Composition Vendor Newgen KnowledgeWorks (P) Ltd. PLoS One plos plosone PLOS One 1932-6203 Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA 10.1371/journal.pone.0340857 PONE-D-25-55530 Research Article Biology and life sciencesMicrobiologyMedical microbiologyMicrobial pathogensBacterial pathogensPseudomonas aeruginosa Medicine and health sciencesPathology and laboratory medicinePathogensMicrobial pathogensBacterial pathogensPseudomonas aeruginosa Biology and life sciencesOrganismsBacteriaPseudomonasPseudomonas aeruginosa Research and analysis methodsSpectrum analysis techniquesSpectrophotometryCytophotometryFlow cytometry Research and analysis methodsAnimal studiesExperimental organism systemsModel organismsMouse models Research and analysis methodsModel organismsMouse models Research and analysis methodsAnimal studiesExperimental organism systemsAnimal modelsMouse models Biology and life sciencesMicrobiologyMedical microbiologyMicrobial pathogensBacterial pathogens Medicine and health sciencesPathology and laboratory medicinePathogensMicrobial pathogensBacterial pathogens Physical sciencesChemistryChemical compoundsOrganic compoundsCarbohydrates Physical sciencesChemistryOrganic chemistryOrganic compoundsCarbohydrates Biology and life sciencesCell biologyCellular typesAnimal cellsBlood cellsWhite blood cellsMacrophages Biology and life sciencesCell biologyCellular typesAnimal cellsImmune cellsWhite blood cellsMacrophages Biology and life sciencesImmunologyImmune cellsWhite blood cellsMacrophages Medicine and health sciencesImmunologyImmune cellsWhite blood cellsMacrophages Biology and life sciencesPhysiologyImmune physiologyAntibodies Biology and life sciencesImmunologyImmune system proteinsAntibodies Medicine and health sciencesImmunologyImmune system proteinsAntibodies Biology and life sciencesBiochemistryProteinsImmune system proteinsAntibodies Medicine and health sciencesHematologyBloodstream infections A monoclonal antibody raised against Acinetobacter baumannii capsular carbohydrate exhibits cross-species in vitro binding against Pseudomonas aeruginosa Monoclonal antibody exhibits cross-species activity between A. baumannii and P. aeruginosa Slarve Matthew Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Software Supervision Validation Visualization Writing – original draft 1 Jaramillo Hadley Investigation Methodology 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6718-4551 Luna Brian Funding acquisition Software Supervision Writing – review & editing 1 * Spellberg Brad Funding acquisition Supervision Writing – review & editing 2 Department of Immunology and Immune Therapeutics, Keck School of Medicine at USC, Los Angeles, California, United States of America Los Angeles General Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, United States of America Rajasekharan Satish kumar Editor SRMIST (Deemed to be University): SRM Institute of Science and Technology (Deemed to be University), INDIA

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

 * E-mail: brianlun@usc.edu 1212026 2026 21 1 e0340857 17102025 29122025 2026 Slarve et al This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

The emergence of extensively drug-resistant bacterial pathogens such as Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa necessitates the innovation of non-small molecule therapies. Monoclonal antibodies represent a promising non-small molecule option. By exploiting shared or similar antigenic structures on these pathogens, it may be possible to develop therapeutic antibodies that target both bacterial species. Here we demonstrate that a previously developed monoclonal antibody targeting A. baumannii (MAb10) has cross-species reactivity to P. aeruginosa in in vitro assays. Despite MAb10’s distinct efficacy against A. baumannii, no efficacy was detected against P. aeruginosa in our mouse models of infection. Nevertheless, the unique carbohydrate structures targeted by MAb10 and shared by numerous bacterial species may underscore a possible strategy for developing therapeutic antibodies that can treat infections caused by multiple pathogens.

 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) 2R01 AI130060 SpellbergBrad This work was funded by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) grant 2R01 AI130060 to Brad Spellberg. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data Availability All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files. Introduction

With the rise of antibiotic resistance, extensively drug resistant bacteria such as the ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter) have become subjects of critical concern for the development of novel therapies, with monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) emerging as highly desirable alternative to traditional small molecule antibiotics [1–3]. Our lab has long sought to develop MAbs against A. baumannii, and have found success using a target-agnostic discovery approach that prioritizes antibody activity with a broad panel of clinical isolates over specifically selected antigens [4–9].

