Comparative analysis of the gut microbiota of sand fly vectors of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL) in Iran; host-environment interplay shapes diversity.

The development of Leishmania parasites within sand fly vectors occurs entirely in the insect gut lumen, in the presence of symbiotic and commensal bacteria. The impacts of host species and environment on the gut microbiome are currently poorly understood. We employed MiSeq sequencing of the V3-16S rRNA gene amplicons to characterize and compare the gut microbiota of field-collected populations of Phlebotomus kandelakii, P. perfiliewi, P. alexandri, and P. major, the primary or secondary vectors of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL) in three distinct regions of Iran where ZVL is endemic. In total, 160,550 quality-filtered reads of the V3 region yielded a total of 72 operational taxonomic units (OTUs), belonging to 23 phyla, 47 classes, 91 orders, 131 families, and 335 genera. More than 50% of the bacteria identified were Proteobacteria, followed by Firmicutes (22%), Deinococcus-Thermus (9%), Actinobacteria (6%), and Bacteroidetes (5%). The core microbiome was dominated by eight genera: Acinetobacter, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, Staphylococcus, Bacillus, Propionibacterium, Kocuria, and Corynebacterium. Wolbachia were found in P. alexandri and P. perfiliewi, while Asaia sp. was reported in P. perfiliewi. Substantial variations in the gut bacterial composition were found between geographically distinct populations of the same sand fly species, as well as between different species at the same location, suggesting that sand fly gut microbiota is shaped by both the host species and geographical location. Phlebotomus kandelakii and P. perfiliewi in the northwest, and P. alexandri in the south, the major ZVL vectors, harbor the highest bacterial diversity, suggesting a possible relationship between microbiome diversity and the capacity for parasite transmission. In addition, large numbers of gram-positive human or animal pathogens were found, suggesting that sand fly vectors of ZVL could pose a potential additional threat to livestock and humans in the region studied. The presence of Bacillus subtilis, Enterobacter cloacae, and Asaia sp suggests that these bacteria could be promising candidates for a paratransgenesis approach to the fight against Leishmaniasis.

Introduction

Sand flies accumulate Leishmania parasites by feeding on human and other animal reservoir hosts. The Leishmania parasite causes a spectrum of symptoms, including subclinical (inapparent), localized (skin lesion), and disseminated (cutaneous, mucocutaneous, and visceral) infections. Leishmaniasis is a parasitic disease that is reported in parts of southern Europe, the tropics, and subtropics, and is considered to be a neglected tropical disease (NTD). Out of the 20 NTDs ranked by the World Health Organization (WHO), the leishmaniases rank in the top three among those caused by protozoa [1].

Visceral Leishmaniasis (Kala-azar) (VL) is the deadly form of Leishmaniasis. In 2021 more than 90% of VL cases were reported from just 8 countries: Brazil, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan. An estimated annual incidence of VL in the world was over 30,000 new cases per year. In Iran, nearly 20 million people live in areas of endemic VL foci: with an estimated annual incidence of VL ranging from 100 to 300 cases. Visceral leishmaniasis is zoonotic in Iran and is caused by Leishmania infantum, and zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL) is endemic in the northwestern, southern, and northeast regions of the country [2-5]. The causative agent of VL in different parts of Iran is transmitted by different species of sandflies: including Phlebotomus kandelakii (Shchurenkova, 1929), P. tobbi (Adler & Theodor, 1930), and P. perfiliewi (Parrot, 1930) in northwestern and northeastern Iran, and P. major (s.l.) (Annandale, 1910), P. keshishiani (Shchurenkova, 1936) and P. alexandri (Sinton, 1928) in southern parts [5-11].

