# Viruses of parasites: A roadmap toward diagnostic and therapeutic development

Sarah Temmam, Nolwenn M. Dheilly

► To cite this version:

Sarah Temmam, Nolwenn M. Dheilly. Viruses of parasites: A roadmap toward diagnostic and therapeutic development. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2025, 19 (4), pp.e0012982. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012982. pasteur-05117021

HAL Id: pasteur-05117021

https://pasteur.hal.science/pasteur-05117021v1

Submitted on 17 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
VIEWPOINTS

# Viruses of parasites: A roadmap toward diagnostic and therapeutic development

Sarah Temmam¹,², Nolwenn M. Dheilly¹,²*

1 Pathogen Discovery Laboratory, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France, 2 Institut Pasteur, Université de Paris Cité, The WOAH (OIE) Collaborating Center for the detection and identification in humans of emerging animal pathogens, Paris, France

* nolwenn.dheilly@pasteur.fr

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

With few preventive and therapeutic solutions available, parasites remain associated with devastating health, social and economic consequences, especially in impoverished communities in tropical areas. The discovery that parasites host viruses, and that these parasite viruses can contribute to diseases, has triggered a paradigm shift in thought and action, whereby parasite viruses are being assessed as targets for diagnostic, therapeutic and preventive interventions. This review lays out critical steps needed to discover and characterize viruses of parasites, highlighting challenges and identifying opportunities through examples of virus discoveries that fill the gap in our incomplete understanding of parasite pathogenicity.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Temmam S, Dheilly NM (2025) Viruses of parasites: A roadmap toward diagnostic and therapeutic development. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 19(4): e0012982. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0012982

**Editor:** Brianna R Beechler, Oregon State University College of Veterinary Medicine, United States of America

**Published:** April 10, 2025

**Copyright:** © 2025 Temmam, Dheilly. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Funding:** The authors received no specific funding for this work.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

## Introduction

Parasites, such as helminths and protozoans but also fungi and arthropods are responsible for a diverse range of diseases that continue to burden human and animal health worldwide, with major direct and indirect economic consequences. We are currently witnessing a shift in the parasitology community that is moving from studying the virulence and resistance factors that mediate parasite-host interaction, toward the study of the role of microbes associated with the host and with the parasite in the outcome of infection. The driving hypothesis proposed by the Parasite Microbiome Project consortium is that phenotypes, symptoms, and evolutionary dynamics that could not be explained through traditional approaches may result from microbes associated with the host, or with the parasite [1-9].

The metagenomics sequencing revolution has revealed that viruses are ubiquitous. They infect almost every eukaryotic and prokaryotic species and are the most abundant biological entities on Earth. Parasites are no exception. Arthropods are well-known vectors of viruses of health significance (known as arboviruses), but nematodes, flatworms, fungi, and protozoans also host a plethora of viruses, hereafter called parasite viruses [10-18]. Remarkably, some parasite viruses are transmitted from the parasite to the vertebrate host, stimulate the host immune response, and contribute to modulating parasite pathogenicity [11,13,19-21]. These noteworthy discoveries are leading toward the rise of a novel field of research focusing on targeting parasite viruses for parasite detection [22-24] and on characterizing their role in modulating parasite pathogenicity [10,11,19,25-28]. Despite the relative youth of the field, it
is becoming evident that parasito-virology is offering new perspectives for the development of diagnostic, preventive, and therapeutic strategies with the potential to revolutionize the fight against parasites, many of which being responsible for major neglected tropical diseases [29]. The discovery of the ubiquity of parasite viruses coincides with a time when the field of virology is benefiting from remarkable technological advancements that facilitate the study of non-cultivable viruses. In this viewpoint, we consider the challenges associated with the study of parasite viruses and provide a roadmap of key methodologies and detection tools to develop, and biological data to collect to assess how each parasite virus discovery can be best exploited in the fight against parasitic diseases (Fig 1).