Using this approach, we previously selected a MAb known as MAb10, which had in vitro binding and in vivo efficacy against A. baumannii isolates with specific capsule carbohydrate structures (K-antigens) [9]. Hence, we sought to determine what common motifs these K-antigens held, which were absent in K-antigens that MAb10 did not react with. Of the numerous K-antigens MAb10 binds to, only the structures of K2, K6, K42, and K46 were characterized in literature [10–13]. A common thread between these structures was the presence of pseudaminic acid (Pse) – a sugar belonging to the nonulosonic acid family of sugars, and only known to be expressed by pathogenic bacteria [14]. Working under the hypothesis that MAb10 reacts with Pse, we sought to evaluate whether it would have activity or protective efficacy against the bacteria that is this sugar’s namesake: the Gram-negative ESKAPE pathogen P. aeruginosa, some serotypes of which express Pse in the variable region of LPS (O-antigens) [15]. Here, we demonstrate that MAb10 – which was produced by immunizing mice with A. baumannii alone – also has binding against P. aeruginosa isolates that have Pse in their O-antigens but lacks therapeutic efficacy.

 Results

Following the observation that the A. baumannii K-antigens that MAb10 binds to all contain Pse, which was initially isolated from P. aeruginosa O-antigens, we sought to compare the overall carbohydrate structures this sugar appears in between these organisms (Table 1) [16]. We have previously published data showing that MAb10 has robust binding against A. baumannii strains that express the four K-antigens shown in Table 1 [9]. Given that MAb10 binding is robust to the structural variations between these four K-antigens, including the placement of Pse within the branching carbohydrate structure, α/β isomers of Pse, modifications on the Pse monomer itself, and dramatically different neighboring sugars in the polysaccharide, we hypothesized that MAb10 would be able to bind to the carbohydrate structures of P. aeruginosa O7 and O9 antigens.

10.1371/journal.pone.0340857.t001MAb10-binding carbohydrates in <italic>A. baumannii</italic> are similar to O-antigens expressed by some serotypes of <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic>. Capsule carbohydrate structures for <italic>A. baumannii</italic> K-antigens with known binding to MAb10 were obtained via literature search and compared to published structures for <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> O-antigens. Pse, as shown in bolded and italicized font, is expressed in all <italic>A. baumannii</italic> K-antigens bound by MAb10, as well as <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> O-antigens O7 and O9. Brackets enclose the repeat unit structures, while sugars outside of the bracket indicate branching sugars.
Species Type Carbohydrate Structure Ref
A. baumannii K2 α-Pse5ac7Ac-(2 → 6)-ß-D-Glcp-(1 → 6)-[→3)-ß-D-Galp-(1 → 3)-ß-D-GalpNAc-(1→] [10]
A. baumannii K6 [→4)-ß-Pse5NAc7Ac-(2 → 6)-ß-D-Galp-(1 → 3)-ß-D-GalpNAc-(1→] [11]
A. baumannii K42 α-Pse5ac7Ac-(2 → 4)-[→3)-ß-D-Ribp-(1 → 3)-ß-D-GalpNAc-(1→] [12]
A. baumannii K46 ß-Psep5Ac7Ac4Ac-(2 → 6)-[→3)-α-D-Galp-(1 → 6)-α-D-GlcpNAc-(1 → 3)-ß-D-GalpNAc-(1→] [13]
P. aeruginosa O7 [→3)-ß-D-FucNAC-(1 → 4)-α-Pse5NAc7NFm-(2 → 4)-ß-D-Xyl-(1→] [16]
P. aeruginosa O9 [→3)-ß-D-QuiNAc-(1→)-(R)-CH3CHCH2CO-(→7)-ß-Pse5NAc7N-(2 → 4)-α-D-FucNAc-(1→] [16]