Symbiotic and commensal microbes can confer numerous unfavorable, neutral, or beneficial effects on their arthropod hosts, and can play several roles in vector competence, nutritional adaptation, fitness, development, reproduction, defense against environmental stress, oviposition, egg hatching, larval survival, and immunity [12-20]. In sand flies, it has been demonstrated that these microbes play a critical role in Leishmania parasite growth, development, and vector competence [21-26]. The introduction of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has permitted the rapid and more wide-ranging exploration of these microbial communities. NGS has provided a novel tool for the analysis of microbial communities infesting sand flies, including simultaneous and unbiased screening for various samples in a single sequencing run. Like many other arthropods, the advent of 16S rRNA profiling using NGS sequencing methods has revealed complex microbiomes in sand flies. Recently the number of studies using NGS to investigate the microbial diversity and composition of sand flies has expanded [22, 27–30]. There are nine hyper-variable regions (V1-V9) of the bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA gene (16S) that can be targeted to identify bacterial taxa in 16S amplicon NGS studies, and regions V1-V3, V3-V5, V4-V5 have been the most targeted in microbiome studies.

We are developing a paratransgenic platform to control the transmission of L. infantum by the sand fly vectors [4]. Here, we assess the richness of gut bacterial species from four field-collected sand fly species. We investigated the effect of host and ecological variations on the bacterial diversity carried by sand flies in three endemic areas of ZVL in Iran, during the period of L. infantum transmission. Microbiome outlining of wild-caught sand flies will be of great help in exploring possible vector control candidates for a paratransgenic control approach.

Methods

Study areas

The present study was carried out in three endemic ZVL foci in northeastern (Bojnord in North Khorasan Province), northwestern (Meshkinshar in Ardabil Province), and southwest (Mamasani in Fras Province) regions of Iran (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Map of Iran and the sand fly collection sites. Base layer is from (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Iran.png).

North Khorasan Province (36°37’–38°17’N, 55°53’–58°20’E) is a mountainous region, 1070 meters above sea level and with an area of more than 28,400 km2. The weather is hot (up to 32.4°C) in summer and cold (minus 3.4°C) in winter, with an average annual temperature of 13.2°C. This region includes desert and mountainous areas and receives less than 250 mm rainfall annually. Ardabil Province (37°04’–39°65’N, 47°40’– 48°71’E) is a steppe region located 1490 meters above sea level with an area of more than 17,800 km2. The weather is hot (up to 40°C) in summer and cold (minus 20°C) in winter, with an average annual temperature of 9.5°C. The warm season is short (mid-May to mid-September). The annual rainfall is approximately 325 mm, and the climate is warm and temperate, considered to be a local steppe climate. Fars Province (29°37′–30″N, 52°31′–54″E) is a steppe region located 1545 meters above sea level with an area of more than 122,608 km2. The weather is hot (up to 29.2°C) in summer and cold (minus 4.7°C) in winter with an average annual temperature of 16.8°C. The annual rainfall is approximately 100–800 mm.

Sand fly collection and identification

Wild sand flies were collected from the study areas between 2015 and 2016, using various methods, including CDC light traps, and aspirators. Live sand flies were immediately transferred to the Insect Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Medical Entomology and Vector Control, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran, under cold-chain conditions. Samples were washed first with sodium hypochlorite (bleach) 10%, followed by 70% ethanol for 3–5 min, then rinsed three times with sterile PBS and, finally, with double-distilled water. After the washing steps, sand fly guts were gently dissected under the stereomicroscope, using single use sterile insect needles. Before and between dissections, insect needles were sterilized by flaming. Dissections were done on sterilized single-use slide covers, and the heads and terminal abdominal segments of the collected sand flies were mounted with Pouri solution on glass slides for morphological identification to species level, using known morphological keys [31, 32]. A total of 48 female sand fly samples (6 pools, each one comprising 5–10 specimens), representing four species P. kandelakii, P. perfiliewi, P. major, and P. alexandri from the three locations (Meshkinshahr, Bojnord, Mamasani), were processed for microbiome identification (Table 1). To have similar samples, only female specimens with empty abdomens (either unfed or egg-laid blood-fed) were selected for microbiome processing.

Table 1

Details of the sand fly specimens processed for microbiome analysis.

