OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the in vitro activity of anti-leishmanial drugs against intracellular Leishmania donovani amastigotes in different types of macrophages. METHODS: Mouse peritoneal macrophages (PEMs), mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMPhi), human peripheral blood monocyte-derived macrophages (PBM Phi) and differentiated THP-1 cells were infected with L. donovani. Cultures were incubated with sodium stibogluconate, amphotericin B deoxycholate (Fungizone), miltefosine or paromomycin sulphate over six concentrations in 3-fold serial dilutions for 5 days. Analysis was based on percentage inhibition of infected macrophages and EC(50)/EC(90) values estimated using sigmoidal curve-fitting. RESULTS: The rank order of drug activity was the same in the different macrophage populations: amphotericin B > miltefosine > sodium stibogluconate > paromomycin. However, significant (P < 0.05) differences were observed between populations. Amphotericin B was more active in PEMs and BMM Phi (EC(50) 0.02-0.06 microM) compared with PBM Phi and differentiated THP-1 cells (EC(50) 0.08-0.40 microM) and miltefosine was more active in PBM Phi (EC(50) 0.16-0.74 microM) compared with PEMs and BMM Phi (EC(50) 2.60-7.67 microM). Sodium stibogluconate displayed highest activity in PBM Phi (EC(50) 1.38-1.89 microg Sb(v)/mL), followed by PEMs (EC(50) 21.75-27.79 microg Sb(v)/mL) and BMM Phi and differentiated THP-1 cells (EC(50) 28.96-112.77 microg Sb(v)/mL). Paromomycin showed highest activity in PBM Phi (EC(50) 80.03-104.38 microM) and PEMs (EC(50) 75.42-201.63 microM). CONCLUSIONS: In vitro activity of anti-leishmanial drugs is host cell dependent. This has implications for: (i) the evaluation of in vitro drug activity; (ii) the evaluation of drug susceptibility of clinical isolates; and (iii) the standardization of anti-leishmanial drug assays.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the in vitro activity of anti-leishmanial drugs against intracellular Leishmania donovani amastigotes in different types of macrophages. METHODS:Mouse peritoneal macrophages (PEMs), mouse bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMMPhi), human peripheral blood monocyte-derived macrophages (PBM Phi) and differentiated THP-1 cells were infected with L. donovani. Cultures were incubated with sodium stibogluconate, amphotericin B deoxycholate (Fungizone), miltefosine or paromomycin sulphate over six concentrations in 3-fold serial dilutions for 5 days. Analysis was based on percentage inhibition of infected macrophages and EC(50)/EC(90) values estimated using sigmoidal curve-fitting. RESULTS: The rank order of drug activity was the same in the different macrophage populations: amphotericin B > miltefosine > sodium stibogluconate > paromomycin. However, significant (P < 0.05) differences were observed between populations. Amphotericin B was more active in PEMs and BMM Phi (EC(50) 0.02-0.06 microM) compared with PBM Phi and differentiated THP-1 cells (EC(50) 0.08-0.40 microM) and miltefosine was more active in PBM Phi (EC(50) 0.16-0.74 microM) compared with PEMs and BMM Phi (EC(50) 2.60-7.67 microM). Sodium stibogluconate displayed highest activity in PBM Phi (EC(50) 1.38-1.89 microg Sb(v)/mL), followed by PEMs (EC(50) 21.75-27.79 microg Sb(v)/mL) and BMM Phi and differentiated THP-1 cells (EC(50) 28.96-112.77 microg Sb(v)/mL). Paromomycin showed highest activity in PBM Phi (EC(50) 80.03-104.38 microM) and PEMs (EC(50) 75.42-201.63 microM). CONCLUSIONS: In vitro activity of anti-leishmanial drugs is host cell dependent. This has implications for: (i) the evaluation of in vitro drug activity; (ii) the evaluation of drug susceptibility of clinical isolates; and (iii) the standardization of anti-leishmanial drug assays.
Authors: Luuk C T Dohmen; Adriana Navas; Deninson Alejandro Vargas; David J Gregory; Anke Kip; Thomas P C Dorlo; Maria Adelaida Gomez Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Abebe Genetu Bayih; Anjan Debnath; Edward Mitre; Christopher D Huston; Benoît Laleu; Didier Leroy; Benjamin Blasco; Brice Campo; Timothy N C Wells; Paul A Willis; Peter Sjö; Wesley C Van Voorhis; Dylan R Pillai Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: M Van den Kerkhof; L Van Bockstal; J F Gielis; P Delputte; P Cos; L Maes; Guy Caljon; Sarah Hendrickx Journal: Parasitol Res Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 2.289
Authors: Anna Maria Farca; B Miniscalco; P Badino; R Odore; P Monticelli; A Trisciuoglio; E Ferroglio Journal: Parasitol Res Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 2.289
Authors: Anke E Kip; María Del Mar Castro; Maria Adelaida Gomez; Alexandra Cossio; Jan H M Schellens; Jos H Beijnen; Nancy Gore Saravia; Thomas P C Dorlo Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 5.790