## Virus discovery

As obligate intracellular parasites, viruses require cells in which to replicate. The cells must express appropriate receptors and other proteins required by the virus. Cultured cells are often used to study basic steps in viral replication [30]. Viruses can be purified away from cellular proteins and organelles using centrifugation techniques [31]. Historically, the process of obtaining a pure virus culture was a necessary first step toward virus characterization [32]. In permissive cells, virally induced characteristic changes to cell morphology (known as cytopathic effects) are observable under light microscopy. Novel virions are released in the supernatant, producing a virus culture that can be purified.

For most parasites, the presence of associated viruses has never been investigated. The isolation of parasite-borne viruses—namely viruses of parasites that can infect parasitized hosts—may be attempted on vertebrate cell lines. Parasite-specific viruses isolation may prove more difficult given that parasite cell lines are not available, but *in vitro* culture of parasite isolates infected by known viruses may be considered instead.

Fortunately, parasito-virologists can rely on next generation sequencing (NGS), a technology that has revolutionized virology by facilitating virus discovery [13,14,33]. Indeed, conversely to bacteria, viral genomes are highly variable in size (from less than 5 kb to 1.2 Mb) and nucleic composition (single- or double-stranded monopartite or segmented DNA or RNA molecules), and no conserved genes exist across viral taxa, preventing the development of generic methods of identification. Therefore, most recent virus discoveries rely on sequence-independent (or random) methods of amplification followed by NGS, known as metagenomics (sequencing of the total DNA content of a sample) or metatranscriptomics (sequencing of the total RNA content of a sample) [34]. Yet, the detection of highly divergent viral sequences, which relies on sequence comparison to public nucleotide and protein databases, is limited to viruses with a minimum of 30% of amino-acid identity to known viral sequences. This limitation impacts parasite virus discovery because our current knowledge of virus taxonomy is strongly biased toward viruses that infect humans, arthropods, bacteria, and land plants and because parasite viruses often belong to novel distant taxa [13,35–37]. That being said, recent developments in using deep learning algorithm for the purpose of virus discovery is showing great promise [38]. Finally, upon virus genome discovery, assembly, and annotation, the parasitology community must commit to submitting newly discovered viruses to be approved and ratified by the International Committee on Taxonomy of viruses (https://ictv.global/taxonomy/) to allow quality control, taxonomic classification of the newly discovered viruses, and inclusion in reference databases [39].

Even though virome studies do not suffer from the same level of risk of contamination as microbiome studies [40], confirmation of virus-host association is encouraged. The most straightforward approach is to collect phylogenetic evidence that the newly discovered virus is phylogenetically related to viruses discovered in closely related parasite species. Indeed,
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1. Roadmap for a comprehensive characterization of a novel parasite virus from virus discovery to the development of detection and identification methods, functional studies, and identification of therapeutic applications.** Studies needed encompass all fields of virology such as the study of the biology of viruses and viral diseases, including the evolution, distribution, ecology, physiology, tropism, molecular biology, epidemiological, and clinical aspects of viruses in order to provide a complete picture of the virus–parasite (co-)evolutionary history and of the virus role in parasite–host interaction.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0012982.g001

evidence shows that parasites host novel taxa of viruses, and that parasite viruses often co-diversify with their parasitic hosts (Fig 1, evolutionary history) [13]. Because the RNAi response is a conserved and critical pathway to control virus replication in invertebrates, the production of viral short interfering RNAs (typically 22–23 nt long small RNAs in nematodes)
can also be used to confirm virus association with the parasitic host [41]. Complementary approaches rely on the development of virus detection methods to confirm virus presence in different individuals, life stages or populations, and to visualize viral RNA or viral proteins within the parasite individual.

## Virus detection and identification

Upon virus discovery, the development of a reliable PCR-based molecular diagnostic tool is a necessary first step to conduct epidemiological studies of the distribution of parasite viruses within the parasite geographic distribution. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) [42] method is a simple, rapid, and inexpensive method to detect the viral genome either directly for DNA viruses or following a retro-transcription for RNA viruses. While the basic principle of PCR is simple, the development of PCR diagnostic tools with specific properties can be challenging and require multiple steps of validation to ensure high sensitivity and the predetermined necessary level of specificity. Indeed, it is important to consider the sometime high genetic diversity of RNA viruses, and the potential for cross-reactivity among close relatives. Depending on objectives, it may be useful to develop a single PCR diagnostic tool with broad diagnostic sensitivity to closely related viruses (often known as pan-generic PCR), or to develop a panel of highly specific PCR diagnostic tools that each detect a single virus. PCRs have already demonstrated their use to determine parasite virus prevalence, test parasite virus vertical transmission, and assess transmission to the parasitized host (Fig 1, prevalence, host specificity, transmission mode) [20–23,41].

