or 2.5 μM SPF (Fig 3A and S1 Data). Although 25 nM SPF paralyzed most cercariae in vitro, the effects on mouse infection were not as severe (Fig 4A). Mechanical and/or chemical stimuli from mouse tails may overcome SPF-induced paralytic effects at low SPF concentrations. Notably, neither Ht-13-A nor Ht-13-A-pr blocked infection as completely as 250 nM SPF, even at 25 μM (Fig 4A, 4C, 4D, 4F and 4G and S2 Data). Under more realistic infection conditions, in which mouse tails were lifted 1 to 2 cm from the bottom of the test tube containing cercariae, so they had to swim actively towards the tail to infect the mouse, Ht-13-A and Ht-13-A-pr were still not as effective as SPF, which completely blocked infection (S8 Fig).

Fig 4

Treating cercariae with SPF, Ht-13-A, or Ht-13-A-pr blocks schistosome infection and alleviates pathology.

(A) Representative livers (post perfusion) from mice (N = 6) exposed to drug-treated cercariae. Livers from mice treated with control and lower drug concentrations were darker in color and contained more granulomas (white spots). With higher drug concentrations, livers had normal morphologies with few or no granulomas; 25 μM SPF treatment was ND because of limited amounts of purified SPF. (B–D) Numbers of adult worms recovered from exposed mice (2 experiments for each drug, 6 mice total for each condition). (E–G) Numbers of schistosome eggs per area (/mm2) from liver sections (4–6 sections per mouse). Data for panels B–G are mean ± SD. Statistics: One-way ANOVA, post Dunnett’s test. See S2 Data for corresponding raw data. ND, not determined; SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor.

Conclusion

This work has identified a novel tetracyclic alkaloid, produced by the rotifer R. rotatoria, that paralyzes the infective larvae of schistosomes. Although its mechanism of action remains unknown, its chemical structure provides important clues. SPF contains a serotonin backbone, suggesting that SPF might antagonize serotonin signaling, perhaps via G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) or serotonin-gated channels. Consistent with this idea, the structurally related compounds, ht-13-A and ht-13-B, bind several human serotonin receptors [17]. In schistosomes, serotonin has been implicated in neuromuscular functions in multiple life cycle stages [25-28]; knocking down a serotonergic GPCR (Sm5HTR) in schistosomulae and adult worms led to decreased movement [29]. Interestingly, praziquantel partially activates the human serotonin receptor, HT2BR, suggesting that it may also target schistosome serotonergic GPCRs [30].

The chemical ecology underlying R. rotatoria's production of SPF is also unclear. Whether SPF is used naturally to combat other aquatic creatures (e.g., to prevent other rotifers from colonizing areas where R. rotaria live) and, thus, the effect on schistosome cercariae is indirect, or whether SPF benefits the rotifer's commensal host will require further study. Because compounds with structural similarities to SPF are produced by Streptomyces sp., it will be important to examine the possibility that SPF is not directly produced by the rotifer but rather by constituent(s) of its own microbiome. However, given that horizontal gene transfer is well documented in rotifers [31,32], it is also possible that R. rotatoria has acquired the synthetic machinery to produce SPF on its own. Future work will help reveal the source of SPF and its biosynthetic pathway.

In the past few decades, the discovery and development of natural products have helped combat parasitic diseases [33]. Based on its ability to block infection, SPF holds great promise as an antischistosomal agent. Identifying the biologically active chemical scaffolds and understanding SPF's mode of action are expected to provide important clues for preventing schistosomiasis.

Materials and methods

APW

Four stock solutions were prepared to make APW [34]: (1) 0.25 g/L FeCl3 • 6H2O, (2) 12.9 g/L CaCl2 • 2H2O, (3) 10 g/L MgSO4 • 7H2O, and (4) 34 g/L KH2PO4 1.5 g/L (NH4)2SO4 (pH 7.2) (Sigma-Aldrich; St. Louis, MO),. For 1 L APW, we added 0.5 mL of FeCl3 solution, 2.5 mL CaCl2 solution, 2.5 mL MgSO4 solution, and 1.25 mL phosphate buffer.