This binding was first demonstrated via flow cytometry – the O7 expressing strain 1224 had low but marked binding with 10 µg/mL MAb10 producing only 5.3% binding, and 50 µg/mL MAb10 elevating the reaction to 20.1% binding (Fig 1A), with percent binding calculated as the percentage of events in the MAb10 treated condition that were brighter than the events in the control condition. MAb10 had far superior activity with O9 expressing strains, including a clinical isolate (Fig 1B), with which 10 µg/mL MAb10 was sufficient to produce 94.7% binding, and strain 33356, for which 10 µg/mL MAb10 produced nearly 100% binding (Fig 1C). Additionally, MAb10 was tested against PA-01, an O5 serotype reference strain, which does not contain pseudaminic acid in its O-antigen [17,18]. No appreciable binding was observed with either 10 or 50 µg/mL MAb10, supporting the hypothesis that MAb10 may bind pseudaminic acid (Fig 1D). To determine how prevalent MAb10 reactivity would be with a broader sample of clinical P. aeruginosa isolates, we screened our full library of 118 isolates for MAb10 binding via flow cytometry and found that 25 strains (21.1%) reacted with MAb10 (Fig 1E).

10.1371/journal.pone.0340857.g001MAb10 exhibits robust binding to <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> isolates.

A-C) Serotype O7 isolate 1224 (A), a serotype O9 clinical isolate (B), or serotype O9 isolate 33356 (C) were assayed for binding with Mab10 via flow cytometry using 10 or 50 µg/mL conditions. The gate shows the total percentage of events in the MAb10 treated conditions that were brighter than the IgG control treated condition, color coded to match the legend. D) A panel of clinical P. aeruginosa isolates (n = 118) was assayed via flow cytometry for binding with MAb10. Of this panel, 25 isolates (21.2%) had binding with MAb10. Coloration represents the percentage binding per isolate, defined as the percentage of events in the MAb10-treated group of the flow cytometry assay that were brighter than the control group. For the full explanation of the flow cytometry gating strategy, and how percentage binding is calculated, see S1 Fig.

We had previously demonstrated that MAb10 drives macrophage opsonophagocytosis of A. baumannii in vitro [9]. To determine if MAb10 would also promote the opsonophagocytosis of P. aeruginosa, we performed an opsonophagocytosis assay with MAb10 against strain 33356. MAb10 modestly elevated uptake with a median of 20.5 bacterial cells engulfed by macrophages compared to a median of 15 bacterial cells in the control group (Mann-Whitney U Test, p-value = 0.04761) (Fig 2A).

10.1371/journal.pone.0340857.g002MAb10 did not display <italic>in vivo</italic> efficacy against <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> in bloodstream or pulmonary infections.

A) RAW 264.7 cells were infected with P. aeruginosa strain 33356 and treated with 10 µg MAb10 or isotype control antibody, with 4 technical replicates per group. Cells were fixed and stained, and bacterial cells taken up by the macrophage were counted (n = 104 cells for the MAb10 treated group, n = 128 cells for the control). SD = 14.6 for IgG control, 20.5 for MAb10 group, p = 0.04761, effect size = −0.1504275 (Cliff’s Delta). B) Male C3H mice (n = 5) were delivered a bloodstream infection with P. aeruginosa strain 33356 and treated with 300 or 150 µg MAb10 or isotype control p = 0.746 and 0.095 respectively. C) Male C3H mice (n = 5) were delivered pulmonary infection with P. aeruginosa strain 33356 and treated with 150 µg MAb10 or isotype control. p = 0.24.

Given the clinical success of an existing MAb against P. aeruginosa O-antigen, We then sought to evaluate the protective efficacy of MAb10 in vivo using pulmonary and bloodstream infection models [19]. We had previously established that MAb10 was highly efficacious against lethal infection by A. baumannii with a dose as low as 1 µg. However, given the modest uptake shown in the opsonophagocytosis assay against P. aeruginosa, higher doses of MAb10 were used for the in vivo experiments. Male BAlb/C mice were infected intravenous (Fig 2B) or by an oral aspiration route (Fig 2C) with strain 33356 which has been used by previous investigators in infection models with BAlb/C mice [20]. Immediately following infection, mice were given intravenous treatment with a single dose of 150 µg or 300 µg MAb10, or isotype control. Mice were followed for seven days post-challenge. Neither infection model showed a benefit of MAb10 treatment against strain 33356, with all MAb10 treated groups having comparable survival to their respective control group.

 Discussion

We have previously shown that MAb10 broadly binds diverse A. baumannii isolates, and has excellent in vivo activity in our mouse model of bloodstream infection [9]. Here we explored its ability to bind and effectively treat infections caused by P. aeruginosa, given the observation that MAb10 has considerable in vitro binding potential with both pathogens. This may be because of oligosaccharides containing pseudaminic acid presenting as similar surface targets that are shared between both organisms, though further analysis would be required to rule out the possibility of other motifs mediating this binding. However, despite the measurable in vitro binding observed via flow cytometry, no in vivo efficacy was detected.

These results underscore several important points. First, it may be possible to find common antigens across different species and genera of pathological bacteria. For example, the PSE sugar has only been found to be expressed by pathogenic bacteria, having first been discovered in P. aeruginosa, followed by Shigella boydii, Campylobacter jejuni, Helicobacter pylori, A. baumannii, and enteroinvasive and enterotoxigenic strains of Escherichia coli [10,14,21–24]. Second, however, is that merely binding to target antigens is not sufficient to ensure clinical efficacy in vivo. We found that MAb 10 bound robustly in vitro to strains of P. aeruginosa but did not mediate protective efficacy in vivo. Although MAbs against the O-antigen of P. aeruginosa have seen success not only in mouse models but also clinical trials [19], and MAb10 has excellent potency against A. baumannii [9], the therapeutic effect is not one-size-fits-all, and protection against one pathogen does not necessarily equate to protection against another.

 Materials and methods Ethics statement

All animal work was conducted following approval by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Southern California, in compliance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. Infected mice develop weight loss, ruffled fur, poor appetite, decreased ambulation, huddling behavior, and low body temperature. Mice that displayed huddling behavior and poor mobility were weighed 1x daily. Weight loss of greater than 15% body weight triggered immediate euthanasia via carbon dioxide asphyxiation as regulated by IACUC. Mice were monitored at least twice daily for seven days, and no animals died before meeting criteria for euthanasia. Soft bedding and other enrichment devices were provided as recommended by the veterinary staff. Nutritional supplements, such as hydrogel packs were provided as needed.

 Generation of MAb10

MAb10 was generated as previously published [9]. In brief, BALB/c mice were immunized with a sublethal inoculum (2e5 CFU/mouse) of 30 mixed A. baumannii isolates. Hybridomas were generated and selected as previously described [4–8]. Media was then assayed for presence of antibodies via flow cytometry for reactivity with A. baumannii isolates. MAb10 was purified from hybridoma media by protein G affinity chromatography and humanized and expressed as an IgG1 by Absolute Antibody as previously described into a final buffer of PBS, with endotoxin <1 EU/mg [8].

 Bacterial inoculum preparation

Bacteria were cultured overnight in tryptic soy broth (TSB) at 37°C with shaking at 200 RPM. Subcultures were diluted at 1:100 ratio and cultured for 3 hours until log phase under identical conditions, then washed 3x with phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and adjusted to the appropriate concentration for infection.

 Flow cytometry

Bacterial isolates were cultured overnight in TSB, then a 1:100 dilution subculture was incubated in TSB for 3 hours at 37°C. The cultures were washed 3x in PBS and adjusted to 1e7 CFU/mL via optical density measurement, then incubated with 10 or 50 μg/mL MAb10 or IgG control, followed by 2 μg/mL secondary antibody with AlexaFluor 647 (Thermo Fisher Scientific catalog A21445). Samples were washed twice in PBS, then flow cytometry was performed using an Accuri C6 Plus (BD). 10,000 events were collected for each sample under all conditions.

 Calculation of percent binding

Flow cytometry was done as described above using either standard or clinical method, using either an IgG isotype control antibody (Thermo Fisher Scientific, catalog MAB002, clone 11711) or MAb10, with an Alexa fluor 647 conjugated secondary antibody providing fluorescence. Using FlowJo software, events were gated for brightness with the low end of the gate set to include the brightest 1% of events in the IgG isotype control treated condition, and the high end set to the maximum brightness possible to detect. Percent binding was calculated as the percent of events in the MAb10 treated group that fall within that gate and are therefore brighter than the control group. Each strain assayed was gated individually. S1 Fig provides a clear example of the gating strategy.

 Macrophage opsonophagocytosis assay

This assay was done as previously described [25]. Briefly, RAW 264.7 macrophages (5 × 105/well; ATCC) were cultured on a glass microscope slide coverslip and stimulated with 100 U/mL IFN-γ overnight at 37°C with 5% CO2. A. baumannii overnight cultures were subcultured to log phase, resuspended in Hanks’ balanced salt solution (HBSS) to 2e8 CFU/mL. Bacteria were added to wells at a ratio of 20:1 (bacteria to macrophages) with 10% CD-1 (IMSCD1-COMPL; Innovative Research Inc.) mouse serum and 10 μg/mL MAb10 or control antibody (Thermo Fisher Scientific, catalog MAB002, clone 11711). Macrophages fixed with 100% methanol and stained with Hema stain according to the manufacturer’s protocol (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Coverslips were imaged on a Leica DMLS clinical microscope with a Leica ICC50 HD digital camera, and engulfed bacteria were counted.

 Mouse intravenous infection model

BAlb/C mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory (strain 000651) between 7 and 8 weeks of age at the time of infection. Mice were infected intravenously via the tail vein, followed by immediate administration of MAb10 or control treatment via the tail vein. Survival time was monitored for 7 days.

 Mouse pulmonary infection model

BAlb/C mice from The Jackson Laboratory, aged 7–8 weeks were sedated via isoflurane inhalation and suspended vertically. 50 μL bacterial inoculum was pipetted into the back of the throat, with the tongue restrained to prevent swallowing until the full inoculum was inhaled [26]. Mice were monitored for 7 days post-infection.

 Statistics

Mouse survival curves were compared using the log-rank test (α = 0.05). Macrophage phagocytosis results were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

 Supporting information Bacterial flow cytometry gating strategy and acquisition of percent binding via FlowJo software.

Flow cytometry events from the IgG isotype control treated group were first viewed on a forward and side scatter plot. Excessively large or granular events were eliminated via box gate (A). Events selected via gating in figure A were then plotted as a histogram with the X axis displaying brightness on the flow cytometer’s APC channel. A gate was used to select any events brighter than the 99th percentile of the IgG isotype control (B). This gate was then applied to the MAb treated group, and the percentage of events that fell within that gate were interpreted as the ‘percent binding’. In the sample shown, the percent binding is 99.2% (C).

(TIF)

 Data release.

All data addressed in this manuscript is available in the supplemental file Data_release.xlsx, with individual tabs containing data for specific figures. Data is formatted for easy analysis via R software.

(XLSX)

Special thank you to Antonio DiGiandomenico and Joseph Horzempa for providing some of the P. aeruginosa isolates used in this work.