Antigenic tests that detect proteins expressed on the surface of viruses can be useful tools to help manage epidemics. Some parasite viruses appear to reach 100% prevalence in their parasitic host and can therefore be targeted as markers of a parasite infection in the parasitized vertebrate host. For example, the apicomplexan *Cryptosporidium parvum*, an intracellular parasite responsible for moderate-to-severe diarrhea, hosts a dsRNA Cryspovirus of the family *Partitiviridae* [43–46] with such a high prevalence in the parasite population (basically 100%) that molecular diagnostic methods and antigenic methods have been developed to detect the Cryspovirus genome and protein, respectively [22–24]. RT-PCR methods could detect less than five *C. parvum* oocysts in calf feces when nested PCR were needed to detect the *C. parvum* DNA [22]. Colloidal gold strips allowed the detection of about 16 oocysts per gram of feces sample, which represents a major improvement compared to the microscopic detection method that has a sensitivity of 1.4 × 10⁶ oocysts per gram [23].

Microscopy techniques have been instrumental in our incremental comprehension of virus structure, pathogenesis, and interaction with their hosts [31]. Static images of viruses can be obtained through conventional scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. Fluorescence microscopy has allowed virologists to obtain a more dynamic image of virus interaction with the host cell. Immuno-histochemistry, that relies on antibodies raised against specific proteins of the virus, is used extensively to localize viruses within cells, but the lack of sensitivity and cost of custom antibody production remains a limitation. An alternative has been the insertion of Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) or enhanced GFP into viral genomes to study intracellular trafficking in real time [47]. Finally, *in situ* hybridization remains extensively used to localize specific RNA or DNA viral nucleic acids within cells. Most recently, RNA in situ hybridization (ISH) technology has allowed highly sensitive, specific, and rapid detection of viral genome within cells. Notably, virus localization remains a gold standard practice to demonstrate virus-host association and can provide information on the virus transmission mode (Fig 1, localization) [12,15]. For example, the Brugia malayi RNA virus 1 was localized in the reproductive tissues of the Filarial nematode *Brugia malayi* suggestive of vertical transmission, but also within epicuticular inflations that could explain transmission to parasitized jirds [41].
Seroconversion is the production of specific antibodies in the vertebrate blood serum in response to an infection or vaccination. Serological methods that aim at quantifying these antibodies are extensively used in virology to assess human exposure (Fig 1, human exposure). Various methods have been developed including hemagglutination inhibition, Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or immunofluorescence assay [48]. Seroneutralization that requires the isolation of viruses (and often requires manipulation in BSL3 labs) remains the gold standard. It consists of incubating permissive cell lines and target virus in the presence of different dilutions of serum and measuring disappearance of cytopathic effects (in the presence of neutralizing antibodies) or virus replication. If neutralizing antibodies are present in the serum, they block the virus before it can infect the cells.

Pseudotyped viral particles are a good alternative for uncultivable viruses. Pseudotypes are chimeric viruses based on a backbone virus (like a lentivirus or a vesiculovirus) in which the structural protein has been replaced by the one from the target virus, and in which a reporter gene has been added. Pseudotypes cannot replicate in competent cells, allowing their use in BSL2 labs. The pseudoneutralization test resembles seroneutralization except that the presence of neutralizing antibodies is assessed by measuring the signal of the reporter carried by pseudotyped viruses [49]. Alternatives that can be implemented rapidly in a molecular lab are Luciferase ImmunoPrecipitation System (LIPS) and Luciferase-linked Immunosorbent assays (LuLISA) [50–53]. LIPS consists of expressing viral targets in fusion with a nanoluciferase reporter and use the fusion protein as antigens in an immunoprecipitation reaction. LuLISA consists in an indirect ELISA in which the primary antibody is detected by an antibody fragment from camel (i.e., llama or alpaca) known as VHH (Variable Heavy domain of Heavy chain) expressed in tandem with a shrimp luciferase [54,55]. In both cases, the activity of the luciferase is assessed by measuring the production of light and proportional to the amount of antigen-binding antibodies. Quek et al [41] recently provided the first evidence of human seropositivity against a parasite virus: parasitized and exposed individuals from Uganda, Togo, Nigeria, Cameroon, and Ecuador had high level of seropositivity against Onchocerca volvulus RNA virus 1, a novel rhabdovirus associated with the Filarial nematode.