Obtaining S. mansoni cercariae

Infected B. glabrata snails provided by Biomedical Research Institute (BRI; Rockville, MD) were maintained in APW and fed Layer Crumbles (chicken feed; Rural King, Mattoon, IL). To obtain S. mansoni cercariae, B. glabrata snails were exposed to light at 26°C for 1 to 2 h. APW containing cercariae was passed through a 100 μm cell strainer (Falcon; Corning, NY) to remove snail food and feces. Cercariae were then collected using custom-made 20 μm cell strainers.

Rotifer culture

Because both rotifer species reproduce parthenogenetically, we clonally expanded each species into 1 L cultures from a single rotifer. Individual rotifers (R. rotatoria and P. acuticornis) were initially isolated from the shell of B. glabrata and cultured in APW in 24-well plates. Each individual colony was expanded into ever-larger culture volumes and ultimately maintained in 2 L flasks. Both species were fed Roti-rich liquid invertebrate food (Florida Aqua Farms Inc.; Dade City, FL). Rotifer-conditioned water was collected every month by filtering out the rotifers using a 20-μm cell strainer. Filtered rotifers were then passaged to fresh APW to propagate the cultures.

Crude rotifer-conditioned water preparation

One-liter rotifer media was lyophilized, reconstituted with 50 mL dH2O, and filtered through 10,000 and 650 MWCO Pall Minimate TFF Capsules with Omega membrane (Ann Arbor, MI). Filtrate (<650 Da) was freeze dried. For RP-HPLC, 300 mg of the dried material was dissolved in dH2O and run on a RP-HPLC—Merck Chromolith semi-prep RP-18e column (Darmstadt, Germany) at 5 ml/min using a gradient of 100% A (water) to 60% B (acetonitrile; ACN) in 60 min. A total of 10 mL fractions were collected and assayed for biological activity. Fractions containing biological activity were saved for further study.

Further purification of rotifer media

The bioactive fractions were pooled, freeze dried with SpeedVac (Savant, MA), reconstituted with 500 μL dH2O, and injected into a 4.6 mm diameter × 25 cm Symmetry column (Waters; Millford, MA). A Breeze2 analytical LC system (Waters; Millford, MA) was employed for separation at 0.5 mL/min with the following solvents and gradients: Solvent A, 0.1% formic acid (FA); solvent B, methanol with 0.1% FA; 0 to 10 min 0% to 10% B, 10 to 30 min 10% to 35% B, 30 to 33 min 35% to 80% B, 33 to 37 min 80% to 80% B, 37 to 40 min 80% to 0% B. Eluents were collected manually based on peak elution. All fractions were lyophilized, reconstituted with water, and analyzed with MALDI-MS. Fractions containing biological activity were saved for future use.

MALDI-MS analysis

For each collected fraction, 1 μL of sample solution was spotted on a ground steel MALDI target and mixed with 1 μL of alpha-cyano-4-hydroxy-cinnamic acid (CHCA; Sigma-Aldrich; St. Louis, MO) solution (10 mg/mL CHCA in 50% ACN solution with 0.005% trifluoroacetic acid). Mass calibration, spectra acquisition, and analysis were performed under conditions as previously described by Tillmaand and colleagues [35].

High-resolution Q-TOF MS analysis

A total of 1 μL of the bioactive fraction was separated on a Magic 0.1 × 150mm column (Michrom, CA) and analyzed with a maXis 4G mass spectrometer (Bruker; Billerica, MA) using previously established methods for metabolite study [36]. The separation was performed at 300 nl/min by use of solvent A (95% water, 5% ACN with 0.1% FA) and solvent B (5% water, 95% ACN with 0.1% FA) with the following gradient conditions: 0 to 5 min 4% B, 5 to 50 min 4% to 50% B, 50 to 52 min 50% to 90% B, 52 to 60 min 90% B, 60 to 70 min 90% to 4% B, 70 to 90 min 4% B.

Hydrogen/deuterium exchange analysis

Acidified deuterated methanol (CD3OD, methanol-d4, Sigma-Aldrich; St. Louis, MO) was made by adding 1 μL of deuterated FA into 1 mL of CD3OD. A total of 2 μL of the bioactive fractions were added into 18 μL of acidified methanol above; 15 μL of the mixture were analyzed by direct infusion into a modified 11 Tesla Fourier-transform mass spectrometer (FTMS; Thermo Scientific; Waltham, MA) using a NanoMate robot (Advion; Ithaca, NY) [37]. Full spectra were acquired with resolution set at 100 k.