 References Miller WR, Arias CA. ESKAPE pathogens: antimicrobial resistance, epidemiology, clinical impact and therapeutics. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2024;22(10):598–616. doi: 10.1038/s41579-024-01054-w 38831030 Troisi M, Marini E, Abbiento V, Stazzoni S, Andreano E, Rappuoli R. A new dawn for monoclonal antibodies against antimicrobial resistant bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:1080059. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1080059 36590399 Vacca F, Sala C, Rappuoli R. Monoclonal Antibodies for Bacterial Pathogens: Mechanisms of Action and Engineering Approaches for Enhanced Effector Functions. Biomedicines. 2022;10(9):2126. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10092126 Nielsen TB, Pantapalangkoor P, Luna BM, Bruhn KW, Yan J, Dekitani K, et al. Monoclonal Antibody Protects Against Acinetobacter baumannii Infection by Enhancing Bacterial Clearance and Evading Sepsis. J Infect Dis. 2017;216(4):489–501. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jix315 28931235 Nielsen TB, Yan J, Luna BM, Talyansky Y, Slarve M, Bonomo RA, et al. Monoclonal Antibody Requires Immunomodulation for Efficacy Against Acinetobacter baumannii Infection. J Infect Dis. 2021;224(12):2133–47. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiab265 34036366 Nielsen TB, Yan J, Slarve M, Lu P, Li R, Ruiz J, et al. Monoclonal Antibody Therapy against Acinetobacter baumannii. Infect Immun. 2021;89(10):e0016221. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00162-21 34310884 Nielsen TB, Yan J, Slarve M, Li R, Junge JA, Luna BM, et al. Development of a Bispecific Antibody Targeting Clinical Isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii. J Infect Dis. 2023;227(9):1042–9. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac499 36617220 Slarve M, Reyna Z, Burk E, Ruiz-Delgado J, Li R, Yan J, et al. Therapeutic, Humanized Monoclonal Antibody Exhibits Broad Binding and Protective Efficacy against Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2023;67(3):e0008623. doi: 10.1128/aac.00086-23 36853012 Slarve MJ, Bowler N, Burk E, Yan J, Carlino-MacDonald U, Russo TA, et al. Clinical assays rapidly predict bacterial susceptibility to monoclonal antibody therapy. JCI Insight. 2024;9(2):e174799. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.174799 38258902 Kenyon JJ, Marzaioli AM, Hall RM, De Castro C. Structure of the K2 capsule associated with the KL2 gene cluster of Acinetobacter baumannii. Glycobiology. 2014;24(6):554–63. doi: 10.1093/glycob/cwu024 24688093 Kenyon JJ, Marzaioli AM, Hall RM, De Castro C. Structure of the K6 capsular polysaccharide from Acinetobacter baumannii isolate RBH4. Carbohydr Res. 2015;409:30–5. doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2015.03.016 25917131 Giguère D. Surface polysaccharides from Acinetobacter baumannii: Structures and syntheses. Carbohydr Res. 2015;418:29–43. doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2015.10.001 26531136 Kenyon JJ, Arbatsky NP, Shneider MM, Popova AV, Dmitrenok AS, Kasimova AA, et al. The K46 and K5 capsular polysaccharides produced by Acinetobacter baumannii NIPH 329 and SDF have related structures and the side-chain non-ulosonic acids are 4-O-acetylated by phage-encoded O-acetyltransferases. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0218461. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218461 31220143 Pseudaminic Acid - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. [cited 20 Aug 2024]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/pseudaminic-acid Huszczynski SM, Lam JS, Khursigara CM. The Role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Lipopolysaccharide in Bacterial Pathogenesis and Physiology. Pathogens. 2019;9(1):6. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9010006 31861540 Knirel YA. Polysaccharide antigens of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Crit Rev Microbiol. 1990;17(4):273–304. doi: 10.3109/10408419009105729 1698385 Makin SA, Beveridge TJ. Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 ceases to express serotype-specific lipopolysaccharide at 45 degrees C. J Bacteriol. 1996;178(11):3350–2. doi: 10.1128/jb.178.11.3350-3352.1996 8655520 Bystrova OV, Lindner B, Moll H, Kocharova NA, Knirel YA, Zahringer U, et al. Full structure of the lipopolysaccharide of Pseudomonas aeruginosa immunotype 5. Biochemistry (Mosc). 2004;69(2):170–5. doi: 10.1023/b:biry.0000018947.60328.8d 15000683 Que Y-A, Lazar H, Wolff M, François B, Laterre P-F, Mercier E, et al. Assessment of panobacumab as adjunctive immunotherapy for the treatment of nosocomial Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;33(10):1861–7. doi: 10.1007/s10096-014-2156-1 24859907 DiGiandomenico A, Warrener P, Hamilton M, Guillard S, Ravn P, Minter R, et al. Identification of broadly protective human antibodies to Pseudomonas aeruginosa exopolysaccharide Psl by phenotypic screening. J Exp Med. 2012;209(7):1273–87. doi: 10.1084/jem.20120033 22734046 Knirel YA, Vinogradov EV, L’vov VL, Kocharova NA, Shashkov AS, Dmitriev BA, et al. Sialic acids of a new type from the lipopolysaccharides of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Shigella boydii. Carbohydr Res. 1984;133(2):C5–8. doi: 10.1016/0008-6215(84)85213-1 Goon S, Kelly JF, Logan SM, Ewing CP, Guerry P. Pseudaminic acid, the major modification on Campylobacter flagellin, is synthesized via the Cj1293 gene. Mol Microbiol. 2003;50(2):659–71. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03725.x 14617187 Salah Ud-Din AIM, Roujeinikova A. Flagellin glycosylation with pseudaminic acid in Campylobacter and Helicobacter: prospects for development of novel therapeutics. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2018;75(7):1163–78. doi: 10.1007/s00018-017-2696-5 29080090 Staaf M, Weintraub A, Widmalm G. Structure determination of the O-antigenic polysaccharide from the enteroinvasive Escherichia coli O136. Eur J Biochem. 1999;263(3):656–61. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.1999.00531.x 10469128 Slarve M, Nielsen T, Yu D, VanOrman J, Luna B, Spellberg B. Evaluating antibody mediated opsonophagocytosis of bacteria via lab protocol: RAW 264.7 cell phagocytosis assay. PLoS One. 2025;20(9):e0331445. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331445 40924683 Murine Oropharyngeal Aspiration Model of Ventilator-associated and Hospital-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia. [cited 27 Aug 2024]. Available from: https://app.jove.com/t/57672/murine-oropharyngeal-aspiration-model-of-ventilator-associated-and-hospital-acquired-bacterial-pneumonia 10.1371/journal.pone.0340857.r001 Decision Letter 0 Rajasekharan Satish kumar Academic Editor 2026 Satish kumar Rajasekharan This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 0