District	Location	Coordinate	Species	Specimens tested
Meshkinshah	Northwestern	37°04’–39°65’N, 47°40’–48°71’E	P.kandelikii	8
			P. perfiliewi	9
Bojnord	Northeastern	36°37’–38°17’N, 55°53’–58°20’E	P.kandelikii	8
			P.major	5
			P.alexandri	8
Mamasani	Southwest	30°06′-30°06′N, 51°24′-51°24′E	P.alexandri	10

Identification of bacteria

Following sand fly species identification, microbiota definition was carried out only for gut specimens corresponding to known ZVL vectors. DNA was extracted from the homogenized gut pools using a DNA extraction kit (QiAamp DNA micro kit), following the manufacturer’s recommended protocol. DNA was stored at -20°C until used for sequencing.

The 16S rRNA gene hyper-variable V3 region was amplified by PCR using fusion degenerate primers 341F (5’-CCTACGGGAGGCAGCAG-3’) and 518R (5’- ATTACCGCGGCTGCTGG -3’), and was sequenced on an Illumina Miseq platform. The amplified fragment was approximately 342 bp and raw data were screened and assembled by QIIME. The UCLUST method was used to cluster the sequences into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) at an identity threshold of 97%. Each library pool was sequenced on a Junior+ System Genome Sequencer and then taxonomically assigned to bacterial genera by comparing and clustering each sequence against the Greengenes database [33]. The sequence data obtained in this study have been submitted to the Genbank sequence read archive (SRA) under the following ID numbers: SRR19632069- SRR19632074.

As a negative control, we used the water from the final rinsing of the sand fly bodies and this was inoculated into Falcon tubes containing brain heart infusion (BHI) broth medium. To assess environmental contamination, the sand fly cuticles were used as an environmental control. These were removed from the sand fly carcass and subjected to DNA extraction by the phenol chloroform method; PCR amplification of 16s rRNA gene, as reported by Weisburg, (1991) produced a 1,500 bp fragment [34]. Thus, three no-template controls, PCR grade RNAse-free water, the final rinse water, and the sterilized cuticles were used to detect any bacterial and/or DNA contamination in the amplification reagents. Where the negative control was positive the specimen was eliminated from further analysis. Frequent changes of gloves were used to avoid RNAse-DNAse contamination. Surface sterilization of the workstation with bleach (10%) followed by alcohol (70%) was performed before and after each experiment. In addition, we used instruments that were autoclaved before and after handling each sample, and avoided talking, sneezing, and coughing, or touching the areas where DNA might be present.

Data analysis

Cytoscape Software (http://www.cytoscape.org), a tool for visualizing complex networks between data, was used to visualize bacterial richness and shared bacteria in the three sand fly species through the network analysis [35]. Data, as CYS files containing vertices or nodes (representing symbiont bacteria and sand fly hosts) and edges (representing links), were submitted to Cytoscape software v.3.9.1. Bacterial and host nodes, as well as geographical region links, were colored to better demonstrate their interaction. Microsoft Excel, GraphPad Prism and Jvenn webtool software [36] were used for graphical representation.

Result

The NGS method allowed the successful characterization of the microbiome of field-collected female sand fly guts. A 346 bp fragment of the hyper-variable V3 region of the 16S rRNA gene was PCR amplified from the genomic DNA pools (from sand fly gut), using specific universal primers, and was effectively sequenced using the Illumina-MiSeq platform. A total of 160,550 reads were generated after the removal of short reads, chimeras and the discard of spurious OTUs from all species analyzed. The average number of reads was 6,023 per female gut (Table 2 and Fig 1). The number of OTUs varied between species samples (minimum  =  16,895, maximum  =  43,948). Phlebotomus alexandri from the southwest of the country (Fars) was found to harbor the highest number of reads, followed, respectively, by P. kandelakii from the northwest (Ardabil), P. alexandri and P. major, both from the northeast (Bojnord), P. perfiliewi from the northwest (Ardabil) and, finally, P. kandelakii from the northeast (Bojnord), which contains the lowest number of reads. These taxa spanned 23 phyla, 47 classes, 91 orders, 131 families, 335 genera, and 72 species.

Table 2

The number of bacterial reads of V3 region-16S rRNA gene of female sand fly ZVL vectors in Iran.