NMR analysis

Purified bioactive materials were dissolved in 250 μL of CD3OD and transferred into a 5-mm Shigemi NMR tube with a glass magnetic plug with susceptibility matched to CD3OD on the bottom. All NMR data were collected at 40°C on an Agilent VNMRS 750 MHz spectrometer equipped with a 5 mm Varian indirect-detection probe with z gradient capability. Collected NMR data included 1 H spectrum, gradient selected correlation spectroscopy (gCOSY), TOCSY, NOESY with a mixing time of 500 ms, 1H-13C HSQC spectroscopy, and 1H-13C HMBC spectroscopy. The NMR spectra were analyzed using Mnova NMR software (Mestrelab Research, Spain).

Determination of SPF concentration

The proton quantification experiments were performed at 23°C on an Agilent 750 MHz VNMRS NMR spectrometer equipped with a 5 mm triple-resonance (1H/13C/15N) indirect-detection probe with XYZ PFG gradient capability. The probe was calibrated using the qEstimate tool in the Agilent VnmrJ4.2 software with a known standard. The proton spectrum of the sample was collected with a 90° pulse angle of 8.5 ms, 16 scans, and 10.4 s delay between scans. The Agilent VnmrJ4.2 software was used to determine the concentration of the sample based on the integration values of proton peaks. A total of 5 well-resolved proton peaks (7.12 ppm [1 H], approximately 6.89 ppm [2 H], 4.41 [1 H], 3.83 [3H], and approximately 3.58 [2H]) was used, and the concentration of the sample was 1.55 ± 0.07 mM. All concentrations used in the cercarial paralysis assay were calculated based on this value.

Cercarial paralysis assay

To capture the whole field while avoiding excess reflected light in a well, we used the lid of a 96-well plate (Costar; Corning, NY). A total of 40 μL of APW containing approximately 50 cercariae were added to each shallow well on the lid; 10 μL of SPF (dissolved in APW) was then added to reach the final concentration indicated. Using a high-speed camera (Olympus i-SPEED TR) attached to a stereomicroscope (Leica MZ125), we recorded cercariae movement at 20 to 60 fps at 1.25× magnification just prior to addition of test compounds until 3 to 4 min after treatment started. Raw movies were converted to.avi files using i-SPEED Viewer and compressed into JPEG format using ImageJ (addition of compound is considered time 0). We then counted the numbers of free-swimming or paralyzed cercariae every 5 s for 1 min and every 30 s thereafter for 3 min. The number of dead cercariae (those that never swim before and after SPF treatment) were subtracted from data. Experiments were performed in biological triplicate.

Mouse infectivity assay

Swiss Webster mice (female) were purchased from Taconic Biosciences (Rensselaer, NY) and bred by RARC SPF Mouse Breeding Core (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI). Mouse infections were performed by exposing mouse tails to S. mansoni cercariae according to standard protocol from BRI [24] with slight modifications. Briefly, we secured mice in rodent restrainers (Thomas Scientific, Cat #551-BSRR, Swedesboro, NJ) and put them vertically on top of a rack with grids. We pipetted 100 μL of each drug at proper concentration into a skinny glass tube (Fisher Scientific, Cat #14-958A, Hampton, NH) inside a 12 × 75 mm holding glass tube (VWR, Cat # 47729–570, Radnor, PA). A total of 300 μL of APW containing approximately 200 cercariae were pipetted into each skinny tube and incubated for 10 min before we inserted the mouse tail. Mouse tails were wiped with APW-moistened Kimwipes, inserted into the skinny tube, and exposed to cercariae for 30 min. The mouse tail was touching the bottom of the test tube unless otherwise specified. Six weeks post infection we euthanized these mice using pentobarbitol and perfused them according to standard protocols [24]. For each drug, we initially used 3 mice for controls (APW only) and 3 mice for each concentration tested except for 25 nM Ht-13-A and Ht-13-A-pr. We then repeated the experiments again with 3 mice for each condition. In addition to that, we included 6 mice for 25 nM Ht-13-A and Ht-13-A-pr.