12 Nov 2025

Dear Dr. Luna,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Satish kumar Rajasekharan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please expand the acronym “NIAID” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

NO authors have competing interests

Enter: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript presents a well-designed and scientifically sound study addressing the urgent issue of antimicrobial resistance, focusing on Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The exploration of monoclonal antibodies as an alternative to small-molecule therapeutics is both timely and innovative. The study is clearly written in standard scientific English, with a logical structure and coherent flow of ideas.The authors have made all data underlying the findings fully available, demonstrating transparency and commitment to reproducibility. The inclusion of both in vitro assays and in vivo infection models strengthens the reliability of the results. Statistical analyses appear to have been performed appropriately and rigorously, supporting the validity of the conclusions.The findings are technically sound and well interpreted. The distinction between in vitro cross-reactivity and the lack of in vivo efficacy against P. aeruginosa is handled with scientific caution, and the discussion appropriately links these observations to the broader goal of developing broad-spectrum therapeutic antibodies.Overall, the manuscript is methodologically robust, well written, and contributes valuable insights into antibody-based strategies against multidrug-resistant pathogens. I recommend publication after minor editorial revisions.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript primarily reports cross-reactivity of a previously characterized antibody; however, the novelty is limited since the lack of in vivo efficacy diminishes translational impact. Authors should better justify the originality of this work relative to prior studies

The rationale for testing P. aeruginosa appears speculative. A more systematic antigenic or epitope-level comparison should precede experimental testing to justify this direction.

The central hypothesis—that MAb10 binds pseudaminic acid-containing epitopes across species—requires biochemical validation. Without structural confirmation (e.g., glycan array or ELISA with purified carbohydrates), this remains speculative. Also, authors must discuss alternative explanations for cross-reactivity, such as nonspecific binding or shared glyco-motifs unrelated to pseudaminic acid.

The in vitro binding results rely solely on flow cytometry. There is no orthogonal confirmation (e.g., ELISA, immunoblot, or surface plasmon resonance).

The use of only one or two P. aeruginosa reference strains (O7 and O9) limits generalizability. Broader strain diversity should be analyzed or statistically summarized.

The opsonophagocytosis assay shows marginal significance (p = 0.0476) and a modest biological effect. Replication and quantitative statistical reporting (effect size, SD, n) are needed.

The manuscript lacks proper negative and positive controls for cross-reactivity—e.g., known P. aeruginosa O-antigen MAb as a comparator.

Antibody purity, concentration verification, and endotoxin levels should be described since these can affect macrophage responses and animal outcomes.

There is no mention of antibody affinity or subclass, both of which influence effector function and could explain the lack of protection.

The manuscript presents a study on cross-species reactivity of an anti-A. baumannii monoclonal antibody (MAb10) against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The topic is timely and relevant, considering the global concern over antimicrobial resistance. However, while the study demonstrates some interesting in vitro observations, the experimental depth, mechanistic exploration, and translational significance are limited. The work lacks sufficient novelty and mechanistic insights to warrant publication in its current form. This manuscript would likely require major revisions before it could meet PLOS ONE standards.

**********

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: Yes:  Chaitany Jayprakash Raorane

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

 10.1371/journal.pone.0340857.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 1 Submission Version 1

25 Nov 2025

Reviewer #1:

1. I recommend publication after minor editorial revisions.

We thank you for your positive assessment of our work.