B: Bojnord in northeast, S: Mamasani in southwest, M: Meshkinshahr in northwest.

Species-Sample	NO. of read	Reads per female sample	No. of Phylum	No. of Family	No. of Genus	No. of species
P. alexandri-B	29242	3655	10	52	62	7
P. alexandri-S	43948	4394	17	82	174	26
P. kandelakii-M	30409	3801	14	79	145	25
P. kandelakii-B	16895	2112	14	69	120	15
P. major-B	21096	4219	9	55	82	9
P. perfiliewi-M	18960	2106	11	70	119	23

In total, 160,550 quality-filtered reads of the V3 region of 16S rRNA gene were obtained and clustered into 335 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at the genus level, with 97% similarity. In total, 23 bacterial phyla were associated with the gut microbiome. The phylum Proteobacteria makes up the highest number of reads in in the female guts. Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Deinococcus-Thermus, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes with, respectively, 51%, 22%, 9%, 6%, and 5%, were the most abundant phyla and were present in all sand fly species. The relative abundance of the bacterial phyla in different species and localities is summarized in Fig 2.

Fig 2

Mean relative abundance of the bacteria at the Phylum level in sand fly species at different locations of Iran.

B: Bojnord in northeast, M: Meshkinshahr in northwest, S: Mamasani in southwest.

A total of 131 unique bacterial taxa families were detected in the species samples. We detected four families with high average relative abundances in sand fly samples: Anaplasmataceae (17%), Spiroplasmataceae (15%), Methylobacteriaceae (12%), and Thermaceae (0.8%). A Venn diagram analysis revealed that a subset of 19 bacterial taxa families were common across all different species and locations (Fig 3).

Fig 3

Venn diagram of the bacterial families present in four sand fly species and their associated locations.

I: B: Bojnord in northeast, S: Mamasani in southwest, M: Meshkinshahr in northwest of Iran. The shared bacteria with less than 3 families are not shown. II: numbers of each family of bacteria in each sand fly population. III: the total number of bacterial families shared by the respective number of sandfly specimens. Venn diagram was constructed using the jvenn webtool [36].

At the genus level, a total 335 genera were identified from the four sand fly species originating from three diverse regions of the country. There were 145 bacterial genera in P. kandelakii (Meshkinshahr, northwest), 62 in P. alexandri (Bojnord, northeast), 82 in P. major (Bojnord, northeast), 119 in P. perfiliewi (Meshkinshahr, northwest), 174 in P. alexandri (Mamasani, southwest) and 120 in P. kandelakii (Bojnord, northeast). Among these, 17 genera: Spiroplasma, Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Tepidimonas, Sphingomonas, Wolbachia, Paracoccus, Methylobacterium, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, Staphylococcus, Pavimonas, Lactobacillus, Meiothermus, Propionibacterium, Kocuria, and Corynebacterium were the most prevalent. The reproductive endosymbiont Wolbachia comprised 16% of the total reads and was recorded in P. alexandri from the southwest and P. perfiliewi from the northwest of the country. Also, we identified for the first time, Asaia sp. bacteria in the P. perfiliewi sandfly. The relative abundance of each genus is shown in Fig 4.

Fig 4

Relative abundance of the common bacterial genera presents in four different sand fly ZVL vector species collected from three diverse ecological locations.

B: Bojnord in northeast, S: Mamasani in southwest, M: Meshkinshahr in northwest of Iran.

At the species level, a total of 72 species were identified from the four sand fly species originating from three diverse regions of the country. There were 26 bacterial species in P. alexandri (Mamasani, southwest), 25 in P. kandelakii (Meshkinshahr, northwest), 23 in P. perfiliewi (Meshkinshahr, northwest), 15 in P. kandelakii (Bojnord, northeast), 9 in P. major (Bojnord, northeast), and 7 in P. alexandri (Bojnord, northeast). Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were found in all four sand fly species studied, while Kocuria palustris, Aeromonas spp., and Enterobacter cloacae were found in three of the four sand fly species. The most frequently isolated bacteria in sand flies were Wolbachia spp., followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Lysinibacillus sphaericus, Kocuria palustris, Bacillus subtilis, Enterobacter cloacae, Streptococcus constellatus, and Bacillus licheniformis. 53 out of the 72 bacterial species (73.6%) were found in either a single sand fly species or in one specific location. Bacillus subtilis was found in all the sand fly specimens, except for the northeast population of P. kandelakii (Fig 5).

