4.5 Article

Genomic and Proteomic Studies on the Mode of Action of Oxaboroles against the African Trypanosome

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004299

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [079838, 098051]
  2. BBSRC [BB/M009556/1]
  3. BBSRC [BB/M009556/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/M009556/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SCYX-7158, an oxaborole, is currently in Phase I clinical trials for the treatment of human African trypanosomiasis. Here we investigate possible modes of action against Trypanosoma brucei using orthogonal chemo-proteomic and genomic approaches. SILAC-based proteomic studies using an oxaborole analogue immobilised onto a resin was used either in competition with a soluble oxaborole or an immobilised inactive control to identify thirteen proteins common to both strategies. Cell-cycle analysis of cells incubated with sub-lethal concentrations of an oxaborole identified a subtle but significant accumulation of G2 and >G2 cells. Given the possibility of compromised DNA fidelity, we investigated long-term exposure of T. brucei to oxaboroles by generating resistant cell lines in vitro. Resistance proved more difficult to generate than for drugs currently used in the field, and in one of our three cell lines was unstable. Whole-genome sequencing of the resistant cell lines revealed single nucleotide polymorphisms in 66 genes and several large-scale genomic aberrations. The absence of a simple consistent mechanism among resistant cell lines and the diverse list of binding partners from the proteomic studies suggest a degree of polypharmacology that should reduce the risk of resistance to this compound class emerging in the field. The combined genetic and chemical biology approaches have provided lists of candidates to be investigated for more detailed information on the mode of action of this promising new drug class.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据