## Functional studies of parasite-associated viruses

The next step following virus identification and characterization is to determine the extent to which viruses contribute to the outcome of a parasitic infection. The significance of the parasite virome spans not only parasite-borne viruses that are infecting the host, but also parasite viruses strictly associated with the parasite which might modulate parasite virulence, reproduction, and survival to ensure their own viral transmission. Within this nested context, fulfilling Koch's and Rivers' postulates to establish causation may prove difficult [56]. Carefully planned experimental designs are therefore necessary to determine which viruses are transmitted to parasitized host, modulate host immune response and susceptibility to infection, or alter the parasite fitness and virulence in its host (see figures in [8,9]).

As discussed above, the development and optimization of protocols for *in vitro* culture of parasite cells would facilitate controlled experiments to address hypotheses underlying parasite-virus interactions. *In vivo* culturing of parasite developmental stages [57–61] represents a readily available alternative that, combined with genome editing technologies [62–65], can be used to functionally assess virus-host proteins interactions. As a complementary tool to assess effects of individual viruses on both the host and parasite fitness (Fig 1, impact on parasite fitness, pathogenesis) through controlled experiments, virus-free or gnotobiotic (individuals exclusively colonized by known viruses) parasites might be collected in the field, or generated via antiviral treatments.
Should a parasite virus be one day isolated in cell culture, a large panel of vertebrate cells and organoids could be tested to assess tissue tropism and characterize the virus-host interaction at the molecular level. Regardless, and when feasible for the parasite under study, animal experiments can provide insight on a parasite virus ability to transmit to the parasitized host, tissue tropism, and role on modulating host immune response [11,13,19–21]. Experimental infection of Threespine sticklebacks with the cestode *Schistocephalus solidus* first demonstrated the transmission of a flatworm parasite-associated rhabdovirus to a vertebrate [21]. Soon after, the screening of parasite viruses in a diversity of flatworm species revealed that rhabdoviruses of flatworms are ancestral to rabies virus and other *Alpharhabdovirinae*, indicating that they emerged at least once in a parasitized vertebrate host [13]. Animal experiments were also instrumental in demonstrating the association between the Type I IFN pathway activated by Leishmania RNA virus 1 and the pathogenicity of *Leishmania guyanensis* and *Leishmania braziliensis* [11,19]. Similarly, using immunocompromised mice, Deng and colleagues [20] showed that Cryptosporidium parvum virus 1 delivery into parasitized epithelial cells activates type I IFN signaling, which in turn attenuates the IFN-γ-mediated protective response.

## Conclusion

To conclude, parasite virus discoveries and characterizations are contributing to a paradigm shift in parasitology with investigations reaching beyond the study of virulence and resistance factors that mediate parasite-host interaction toward the study of the role of associated microbes in the outcome of parasite infection [1–7]. Within this framework, parasite viruses are microbial targets whose role in the dynamic crosstalk between parasite and host can be readily investigated and exploited thanks to the broad range of virology tools and approaches available. Should a parasite-borne virus show an active role in parasite pathogenicity, its susceptibility to antivirals could also be assessed *in vitro*, providing opportunities for novel therapeutics, and novel vaccines could be developed to provide protection against diseases caused by the virus itself. We expect the discovery and characterization of virus role in parasite pathogenicity will allow major advance in diagnostic and therapeutic development and may provide opportunities for improved prevention against parasitic diseases.