Adult worms were recovered by hepatic portal vein perfusion, and males and females were unpaired by a brief incubation in 2.5% Tricaine (Sigma-Aldrich; St. Louis, MO) to facilitate counting. We counted total numbers of adult worms under a stereomicroscope (Leica MZ75). Livers from infected mice were fixed in 4% formaldehyde in PBS overnight. The largest liver lobes (left lobes) were submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Histology Core Facility for sectioning and Hematoxylin and Eosin staining. Each left lobe was evenly cut into 4 to 6 pieces and paraffin embedded on a large cassette. One slide (4–6 liver sections) for each liver was used for histological examination, which provided a representative view throughout the whole liver lobe. We took a tiled image of the whole slide using a Zeiss Axio Zoom microscope and used ImageJ to determine the area of each section. Total numbers of eggs in each section were counted and normalized to the area.

In adherence to the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, all experiments with and care of mice were performed in accordance with protocols approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (protocol approval number M005569).

Statistical analysis

GraphPad Prism (version 7) was used for all statistical analyses. One-way ANOVA test followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparison test was used. Mean ± SD is shown in all figures.

1H NMR spectrum of SPF.

Peak areas of the nonoverlapping peaks were integrated and protons (δH 1.34, 3.10, 3.52, 3.56, 3.81, 4.40, 6.86, 6.90, and 7.09) showed integer ratios, supporting the mass spectrometry results that their signals were from the same compound. After adding the integration of overlapping peaks (δH 2.70, 2.72, 2.77, 2.79), a total of 19 protons were discovered, consistent with the best-fitting formula from the mass spectrometry results: (C16H20N2O2). NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance; SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

FTMS determined the accurate m/z of the target molecule and revealed its isotopic pattern.

Before deuterium exchange (top panel), 273.1597 was the measured m/z of the target molecule. After deuterium exchange (bottom panel), m/z of the base peak increased to 275.1722 (deuterium singly charged target molecule with one proton replaced by deuterium), suggesting the presence of one exchangeable proton in SPF. FTMS, Fourier-transform mass spectrometry; SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

1H-13C HSQC spectroscopy NMR spectrum of SPF.

HSQC revealed the cross-correlation between directly bonded proton and carbon nuclei and determined the number of methyl, methylene, and methine groups. A total of 19 protons were attached to 11 carbons, including 3 methyl groups (δC 14.0, δH 1.34; δC 41.7, δH 2.71; δC 62.2, δH 3.81), 2 methylene groups (δC 29.0, δH 2.79, 3.56; δC 65.8, δH 2.70, 3.52), and 6 methine groups (δC 116.8, δH 6.86; δC 106.6, δH 6.90; δC 124.9, δH 7.09; δC 76.7, δH 3.10; δC 88.2, δH 4.40; δC 37.2, δH 2.77). The other 5 carbons that did not show up in the HSQC spectrum are the quaternary carbons. Based on the carbon chemical shift, the 2 methyl groups (δC 41.7, δH 2.71, and δC 62.2, δH 3.81) are likely to be bound to nitrogen and oxygen, respectively. HSQC, heteronuclear single quantum coherence spectroscopy; NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance; SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

TOCSY NMR spectrum of SPF.

TOCSY revealed that the aliphatic protons except the 2 methyl groups (δH 2.71 and 3.81) found binding to N and O in HSQC (S3 Fig) are from a single spin system. Cross-peaks were also observed among the aromatic proton δH 7.09 and the aliphatic protons (δH 3.56, 2.79 and 3.10) due to long-range couplings. HSQC, heteronuclear single quantum coherence spectroscopy; NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance; SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor; TOCSY, total correlation spectrometry.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

COSY NMR spectrum of SPF.

Based on HSQC, protons 11 and 11ʹ (δH 2.79 and 3.56) are on the same carbon. Both have cross-peaks with proton 12 (δH 3.10) on COSY, which has an additional cross-peak with proton 13 (δH 4.40). This suggests CH2 (C11, H11, and 11ʹ)-CH (C12, H12)-CH (C13, H13) connectivity. Similarly, proton 14 (δH 2.77) is connected to CH (C13, H13). Methyl group CH3 (proton 17, δH 1.34) and CH2 group (proton 15, 15ʹ, δH 2.70, 3.52) are directly connected to CH (proton 14). COSY, correlation spectroscopy; HSQC, heteronuclear single quantum coherence spectroscopy; NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance; SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

H-13C HMBC NMR spectrum of SPF.