Fig 5

Network analysis showing the shared and non-shared gut bacteria of four sand fly species collected from three diverse regions of Iran, revealed by NGS.

B: Bojnord in northeast, S: Mamasani in southwest, M: Meshkinshahr in northwest of Iran.

Further analysis of sequence reads revealed that, on average, the microbiome of the four sand fly species is more associated with gram positive (57.7%) and pathogenic bacteria (69.15%) (Wolbachia was excluded from analysis): with 52 out of 72 species being known as human or animal pathogenic bacteria (S1 Table).

Effect of ecological habitat on microbiome community

To study the effect of the sand fly’s ecological habitat on the bacterial community of its gut, we compared Alpha-diversity indices (Shannon, Simpson-e) that describe the diversity of the microbial community of the same sand fly genus/species at different sampling locations. Here we compared the microbial communities of two populations of P. kandelakii (northwest versus northeast), and two populations of P. alexandri (northeast versus southwest). This analysis showed a considerable variation in the composition of the microbial community in sand flies collected from different locations. For P. alexandri, the diversity of the southwestern population was much richer than that of the northeastern one, and for P. kandelakii, the population diversity of the northwestern population was higher than that of the northeastern population. Nonetheless, the same sand fly species from different locations shared a few ‘core’ bacterial taxa; however, network analysis showed that the number of species-shared bacteria (n = 3–6, 10–15.8%) is much lower than the number of location-specific bacteria (Fig 6) in both the sand fly species analyzed.

Fig 6

Network analysis showing the shared (green squares) and non-shared (blue/red circles) gut bacteria from samples of the same sand fly species collected from two diverse regions of Iran.

Left panel: two populations of P. alexandri (B: northeast versus S: southwest), right panel: two populations of P. kandelakii (M: northwest versus B: northeast).

Effect of host species on microbiome community

To study the effect of the host species on the bacterial community of the gut, we compared Alpha-diversity indices (Shannon, Simpson-e) that describe the diversity of the microbial community in different host species from the same sampling locations (sympatric species). Here we compared the gut microbial communities of P. kandelakii and P. perfiliewi from the northwest, and those of P. alexandri, P. major, and P. kandelakii species from the northeast of the country. This analysis showed that the diversity of the microbial communities differs between all four species; with the diversity being greatest in P. kandelakii, followed by those of P. perfiliewi and P. major, with the least diversity being observed in P. alexandri. Network analysis showed that the number of bacteria shared between sympatric species is much lower than species-specific bacteria (1 versus 5/7/13 and 10 versus 13/15) (Fig 7), indicating that host-specific factors influence the overall composition of the bacterial community. For example, there were no core bacteria shared between the three sympatric species (P. alexandri, P. major, and P.kandelakii) collected from the northeast, B. subtilis, K. palustris and H. ganmani shared only between P. alexandri and P. major, P. major and P. kandelakii, and P. alexandri and P. kandelakii respectively, and only 10 out of 38 (26.3%) bacterial species were shared between P. kandelakii and P. perfiliewi from the northwest.

Fig 7

Network analysis showing the shared (yellow square, purple square, pink hexagon, green squares) and non-shared (red, green, and blue circles) gut bacteria of sympatric sand fly species in northeast (left panel) and northwest (right panel) locations of Iran revealed by NGS.