## References

1. Jenkins TP, Brindley PJ, Gasser RB, Cantacessi C. Helminth microbiomes—a hidden treasure trove? Trends Parasitol. 2019;35(1):13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2018.10.007 PMID: 30503365

2. Le Clec'h W, Nordmeyer S, Anderson TJC, Chevalier FD. Snails, microbiomes, and schistosomes: a three-way interaction? Trends Parasitol. 2022;38(5):353–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2022.01.012 PMID: 35190282

3. Dheilly NM, Martínez Martínez J, Rosario K, Brindley PJ, Fichorova RN, Kaye JZ, et al. Parasite microbiome project: grand challenges. PLoS Pathog. 2019;15(10):e1008028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1008028

4. Dheilly NM, Ewald PW, Brindley PJ, Fichorova RN, Thomas F. Parasite-microbe-host interactions and cancer risk. PLoS Pathog. 2019;15(8):e1007912. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1007912 PMID: 31415672

5. Hahn MA, Piecyk A, Jorge F, Cerrato R, Kalbe M, Dheilly NM. Host phenotype and microbiome vary with infection status, parasite genotype, and parasite microbiome composition. Mol Ecol. 2022;31(5):1577–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16344 PMID: 35000227

6. Reynolds LA, Finlay BB, Maizels RM. Cohabitation in the intestine: interactions among helminth parasites, bacterial microbiota, and host immunity. J Immunol. 2015;195(9):4059–66. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1501432 PMID: 26477048

7. Brealey JC, Lecaudey LA, Kodama M, Rasmussen JA, Sveier H, Dheilly NM, et al. Microbiome “Inception”: an intestinal cestode shapes a hierarchy of microbial communities nested within the host. mBio. 2022;13(3):e0067922. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00679-22 PMID: 35502903
8. Dheilly NM, Poulin R, Thomas F. Biological warfare: microorganisms as drivers of host-parasite interactions. Infect Genet Evol. 2015;34:251–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2015.05.027 PMID: 26026593

9. Dheilly NM. Holobiont-holobiont interactions: redefining host-parasite interactions. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10(7):e1004093. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004093 PMID: 24992663

10. Fichorova RN, Lee Y, Yamamoto HS, Takagi Y, Hayes GR, Goodman RP, et al. Endobiont viruses sensed by the human host—beyond conventional antiparasitic therapy. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48418. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048418 PMID: 23144878

11. Ives A, Ronet C, Prevel F, Ruzzante G, Fuertes-Marraco S, Schutz F, et al. Leishmania RNA virus controls the severity of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis. Science. 2011;331(6018):775–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199326 PMID: 21311023

12. Williams SH, Che X, Oleynik A, Garcia JA, Muller D, Zabka TS, et al. Discovery of two highly divergent negative-sense RNA viruses associated with the parasitic nematode, Capillaria hepatica, in wild Mus musculus from New York City. J Gen Virol. 2019;100(10):1350–62. https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001315 PMID: 31513008

13. Dheilly NM, Lucas P, Blanchard Y, Rosario K. A world of viruses nested within parasites: unraveling viral diversity within parasitic flatworms (platyhelminthes). Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10(3):e0013822. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00138-22 PMID: 35536058

14. Shi M, Lin X-D, Tian J-H, Chen L-J, Chen X, Li C-X, et al. Redefining the invertebrate RNA virosphere. Nature. 2016;540(7634):539–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20167 PMID: 27880757

15. Marucci G, Zullino I, Bertuccini L, Camerini S, Cecchetti S, Pietrantoni A, et al. Re-Discovery of giardia virus: genomic and functional analysis of viruses from Giardia duodenalis isolates. Biomedicines. 2021;9(6):654. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9060654 PMID: 34201207

16. Kinsella CM, Bart A, Deijs M, Broekhuizen P, Kaczorowska J, Jebbink MF, et al. Entamoeba and Giardia parasites implicated as hosts of CRESS viruses. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):4620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18474-w PMID: 32934242