(A) Aliphatic region. Given the results from the COSY (S5 Fig) and the chemical shifts of C12 and C15 (δC 76.7 and 65.8), C12 and C15 are joined to a heteroatom. Because proton 18 (δH 2.71) has cross-peaks with both C12 and C15, it is a nitrogen atom that connects methyl group (δC 41.7, δH 2.71 on position 18), CH group (δC 76.7, δH 3.10), and CH2 group (δC 65.8, δH 2.70 and 3.52). C13 has a chemical shift of 88.2 ppm, suggesting its connection to an oxygen. With HMBC, TOCSY, HSQC, and COSY, the connectivity of the aliphatic portions is resolved. (B) Aromatic region. The connectivity-built aliphatic structure has the formula C7H13NO, which leaves C9H6NO after subtracting from the best-fitting formula. HSQC (S3 Fig) showed the existence of a methoxyl group (δC 62.2, δH 3.81). Therefore, the aromatic region was composed of C8H3N. HMBC data showed that 3 aromatic protons were located in different rings, implying a fused aromatic ring structure with one nitrogen. A substituted indole was the most common structure utilized in organisms with the matching formula. In addition, HMBC showed that protons on the methoxyl group (δH 3.81) and the aromatic proton (δH 6.90) have cross-peaks with carbon (δC 143.1), suggesting they are meta to each other. The other proton (δH 6.86) was vicinal to proton (δH 6.90) because of their coupling seen in the COSY spectrum (S5 Fig). The aromatic singlet proton δH 7.09 showed cross-peaks with 3 aromatic carbons, 2 of those carbons (δC 120.6 and δC 138.1) had cross-peaks with protons (δH 6.86 and δH 6.90), respectively, consistent with an indole configuration. HMBC further confirmed C (δC 110.6) was linked to CH2 (δH 2.79 and 3.56), and C (δC 143.7) was linked to the CH (δC 88.2, δH 4.40) across an oxygen atom. COSY, correlation spectroscopy; HMBC, heteronuclear multiple-bond correlation; HSQC, heteronuclear single quantum coherence spectroscopy; NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance; SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor; TOCSY, total correlation spectrometry.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

NOESY NMR spectrum of SPF.

(A) Aliphatic region. The intensities of selected cross-peaks were integrated using Mnova software and shown in the spectrum. (B) Aromatic region. Results of the NOESY experiment support the final structures (Fig 2G and 2H) due to the presence of a NOE signal between H (δH 3.81) and H (δH 1.34), which could only be observed between protons with short spatial distance. For protons on the 3 consecutive chiral centers, H (δH 4.40) had an intense cross-peak with H (δH 2.77), whereas a weak signal was observed between H (δH 4.40) and H (δH 3.10) and no signal was observed between H (δH 2.77) and H (δH 3.10). This suggests that H (δH 4.40) and H (δH 2.77) are close to each other and both are distant from H (δH 3.10), which corresponds to (R, S, S) or (S, R, R) configuration on C 12, 13, 14 (δC 76.7, 88.2 and 37.2). This was further supported by NOESY signals between H (δH 2.79, 3.56) and the 3 H on chiral centers. H (δH 4.40) had a cross-peak with H (δH 2.79) but no cross-peak with H (δH 3.56). However, the opposite was observed for H (δH 3.10), which had a cross-peak with H (δH 3.56) but no cross-peak with H (δH 2.79). NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance; NOE, nuclear Overhauser effect; NOESY, nuclear Overhauser effect spectroscopy; SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Stringent mouse infection experiment.

Numbers of adult worms recovered from mice exposed to approximately 100 cercariae that were pretreated with APW (N = 8), 2.5 μM SPF (N = 7), 2.5 μM Ht-13-A (N = 7), or 2.5 μM Ht-13-A-pr (N = 7). The mouse tail was lifted slightly during exposure so that its tip was 1 to 2 cm from the bottom of the test tube, avoiding direct contact with paralyzed cercariae. Data are mean ± SD, See S2 Data for corresponding raw data. APW, artificial pond water; SPF, Schistosome Paralysis Factor.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Summary of protons and carbons from 1H, COSY, HSQC, HMBC, and NOESY.