Discussion

This study provides evidence on the microbiome composition of the midgut of four Old World ZVL vectors, P. kandelakii, P. perfiliewi, P. alexandri, and P. major. Our results show that, in total, more than 51% of the bacteria identified belong to the phylum Proteobacteria, which is partly in accordance with the results (56.4%) from a previous culture-dependent study on three sand fly species, P. major, P. kandelakii and P. halepensis (Theodor, 1958) [4] from northern Iran, and several other Old World sand fly species (47%) [22, 28, 37–41]. Interestingly, the abundance of Proteobacteria phylum in New World (Lutzomyia sp.) sand fly species has been shown to be slightly higher (57–67.6%) than in Old World species [27, 30, 42–45]. Since members of the Proteobacteria phylum can fix atmospheric nitrogen and contribute to host sustenance [46], it is possible that this difference might reflect differing nutritional constraints between Old and New World sandfly species and /or environments.

Our analysis also shows that the Firmicutes phylum is the second most abundant bacterial phylum in the four sand fly species in Iran, which agrees with previous studies [22]. Interestingly, however, the percentage abundance (22%) that we detect is lower than that previously reported for Old World sand fly species (39.8–41.42%), and more comparable with that previously found for New World species (23.9%) [22].

In the present study, four bacterial families were found with high average relative abundance in the four sand fly species: Anaplasmataceae (17%), Spiroplasmataceae (15%), Methylobacteriaceae (12%), and Thermaceae (0.8%). However, a meta-analysis study [22], previously showed that species of the Enterobacteriaceae family were the most prevalent (>60%) in both the New- and Old-World sand fly species, followed by those from the Moraxellaceae and Pseudomonadaceae families (<20%) and Xanthomonadaceae (<10%). Such differences in the gut microbiome composition might be the result of several factors, but in general, they could be explained by the phylogenetic relatedness of the sand flies and the diversity of their habitat.

Considerable numbers of pathogenic bacteria species were recorded in the four sand fly species, which might suggest that, as well as being vectors of ZVL, sand flies could also pose an additional threat to the health of livestock and humans. The risk of these pathogenic bacteria remains to be determined. Furthermore, the relative prevalence of putative pathogens was highly dependent on the sand fly species, and there was a positive correlation between vector capacity and prevalence of pathogenic bacteria. Phlebotomus major, which is known to be the weakest ZVL vector in Iran, carries the lowest rate of pathogenic bacteria (23.5%), whereas the other three species, which are more important ZVL vectors, carry much higher rates (66.3–88.5%) of pathogenic bacteria.

This study has shown that that the bacterial diversity in the gut microbiomes of P. alexandri-S (26), P. kandelakii-M (25), and P. perfiliewi-M (23) was significantly higher than in that of P. major (9). Accordingly, P. alexandri, P. kandelakii and P. perfiliewi are the main ZVL vectors in southern and northwestern parts of the country. Interestingly, in the northeastern area, where these sand fly species do not play a major role in ZVL transmission, their bacterial diversity decreased (to 15 for P. kandelakii-B and 7 for P. alexandri-B). The influence of the bacterial composition of the microbiome on the competence of insect vectors of parasitic diseases has already been confirmed in mosquitoes, sand flies, ticks, and tsetse flies [4, 23–24, 47–50]. For example, using antibiotics to disturb the gut microbiota of sand flies P. duboscqi (Neveu-Lemaire, 1906) and Lutzomyia longipalpis (Lutz & Neiva, 1912) correspondingly halted the development and expansion of Leishmania major and L. infantum within the sand fly guts [23-24]. Thus, the interaction between the gut microbiome of the sand fly host and the Leishmania parasites appears to be beneficial for the parasites. In addition, studies in mosquitoes showed that some gut bacterial species can directly or indirectly reduce [51-57], or enhance [58-60], parasite transmission. Conversely, pathogens such as the malaria parasite and Zika, and Chikungunya viruses can shape the abundance and composition of the mosquito gut microbiome [12, 61–63]. However, less information is currently available on the influence of bacteria on the vectorial competence of sand flies, and it is essential to determine what bacterial species and by which mechanism(s) the bacterial microbiome may enhance or repress Leishmania development in the sand fly gut. It is worth mentioning that unfortunately in this work alterations of gut sand fly microbiota due to seasonal variations were not studied. Seasonal alterations could be related to an increase or decrease in pathogens transmission.

In this study we found some Bacillus species, including B. soli, B. licheniformis, and B. subtilis, in the four sand fly species, as expected, since the bacteria of this genus are found in almost all Old-World sand fly species [22]. Bacillus subtilis was found in all four sand fly species studied here (P. kandelakii, P. alexandri, P. perfiliewi, and P. major), and it has previously been isolated from P. major, P. halepensis, P. papatasi (Scopoli, 1786) and P. perniciosus (Simic, 1932) [4, 22, 41]. Its frequent presence in several sand fly species and its being non-pathogenic, easily culturable and genetically malleable led to its consideration as a good bacterial candidate for paratransgenic approaches. Indeed, it has previously been used as a promising paratransgenic agent to impair parasite growth and reduce Leishmania transmission [22, 41, 64]. In addition to B. subtilis, we have isolated Asaia sp. and Enterobacter cloacae from the sand flies, both of which are known to be suitable paratransgenic agents, having previously been used to develop paratransgenic mosquitoes [57, 65–67].

Although it is well known that host species and ecological factors can have a strong impact on insect gut microbiota [68-70], the impact of these factors on sand fly microbiota remains poorly understood. The results of this study show that both environmental and host species identity can have a marked effect upon the microbial communities in the sand fly midgut, with distinct microbial communities being found in different populations of the same sand fly species. Also, we showed that the microbial communities of different sympatric species were distinct from each other. Thus, both host phylogeny and ecological factors can influence gut microbial composition and diversity, potentially impacting pathogen acquisition and transmission by the sand fly vectors. It is known that several factors can influence the composition of microbial communities, including host species, genetic background, blood-meal source, larval and adult environment, climate, temperature, humidity, site and season of collection, body size, sex, stage of development, infection with pathogens and other microbes, and previous exposure to insecticides [22, 48, 50, 63, 68–79]. These results highlight the need for further studies to decode the roles of ecological and host factors in determining the gut microbiome and, hence, the vector competence of different sand fly species.

Conclusions

This is the first report of gut bacterial microbiome of wild-caught P. kandelakii, P. perfiliewi, P. alexandri, and P. major collected in three endemic areas for ZVL in Iran. Our results show the presence of several pathogenic bacterial species, suggesting that sand fly vectors of ZVL also could pose an additional potential threat to livestock and humans in the country. We also show that Bacillus subtilis, Enterobacter cloacae, and Asaia sp. are possible candidates for a paratransgenic approach to reduce Leishmania transmission. Further studies are needed to decode the role of the gut microbiome in the vector competence of different sand fly species.

Taxonomic, types of gram stain, characters, and the number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in sand fly female guts revealed by NGS.

P: pathogen, NP: non-pathogen, M: northwest, B: northeast, S: southwest.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

27 May 2022

Dear Prof Oshaghi,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Comparative analysis of the gut microbiota of sand fly vectors of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL) in Iran; host-environment interplay shapes diversity" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Your manuscript has undergone careful revision by two reviews, and we are pleased to inform you that both have suggested that your manuscript be accepted with minor revisions and modification to one figure to make it more comprehensible.

Additionally please note that “All data is presented in the manuscript” is not an appropriate data availability statement for a microbiome profiling experiment. 16S sequences should be submitted to an appropriate repository (Genbank SRA) and accessions listed in the data availability section.

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

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

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

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

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

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

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

Sincerely,

Matthew Brian Rogers, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Hans-Peter Fuehrer

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Your manuscript has undergone careful revision by two reviews, and we are pleased to inform you that both have suggested that your manuscript be accepted with minor revisions and modification to one figure to make it more comprehensible.

Additionally please note that “All data is presented in the manuscript” is not an appropriate data availability statement for a microbiome profiling experiment. 16S sequences should be submitted to an appropriate repository (Genbank SRA) and accessions listed in the data availability section.

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: yes

Reviewer #2: The experimental design employed in this study was adequate to study objectives, the comparison of the microbiota composition of four sand flies species from three different geographic locations in Iran, using 16S RNA gene sequencing technique. My critical observation is about the number of specimens analyzed, been just 48 sand flies female samples. A higher number of insects could produce more robust results.

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

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: figures need some updates

Reviewer #2: The results are clearly described, and the figures are clear and easy to understand, except for the figure 3- I, the Venn diagram. I consider this figure confused with many numbers inside and outside the diagram. This visual pollution makes it difficult the result understanding showed in this figure. I suggest redoing this figure.

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

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: yes

Reviewer #2: The authors conclusions are adequate to results obtained, except to suggestion to use the Asaia bacteria in paratransgeneis approaches. Since it was only found in one species. Bacteria with greater distribution, present in several species, as seen with Bacillus subtilis, present in all species studied, present a greater potential for use in paratransgenic approaches.

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

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I suggest minor changes to the article. First change the Venn diagram figure, so that it is more understandable. Second, to improve the argument to suggest that despite having only been identified in a single species, the authors suggest that Asaia would be a good candidate for paratransgenic modifications.

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

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 paper “Comparative analysis of the gut microbiota of sand fly vectors of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL) in Iran; host-environment interplay shapes diversity” by Prof Mohammad Ali Oshaghi and colleagues is a well-written and welcomed contribution to the field. I only have a few comments and those mainly revolve around the figures and tables that should be made clearer.

Lines 89-91: what does “economical” mean in this context?

Line 133: not clear what you are dissecting.

Line 183: 160550 -> 160,500

Line 259: be more precise in what is “much much more”, a number or so

Fig. 2.: change so that the same phylum has the same color in all diagrams, now e.g. Cyanobacteria has six different colors, which makes it difficult to compare

Fig. 4.: put genera in alphabetical order

Fig. 6.: not clear what red and blue means, what is yellow?

Fig. 7.: explain purple, pink, yellow, and other colors and also the different geometrical forms

Table 1.: check space between genus and species, here and in the rest of the manuscript

Table 2.: singular and plural for taxonomic levels should be adjusted

Table 3.: put as supplementary data and put species in alphabetical order

Reviewer #2: In this descriptive article, the authors compare the gut bacterial microbiota composition from sand flies of four different species and three geographic locations in Iran. Using 16 S high throughput DNA sequencing technique the authors observed that the bacterial microbiota composition was related to both, sand fly specie and the environment. Sympatric species present different bacterial species in their microbiota. An interesting observation was the relationship between the gut microbiota diversity and the sand fly vectorial capacities, where species presenting more diverse bacterial microbiota composition were the species with higher Leishmania transmission abilities. The identification of several pathogenic bacteria for human and animals in the sand flies guts also suggested a potential role sand flies in the transmission of the bacteria pathogens. Unfortunately in this work alterations of gut sand flies microbiota due to seasonal variations were not studied. Seasonal alterations could be related to a increase or decrease in pathogens transmission. The acknowledgment about the relationship among the vector, microbiota and pathogens can be used to develop mechanisms to control or eradicate the dissemination of several vector borne diseases. The authors suggest the use of Bacillus subtilis, Enterobacter cloacae and Asaia, as candidates for a paratransgenesis approach to the fight against Leishmaniasis. But from these three putative candidates, the only one found in all four sand flies especies studyed was B. subtilis. Commensals present on vectors species are better candidates for paratransgenesis approaches, than others identified in only one specie as was Asaia in this work.

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

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

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

Data Requirements:

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

Reproducibility:

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

References

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

20 Jun 2022

Submitted filename: Responses to all review comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 Jun 2022

Dear Prof Oshaghi,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Comparative analysis of the gut microbiota of sand fly vectors of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL) in Iran; host-environment interplay shapes diversity' 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,

Matthew Brian Rogers, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Hans-Peter Fuehrer

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Thank-you for your re-submission of this manuscript to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Based on your responses to the reviewers, and associated modifications to the text and figures your paper can now be accepted without further revisions.

15 Jul 2022

Dear Prof Oshaghi,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Comparative analysis of the gut microbiota of sand fly vectors of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis (ZVL) in Iran; host-environment interplay shapes diversity," 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