17. Charon J, Grigg MJ, Eden J-S, Piera KA, Rana H, William T, et al. Novel RNA viruses associated with Plasmodium vivax in human malaria and Leucocytozoon parasites in avian disease. PLoS Pathog. 2019;15(12):e1008216. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1008216 PMID: 31887217

18. Grybchuk D, Macedo DH, Kleschenko Y, Kraeva N, Lukashev AN, Bates PA, et al. The first non-LRV RNA virus in leishmania. Viruses. 2020;12(2):168. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12020168 PMID: 32024293

19. de Carvalho RVH, Lima-Junior DS, da Silva MVG, Dilucca M, Rodrigues TS, Horta CV, et al. Leishmania RNA virus exacerbates Leishmaniasis by subverting innate immunity via TLR3-mediated NLRP3 inflammasome inhibition. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):5273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13356-2 PMID: 31754185

20. Deng S, He W, Gong A-Y, Li M, Wang Y, Xia Z, et al. Cryptosporidium uses CSpV1 to activate host type I interferon and attenuate antiparasitic defenses. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):1456. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37129-0 PMID: 36928642

21. Hahn MA, Rosario K, Lucas P, Dheilly NM. Characterization of viruses in a tapeworm: phylogenetic position, vertical transmission, and transmission to the parasitized host. ISME J. 2020;14(7):1755–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-0642-2 PMID: 32286546

22. Jenkins M, O'Brien C, Fetterer R, Santin M. RT-PCR specific for Crypsovirus is a highly sensitive method for detecting *Cryptosporidium parvum* oocysts. Food Waterborne Parasitol. 2016;5:14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fawpar.2015.11.001

23. Tai L, Li J, Yin J, Zhang N, Yang J, Li H, et al. A novel detection method of *Cryptosporidium parvum* infection in cattle based on *Cryptosporidium parvum* virus 1. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai). 2019;51(1):104–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/abbs/gmy143 PMID: 30544221

24. Jenkins MC, O'Brien CN, Trout JM. Detection of *Cryptosporidium parvum* oocysts by dot-blotting using monoclonal antibodies to *Cryptosporidium parvum* virus 40-kDa capsid protein. J Parasitol. 2008;94(1):94–8. https://doi.org/10.1645/GE-1313.1 PMID: 18372626

25. Rivero A, Fleury F, Gandon S, Varaldi J, Patot S. A newly discovered virus manipulates superparasitism behavior in a parasitoid wasp. In: Bourtzis K, Miller T, editors. Insect symbiosis, Volume 2. CRC Press; 2006. p. 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420005936.ch7

26. Dheilly NM, Maure F, Ravallec M, Galinier R, Doyon J, Duval D, et al. Who is the puppet master? Replication of a parasitic wasp-associated virus correlates with host behaviour manipulation. Proc Biol Sci. 2015;282(1803):20142773. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2773 PMID: 25673681

27. Khoshnan A, Alderete JF. Trichomonas vaginalis with a double-stranded RNA virus has upregulated levels of phenotypically variable immunogen mRNA. J Virol. 1994;68(6):4035–8. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.68.6.4035-4038.1994 PMID: 8189538
28. Olivier M, Zamboni DS. Leishmania Viannia guyanensis, LRV1 virus and extracellular vesicles: a dangerous trio influencing the faith of immune response during muco-cutaneous leishmaniasis. Curr Opin Immunol. 2020;66:108–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coi.2020.08.004 PMID: 32877837

29. Barrow P, Dujardin JC, Fasel N, Greenwood AD, Osterrieder K, Lomonosoff G, et al. Viruses of protozoan parasites and viral therapy: is the time now right? Virol J. 2020;17(1):142. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-020-01410-1 PMID: 32993724

30. Dolskiy AA, Grishchenko IV, Yudkin DV. Cell cultures for virology: usability, advantages, and prospects. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(21):7978. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21217978 PMID: 33121109

31. Payne S. Methods to study viruses. Viruses. Elsevier; 2017. p. 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803109-4.00004-0

32. Burrell CJ, Howard CR, Murphy FA. History and impact of virology. Fenner and White's medical virology. Elsevier; 2017. p. 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375156-0.00001-1