COSY, correlation spectroscopy; HMBC, heteronuclear multiple-bond correlation; HSQC, heteronuclear single quantum coherence spectroscopy; NOESY, nuclear Overhauser effect spectroscopy

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Raw data for cercarial paralysis assays (Fig 3).

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Raw data for mouse infectivity assays (Fig 4 and S8 Fig).

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

4 Jul 2019

Dear Phil,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A rotifer-derived paralytic compound prevents transmission of schistosomiasis to a mammalian host" for consideration as a Short Reports by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I'm writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

**Important**: Please also see below for further information regarding completing the MDAR reporting checklist. The checklist can be accessed here: https://plos.io/MDARChecklist

Please re-submit your manuscript and the checklist, within two working days, i.e. by Jul 08 2019 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Best wishes,

Roli

Roland G Roberts, PhD,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

==================

INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTING CHECKLIST:

PLOS Biology is pleased to support the "minimum reporting standards in the life sciences" initiative (https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/9sm4x/). This effort brings together a number of leading journals and reproducibility experts to develop minimum expectations for reporting information about Materials (including data and code), Design, Analysis and Reporting (MDAR) in published papers. We believe broad alignment on these standards will be to the benefit of authors, reviewers, journals and the wider research community and will help drive better practise in publishing reproducible research.

We are therefore participating in a community pilot involving a small number of life science journals to test the MDAR checklist. The checklist is intended to help authors, reviewers and editors adopt and implement the minimum reporting framework.

IMPORTANT: We have chosen your manuscript to participate in this trial. The relevant documents can be located here:

MDAR reporting checklist (to be filled in by you): https://plos.io/MDARChecklist

**We strongly encourage you to complete the MDAR reporting checklist and return it to us with your full submission, as described above. We would also be very grateful if you could complete this author survey:

https://forms.gle/seEgCrDtM6GLKFGQA

Additional background information:

Interpreting the MDAR Framework: https://plos.io/MDARFramework

Please note that your completed checklist and survey will be shared with the minimum reporting standards working group. However, the working group will not be provided with access to the manuscript or any other confidential information including author identities, manuscript titles or abstracts. Feedback from this process will be used to consider next steps, which might include revisions to the content of the checklist. Data and materials from this initial trial will be publicly shared in September 2019. Data will only be provided in aggregate form and will not be parsed by individual article or by journal, so as to respect the confidentiality of responses.

Please treat the checklist and elaboration as confidential as public release is planned for September 2019.

We would be grateful for any feedback you may have.

1 Aug 2019

Dear Dr Newmark,

I am writing on behalf of my colleague Senior Editor, Roland Roberts, who is the Editor Handling your manuscript as he is out on vacation this week.

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "A rotifer-derived paralytic compound prevents transmission of schistosomiasis to a mammalian host" for consideration as a Short Reports at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by four independent reviewers. One of the reviewers chose to reveal his identity and his name appears with his review below. Please note that the fourth reviewer provided only brief comments as we wanted to move to a decision as expediently as was possible.

In light of the reviews (below), we are pleased to offer you the opportunity to address the comments from the reviewers in a revised version that we anticipate should not take you very long. Indeed, most of the comments can be addressed textually. However, the Academic Editor noted that addressing the comments from Reviewer #4 should not be too difficult by providing 16S amplification to check for the existence of a bacterial symbiont in the cultures, which we agree would strengthen your manuscript. As this is a Short Report, we do need you to keep the number of figures at no more than 4. Once you have revised, we will then assess your revision and your response to the reviewers' comments, and we may then consult the reviewers again.

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit a file detailing your responses to the editorial requests and a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments that indicates the changes you have made to the manuscript. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type. You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

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.

Before you revise your manuscript, please review the following PLOS policy and formatting requirements checklist PDF: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/file?id=9411/plos-biology-formatting-checklist.pdf. It is helpful if you format your revision according to our requirements - should your paper subsequently be accepted, this will save time at the acceptance stage.