Reviewer #2:

1. The novelty is limited since the lack of in vivo efficacy diminishes translational impact. Authors should better justify the originality of this work relative to prior studies

a. The rational approach to the characterization of the MAb, including the shared capsule features across species, has not been previously reported. It was therefore highly encouraging that our hypothesis was correct and that a MAb that was raised against A. baumannii was also able to bind to P. aeruginosa. Though we had hoped to see in vivo efficacy of this antibody against P. aeruginosa that was comparable to the extensive efficacy that was previously demonstrated against A. baumannii, we feel that the lack of efficacy against P. aeruginosa makes for an important scientific observation. The differential in efficacy of the MAb in these distinct species despite similar in vitro observations between the two demonstrates the challenge of producing an antimicrobial MAb that is able to treat infections caused by multiple pathogens. This in itself is the point we aim to make with this paper.

2. The rationale for testing P. aeruginosa appears speculative. A more systematic antigenic or epitope-level comparison should precede experimental testing to justify this direction.

a. The initial hypothesis was informed by the finding that MAb10 was able to bind only to A. baumannii strains that expressed capsule types that contained pseudaminic acid residues, with great consistency across a panel of 550 clinical isolates – data that was published in the paper that initially characterized MAb10. With this in mind, testing the MAb via flow cytometry against P. aeruginosa strains that were known to express pseudaminic acid was a simple and direct experiment, the results of which naturally led to the subsequent efficacy screens. Consistent with our hypothesis, the MAb was able to bind well to P. aeruginosa in vitro.

3. The central hypothesis—that MAb10 binds pseudaminic acid-containing epitopes across species—requires biochemical validation. Without structural confirmation (e.g., glycan array or ELISA with purified carbohydrates), this remains speculative.

a. Given the lack of efficacy of MAb10 against P. aeruginosa, we do not feel that further investigation into the precise epitope that MAb10 binds on this species is warranted. Our intent is to publish the finding that MAb10 binds to both species (potentially because of their shared expression of pseudaminic acid) but only shows efficacy against one. The discussion section describes this limitation.

4. Also, authors must discuss alternative explanations for cross-reactivity, such as nonspecific binding or shared glyco-motifs unrelated to pseudaminic acid.

a. This has been added to the discussion as requested (line 92)

5. The in vitro binding results rely solely on flow cytometry. There is no orthogonal confirmation (e.g., ELISA, immunoblot, or surface plasmon resonance).

a. Given the lack of translational impact of MAb10 against P. aeruginosa, we do not feel that such experiments are warranted at this time.

6. The use of only one or two P. aeruginosa reference strains (O7 and O9) limits generalizability. Broader strain diversity should be analyzed or statistically summarized.

a. We have added an additional reference strain which lacks pseudaminic acid, and which MAb10 demonstrably does not bind to. Furthermore, there is a broad screen of 118 clinical isolates of P. aeruginosa included as a heatmap in figure 1E, wherein MAb10 bound to 25 of them.

7. The opsonophagocytosis assay shows marginal significance (p = 0.0476) and a modest biological effect. Replication and quantitative statistical reporting (effect size, SD, n) are needed.

a. The figure has been updated to clarify that it is representative of two experiments with similar outcomes. The quantitative and statistical reporting has been added to the figure legend as requested.

8. The manuscript lacks proper negative and positive controls for cross-reactivity—e.g., known P. aeruginosa O-antigen MAb as a comparator.

a. To our knowledge, no such positive control is presently available. A strain with a verified serotype that lacks pseudaminic acid has been added as a negative control, and is now in figure 1D.

9. Antibody purity, concentration verification, and endotoxin levels should be described since these can affect macrophage responses and animal outcomes.

There is no mention of antibody affinity or subclass, both of which influence effector function and could explain the lack of protection.

a. This information has been added to the methods section.

Submitted filename: PlosONE response to reviewers.docx

 10.1371/journal.pone.0340857.r003 Decision Letter 1 Rajasekharan Satish kumar Academic Editor 2026 Satish kumar Rajasekharan This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 1

29 Dec 2025

A monoclonal antibody raised against Acinetobacter baumannii capsular carbohydrate exhibits cross-species in vitro binding against Pseudomonas aeruginosa

PONE-D-25-55530R1

Dear Dr. Luna,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Satish kumar Rajasekharan

Academic Editor

PLOS One

 10.1371/journal.pone.0340857.r004 Acceptance letter Rajasekharan Satish kumar Academic Editor 2026 Satish kumar Rajasekharan This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

PONE-D-25-55530R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Luna,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Satish kumar Rajasekharan

Academic Editor

PLOS One