Immune response dynamics and Lutzomyia longipalpis exposure characterize a biosignature of visceral leishmaniasis susceptibility in a canine cohort.

BACKGROUND

Reports have shown correlations between the immune response to vector saliva and Leishmaniasis outcome. We followed dogs in an endemic area for two years characterizing resistance or susceptibility to canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL) according to Leishmania infantum diagnosis and clinical development criteria. Then, we aimed to identify a biosignature based on parasite load, serum biological mediators' interactions, and vector exposure intensity associated with CVL resistance and susceptibility.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A prospective two-year study was conducted in an area endemic for CVL. Dogs were evaluated at 6-month intervals to determine infection, clinical manifestations, immune profile, and sandfly exposure. CVL resistance or susceptibility was determined upon the conclusion of the study. After two years, 78% of the dogs were infected with L. infantum (53% susceptible and 47% resistant to CVL). Susceptible dogs presented higher splenic parasite load as well as persistence of the parasite during the follow-up, compared to resistant ones. Susceptible dogs also displayed a higher number of correlations among the investigated biological mediators, before and after infection diagnosis. At baseline, anti-saliva antibodies, indicative of exposure to the vector, were detected in 62% of the dogs, reaching 100% in one year. Higher sandfly exposure increased the risk of susceptibility to CVL by 1.6 times (CI: 1.11-2.41). We identified a discriminatory biosignature between the resistant and susceptible dogs assessing splenic parasite load, interaction of biological mediators, PGE2 serum levels and intensity of exposure to sandfly. All these parameters were elevated in susceptible dogs compared to resistant animals.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The biosignature identified in our study reinforces the idea that CVL is a complex multifactorial disease that is affected by a set of factors which are correlated and, for a better understanding of CVL, should not be evaluated in an isolated way.