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any 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.

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements.

Upon resubmission, the editors assess your revision and assuming the editors and Academic Editor feel that the revised manuscript remains appropriate for the journal, we may send the manuscript for re-review. We aim to consult the same Academic Editor and reviewers for revised manuscripts but may consult others if needed.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within one month. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) to discuss this if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not wish to submit a revision and instead wish to pursue publication elsewhere, so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

When you are ready to submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

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

Sincerely,

Emma Ganley PhD

Chief Editor, PLOS Biology

eganley@plos.org

On behalf of:

Roland G Roberts, PhD,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

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

Reviewer remarks:

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

Reviewer #1

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

This paper takes an observation made almost 40 years ago that rotifers produce a substance that interferes with schistosome cercariae ability to infect experimental animals. The authors identify the reactive component from the rotifer Rotaria rotatoria as Schistosome Paralysis Factor, demonstrate that it paralyzes the cercariae, and can prevent cercariae from infecting mice. They also perform a number of biophysical experiments to work out a potential structure of the molecule as a tetracyclic alkaloid.

The research is well done and the paper well written.

A few minor points:

1. Lines 109-111; Please clarify. An epimer differs at one carbon but R,S suggest enantiomers. Are you just trying to say that ht-13-A and thus maybe SPF are racemic? Alternatively are you trying to say that there are R & S forms and one is responsible for the paralysis.

2. Lines 114-115; Please clarify. 30 min exposure to their tails? Did you show or just suggest that SPF works on the tails of cercariae? Did you count tails that had dislodged from cercariae? Were the heads moving on paralyzed cercariae?

3. Line 147; produced by the rotifer

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

Reviewer #2

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

Review of manuscript PBIOLOGY-D-19-01881R1 entitled “A rotifer-derived paralytic compound prevents transmission of schistosomiasis to a mammalian host” by Gao, Sweedler, Newmark and others.

This is a very well-written paper that builds upon Stirewalt and Lewis’s 1981 finding that association of intermediate host snails with rotifers impeded output, motility and infectivity of schistosome cercariae emerging from them. This study has many significant strengths, including, identification of Rotaria rotatoria as the source rotifer species for the biological activity, logical and definitive schema for isolating and characterizing a tricyclic alkaloid that the authors dubbed Schistosome Paralysis Factor (SPF), careful structure activity analyses using SPF and two related alkaloids naturally occurring in Streptomyces bacteria along with structural analogs of these, and a careful analysis of dose-dependent decrements in infectivity in cercariae exposed to SPF and the Streptomyces alkaloids. The latter analysis supports that exposure to SPF in a fresh water environment could block the ability of schistosome cercariae to infect hosts and bolsters the authors conclusion that SPF could form the basis of an environmental or other treatment to prevent transmission of schistosome infection. At least two significant and testable hypotheses are framed in this paper to stimulate future studies. One is that the microbiomes of rotifers associated with intermediate host snails, rather than the rotifers themselves could be the source of the paralytic alkaloids. This hypothesis is plausible given the paralytic activities of structurally related alkaloids of prokaryotic origin. Similarly, the authors provide a strong basis for a hypothesis that SPF acts on serotonin signaling pathways necessary for normal motility in schistosome cercariae.

I noted only one minor substantive organizational shortcoming in the paper that related to the appropriate point to highlight the presence of a serotonin backbone in SPF and the bacterial alkaloids. Also, there were only a few glitches in copy editing and clarity in this very well-written manuscript.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The observation that SPF contains a serotonin backbone comes rather “out of the blue” in the Conclusion. For this reviewer, this is one of the most important findings in the paper, being consistent with previous reports of the importance of serotonin signaling in schistosome motility and providing a jumping off point for investigations of the mode of action of SPF against schistosome cercariae. Given this, shouldn’t this point be introduced in Results and Discussion? At or around line 90, where the possible structures of SPF are introduced would seem to be a logical point for this introduction. It might also be helpful to shade the serotonin backbone in the structures of SPF, ht-13-A, ht-13-A pr and ht-13-B in Fig. 3.

MINOR ISSUES OF COPY EDITING AND CLARITY

Line 147: Insert “by” between “produced” and “the rotifer”.

