4.1 Article

Genetic variants of the TbAT1 adenosine transporter from African trypanosomes in relapse infections following melarsoprol therapy

期刊

MOLECULAR AND BIOCHEMICAL PARASITOLOGY
卷 117, 期 1, 页码 73-81

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-6851(01)00332-2

关键词

human sleeping sickness; melarsoprol; drug resistance; SSCP; adenosine transporter; African trypanosomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have analyzed the TbAT1 genie, which codes for the P2 adenosine transporter, from Trypanosoma brucei field isolates to investigate a possible link between the presence of mutations in this gene and melarsoprol treatment failure. Of 65 T. b. gambiense isolates analyzed from a focus in north-western Uganda with high treatment failure rates following melarsoprol therapy, 38 had a mutated TbAT1. Unexpectedly, all individual isolates contained the same set of nine mutations in their TbAT1 genes. Of these, five point mutations resulted in amino acid substitutions, one resulted in the deletion of an entire codon, and three were silent point mutations. Eight of these mutations had previously been reported in a laboratory-derived Cymelarsan-resistant T. b. brucei clone. Identical sets of mutations were also found in a drug-resistant T.b.rhodesiense isolate from south-eastern Uganda and in a T.b.gambiense isolate from a relapsing patient from northern Angola. A deletion of the TbAT1 gene was found in a single T. b. gambiense isolate from a relapsing patient from northern Angola. The data presented demonstrate the surprising finding that trypanosomes from individual relapse patients of one area, as well as from geographically distant localities, contain an identical set of point mutations in the transporter gene TbAT1. They further demonstrate that many isolates from relapse patients contained the wild-type TbAT1 genes, suggesting that melarsoprol refractoriness is not solely due to a mutational inactivation of TbAT1. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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