33. Radford AD, Chapman D, Dixon L, Chantrey J, Darby AC, Hall N. Application of next-generation sequencing technologies in virology. J Gen Virol. 2012;93(Pt 9):1853–68. https://doi.org/10.1099/vir.0.043182-0 PMID: 22647373

34. Shi M, Zhang Y-Z, Holmes EC. Meta-transcriptomics and the evolutionary biology of RNA viruses. Virus Res. 2018;243:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2017.10.016 PMID: 29111455

35. Stenglein MD. The case for studying new viruses of new hosts. Annu Rev Virol. 2022;9(1):157–72. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-virology-100220-112915

36. Simmonds P, Adams MJ, Benkö M, Breitbart M, Brister JR, Carstens EB, et al. Virus taxonomy in the age of metagenomics. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15(3):161–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.177

37. Koonin EV, Dolja VV, Krupovic M, Varsani A, Wolf YI, Yutin N, et al. Global organization and proposed megataonomy of the virus world. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2020;84(2):e00061-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00061-19 PMID: 32132243

38. Hou X, He Y, Fang P, Mei S-Q, Xu Z, Wu W-C, et al. Using artificial intelligence to document the hidden RNA virosphere. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.18.537342

39. Lefkowitz EJ, Dempsey DM, Hendrickson RC, Orton RJ, Siddell SG, Smith DB. Virus taxonomy: the database of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D708–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx932 PMID: 29040670

40. Formenti F, Cortés A, Brindley PJ, Cantacessi C, Rinaldi G. A bug's life: delving into the challenges of helminth microbiome studies. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(9):e0008446. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008446 PMID: 32911483

41. Quek S, Hadermann A, Wu Y, De Coninck L, Hegde S, Boucher JR, et al. Diverse RNA viruses of parasitic nematodes can elicit antibody responses in vertebrate hosts. Nat Microbiol. 2024;9(10):2488–505. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-024-01796-6 PMID: 39232205

42. Garibyan L, Avashia N. Polymerase chain reaction. J Invest Dermatol. 2013;133(3):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2013.1 PMID: 23399825

43. Nibert ML, Woods KM, Upton SJ, Ghabrial SA. Cryspovirus: a new genus of protozoan viruses in the family Partitiviridae. Arch Virol. 2009;154(12):1959–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-009-0513-7 PMID: 19856142

44. Khramtsov NV, Woods KM, Nesterenko MV, Dykstra CC, Upton SJ. Virus-like, double-stranded RNAs in the parasitic protozoan *Cryptosporidium parvum*. Mol Microbiol. 1997;26(2):289–300. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.1997.5721933.x PMID: 9383154

45. Khramtsov NV, Chung PA, Dykstra CC, Griffiths JK, Morgan UM, Arrowood MJ, et al. PRESENCE of double-stranded RNAs in human and calf isolates of *Cryptosporidium parvum*. J Parasitol. 2000;86(2):275–82. https://doi.org/10.1645/0022-3395(2000)086[0275:podsri]2.0.co;2

46. Leoni F, Gallimore CI, Green J, McLauchlin J. Characterisation of small double stranded RNA molecule in *Cryptosporidium hominis*, *Cryptosporidium felis* and *Cryptosporidium meleagridis*. Parasitol Int. 2006;55(4):299–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parint.2006.06.006 PMID: 16890010

47. Li Y, Li L-F, Yu S, Wang X, Zhang L, Yu J, et al. Applications of replicating-competent reporter-expressing viruses in diagnostic and molecular virology. Viruses. 2016;8(5):127. https://doi.org/10.3390/v8050127 PMID: 27164126

48. Vainionpää R, Leinikki P. Diagnostic techniques: serological and molecular approaches. Encyclopedia of virology. Elsevier; 2008. p. 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012374410-4.00585-9

49. Pieri M, Infantino M, Manfredi M, Nuccetelli M, Grossi V, Lari B, et al. Performance evaluation of four surrogate Virus Neutralization Tests (sVNTs) in comparison to the in vivo gold standard test. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2022;27(2). https://doi.org/10.31083/j.fbl2702074
50. Grzelak L, Temmam S, Planchais C, Demeret C, Tondeur L, Huon C, et al. A comparison of four serological assays for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human serum samples from different populations. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(559):eabc3103. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.abc3103 PMID: 32817357

51. Temmam S, Montagutelli X, Herate C, Donati F, Regnault B, Attia M, et al. SARS-CoV-2-related bat virus behavior in human-relevant models sheds light on the origin of COVID-19. EMBO Rep. 2023;24(4):e56055. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202256055 PMID: 36876574

52. Virachith S, Pommelet V, Calvez E, Khounvisith V, Sayasone S, Kounnavong S, et al. Low seroprevalence of COVID-19 in Lao PDR, late 2020. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2021;13:100197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanwpc.2021.100197 PMID: 34278365

53. Sermet-Gaudelus I, Temmam S, Huon C, Behillil S, Gajdos V, Bigot T, et al. Prior infection by seasonal coronaviruses, as assessed by serology, does not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease in children, France, April to June 2020. Euro Surveill. 2021;26(13):2001782. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.13.2001782 PMID: 33797390

54. Goyard S, Balbino B, Chinthrajah RS, Lyu S-C, Janin YL, Bruhns P, et al. A highly sensitive bioluminescent method for measuring allergen-specific IgE in microliter samples. Allergy. 2020;75(11):2952-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14365 PMID: 32407549

55. Anna F, Goyard S, Lalanne AI, Nevo F, Gransagne M, Souque P, et al. High seroprevalence but short-lived immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in Paris. Eur J Immunol. 2021;51(1):180-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.202049058 PMID: 33259646

56. Rivers TM. Viruses and Koch's postulates. J Bacteriol. 1937;33(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.33.1.1-12.1937 PMID: 16559982

57. Mann VH, Morales ME, Rinaldi G, Brindley PJ. Culture for genetic manipulation of developmental stages of *Schistosoma mansoni*. Parasitology. 2010;137(3):451-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182009991211 PMID: 19765348

58. McCusker P, McVeigh P, Rathinasamy V, Toet H, McCammick E, O'Connor A, et al. Stimulating neoblast-like cell proliferation in Juvenile *Fasciola hepatica* supports growth and progression towards the adult phenotype in vitro. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(9):e0004994. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004994 PMID: 27622752

59. Wang J, Chen R, Collins JJ 3rd. Systematically improved in vitro culture conditions reveal new insights into the reproductive biology of the human parasite *Schistosoma mansoni*. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(5):e3000254. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000254 PMID: 31067225

60. Duque-Correa MA, Maizels RM, Grencis RK, Berriman M. Organoids—new models for host-helminth interactions. Trends Parasitol. 2020;36(2):170-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2019.10.013 PMID: 31791691

61. Sutrave S, Richter MH. The Truman Show for protozoan parasites: a review of in vitro cultivation platforms. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(8):e0009668. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009668 PMID: 34437538

62. Arunsan P, Ittiprasert W, Smout MJ, Cochran CJ, Mann VH, Chaiyadet S, et al. Programmed knockout mutation of liver fluke granulin attenuates virulence of infection-induced hepatobiliary morbidity. Elife. 2019;8:e41463. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.41463 PMID: 30644359

63. Gang SS, Castelletto ML, Bryant AS, Yang E, Mancuso N, Lopez JB, et al. Targeted mutagenesis in a human-parasitic nematode. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(10):e1006675. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006675 PMID: 29016680

64. Ittiprasert W, Moescheid MM, Mann VH, Brindley PJ. Multiplexed CRISPR-Cas9 protocol for large transgene integration into the *Schistosoma mansoni* genome. STAR Protoc. 2024;5(1):102886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xpro.2024.102886 PMID: 38354082

65. Chaiyadet S, Tangkawattana S, Smout MJ, Ittiprasert W, Mann VH, Deenonpoe R, et al. Knockout of liver fluke granulin, Ov-grn-1, impedes malignant transformation during chronic infection with *Opisthorchis viverrini*. PLoS Pathog. 2022;18(9):e1010839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1010839 PMID: 36137145