Line 162: Insert “a” before “100 um cell strainer”.

Line 205: Suggest substituting “using a” for “through”.

Lines 254-255: I assume the Tricaine incubation was to unpair the adult worms for counting, correct? If so, I suggest “…recovered by hepatic portal vein perfusion, and males and females were unpaired by a brief incubation in 2.5% Tricaine to facilitate counting.”

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

Reviewer #3: Jon Clardy

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

This in an interesting manuscript with findings of interest to fields as varied as chemical ecology and infectious disease. In brief, the authors have characterized a compound produced by a rotifer that paralyzes the snail stage of the schistosome responsible for schistosomiasis, a neglected disease of growing importance. The general outline of the story: the ability of some but not all rotifers to produce a schistosome paralysis factor (SPF) that render the cercariae life-cycle stage of the parasite ‘paralyzed’ – unable to infect human hosts.

The manuscript fleshes out this bare bones picture in significant ways. Most importantly it uses bioassay-guided fractionation to establish that SPF is a small molecule and uses chemical analysis – primarily mass spectrometry (MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to characterize SPF. All of the work described has been done at an acceptable technical level, and the procedures are described so that they could be readily reproduced. The findings reported in this manuscript form a solid basis for pursuing further studies both on small molecule signaling and therapeutic agents. I recommend publication with no changes.

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

Reviewer #4

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

I thought the paper was interesting, though the biosynthetic origin of the tetracyclic alkaloid (called Schistosome Paralysis Factor, SPF) should really be discussed in the manuscript. Other than SPF, the Streptomyces-derived alkaloids ht-13-A and ht-13-B are the only two examples of naturally occurring 3,4-oxepino-fused indoles, and thus it seems likely that the SPF is also bacterial origin, rather than “produced by the rotifer Rotaria rotatoria”, as the abstract suggests.

Some experiments to explore a potential bacterial origin of SPF would be in order. Did the authors check for the presence of any Streptomyces spp in Rotaria rotatoria? Sequencing would provide a quick means to get an overview of associated microbiota.

27 Aug 2019

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

29 Aug 2019

Dear Phil,

Thank you for submitting your revised Short Report entitled "A rotifer-derived paralytic compound prevents transmission of schistosomiasis to a mammalian host" for publication in PLOS Biology. The Academic Editor and I have now assessed your revisions and responses to reviewers, and we're delighted to let you know that we're now editorially satisfied with your manuscript.

However before we can formally accept your paper and consider it "in press", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication.

IMPORTANT: Please could you also address my Data Policy requests below, namely, provide underlying numerical data for some of the Figure panels, and cite the location of the data in respective legends?

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

Please note that 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.

Early Version: Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. 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 as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include a cover letter, a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable), and a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Best wishes,

Roli

Roland G Roberts, PhD,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

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

ETHICS STATEMENT:

The Ethics Statements in the submission form and Methods section of your manuscript should match verbatim. Please ensure that any changes are made to both versions.

-- Please include the full name of the IACUC/ethics committee that reviewed and approved the animal care and use protocol/permit/project license. Please also include an approval number if one was obtained.

-- Please include the specific national or international regulations/guidelines to which your animal care and use protocol adhered. Please note that institutional or accreditation organization guidelines (such as AAALAC) do not meet this requirement.

-- Please include information about the form of consent (written/oral) given for research involving human participants. All research involving human participants must have been approved by the authors' Institutional Review Board (IRB) or an equivalent committee, and all clinical investigation must have been conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.

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

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in Figs 3ABCDEFG, 4BCDEFG and S8, as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it. Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

13 Sep 2019

Dear Dr Newmark,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Chaitan Khosla, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Short Reports in PLOS Biology.

The files will now enter our production system. You will receive a copyedited version of the manuscript, along with your figures for a final review. You will be given two business days to review and approve the copyedit. Then, within a week, you will receive a PDF proof of your typeset article. You will have two days to review the PDF and make any final corrections. If there is a chance that you'll be unavailable during the copy editing/proof review period, please provide us with contact details of one of the other authors whom you nominate to handle these stages on your behalf. This will ensure that any requested corrections reach the production department in time for publication.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Alice Musson

Publication Assistant,

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Roland Roberts,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology