4.5 Article

Untargeted Metabolomics Reveals a Lack Of Synergy between Nifurtimox and Eflornithine against Trypanosoma brucei

期刊

PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001618

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [40183]
  2. Pfizer Animal Health
  3. Wellcome Trust through The Wellcome Trust Centre for Molecular Parasitology
  4. Wellcome Trust [085349]
  5. BBSRC [BB/I004599/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/I004599/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A non-targeted metabolomics-based approach is presented that enables the study of pathways in response to drug action with the aim of defining the mode of action of trypanocides. Eflornithine, a polyamine pathway inhibitor, and nifurtimox, whose mode of action involves its metabolic activation, are currently used in combination as first line treatment against stage 2, CNS-involved, human African trypanosomiasis (HAT). Drug action was assessed using an LC-MS based non-targeted metabolomics approach. Eflornithine revealed the expected changes to the polyamine pathway as well as several unexpected changes that point to pathways and metabolites not previously described in bloodstream form trypanosomes, including a lack of arginase activity and N-acetylated ornithine and putrescine. Nifurtimox was shown to be converted to a trinitrile metabolite indicative of metabolic activation, as well as inducing changes in levels of metabolites involved in carbohydrate and nucleotide metabolism. However, eflornithine and nifurtimox failed to synergise anti-trypanosomal activity in vitro, and the metabolomic changes associated with the combination are the sum of those found in each monotherapy with no indication of additional effects. The study reveals how untargeted metabolomics can yield rapid information on drug targets that could be adapted to any pharmacological situation.

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