4.8 Article

In vitro selection predicts malaria parasite resistance to dihydroorotate dehydrogenase inhibitors in a mouse infection model

Journal

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 521, Pages -

Publisher

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav1636

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [R01 AI093716]
  2. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grand Challenges Exploration grant [OPP1132451]
  3. Harvard Malaria Initiative
  4. ExxonMobil Foundation
  5. Harvard Herchel Smith Fellowship
  6. NIH T32 grant
  7. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1132451] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Resistance has developed in Plasmodium malaria parasites to every antimalarial drug in clinical use, prompting the need to characterize the pathways mediating resistance. Here, we report a framework for assessing development of resistance of Plasmodium falciparum to new antimalarial therapeutics. We investigated development of resistance by P. falciparum to the dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH) inhibitors DSM265 and DSM267 in tissue culture and in a mouse model of P. falciparum infection. We found that resistance to these drugs arose rapidly both in vitro and in vivo. We identified 13 point mutations mediating resistance in the parasite DHODH in vitro that overlapped with the DHODH mutations that arose in the mouse infection model. Mutations in DHODH conferred increased resistance (ranging from 2- to similar to 400-fold) to DHODH inhibitors in P. falciparum in vitro and in vivo. We further demonstrated that the drug-resistant parasites carrying the C276Y mutation had mitochondrial energetics comparable to the wild-type parasite and also retained their fitness in competitive growth experiments. Our data suggest that in vitro selection of drug-resistant P. falciparum can predict development of resistance in a mouse model of malaria infection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available