| Literature DB >> 30683152 |
Christiana Vargas Ribeiro1, Bruna Fonte Boa Rocha1, Douglas de Souza Moreira1, Vanessa Peruhype-Magalhães1, Silvane Maria Fonseca Murta2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glycosylphosphatidylinositol is a surface molecule important for host-parasite interactions. Mannosyltransferase (GPI-14) is an essential enzyme for adding mannose on the glycosylphosphatidyl group. This study attempted to overexpress the GPI-14 gene in Leishmania braziliensis to investigate its role in the antimony-resistance phenotype of this parasite.Entities:
Keywords: Antimony resistance; Concanavalin-A; Glycosylphosphatidylinositol; Leishmania braziliensis; Mannosyltransferase
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30683152 PMCID: PMC6346506 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-019-3305-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Levels of transcription of the GPI-14 gene (a) and concanavalin-A (Con-A) lectin binding profile (b-d) in the wild type and GPI-14 overexpressor L. braziliensis lines. a Levels of GPI-14 mRNA as determined quantitatively (relative to the DNA polymerase Leishmania gene) by real-time RT-PCR. Transcript levels ratio (GPI-14/DNA polymerase gene) ± standard deviations are indicated from three independent experiments. b Flow cytometric analysis of the differential expression of surface carbohydrate in wild-type (LbWT) and GPI14C10 clone (LbGPI14C10) of L. braziliensis using concanavalin-A (Con-A) lectin conjugated to fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC). c The GPI-14-overexpressor clones were compared to the wild-type L. braziliensis line by the amount of α-D-mannosyl and α-D-glucosyl on its surface using concanavalin-A FITC agglutination profile and a significant difference is seen in the mean intensity of fluorescence (gMIF) in both clones. d The percentage (%) of Con-A FITC labeled parasites was used as a control parameter of efficiency. Data obtained in duplicates from at least three independent experiments were analyzed by Student’s t-test using GraphPad Prism 5.0 software. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.001) between wild type and GPI-14 overexpressor parasites are showed by asterisks (***). Pairwise comparisons: a LbWT vs LbGPI14C4 (t(3) = 21.16, P = 0.0002); LbWT vs LbGPI14C10 (t(4) = 9.130, P = 0.0008); c LbWT vs LbGPI14C4 (t(3) = 25.03, P = 0.0001); LbWT vs LbGPI14C10 (t(3) = 23.92, P = 0.0002)
Fig. 2SbIII susceptibility assays on the promastigotes and intracellular amastigotes of wild type and GPI-14-overexpressor L. braziliensis clones. a Promastigotes were cultured in the absence or presence of increasing SbIII concentrations (1.2 to 74.9 μM) for 48 h and the percentage of relative growth was determined using a Z1 coulter counter. b, c SbIII susceptibility was evaluated on amastigotes using THP-1-derived human macrophages. THP-1 macrophages infected with L. braziliensis lines were cultured in the absence or presence of increasing SbIII concentrations (12.5 to 200 μM) for 72 h and the percentage of infected macrophages (b) and number of parasites per 100 macrophages (c) was determined. The EC50 (μM) values were calculated for promastigotes (d) and amastigotes (e) of LbWT, LbGPI14C4 and LbGPI14C10 and the fold change in the resistance index of overexpressor clones relative to LbWT was determined. Statistical analysis of the curves was analyzed by Student’s t-test. ‘*’ represents a statistical difference between the wild-type lines and each overexpressor clone (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001; see Tables 1 and 2 for details on pairwise comparisons)
Statistical analysis of SbIII susceptibility assays on the promastigotes of wild type and GPI-14-overexpressor L. braziliensis clones
| SbIII (μM) | Pairwise comparisonsa | |
|---|---|---|
| LbWT | LbWT | |
| 1.2 | ||
| 2.3 | ||
| 4.7 | – | |
| 9.4 | – | |
| 18.7 | ||
| 37.4 | ||
| 74.9 | ||
aStudent’s t-test
Statistical analysis of SbIII susceptibility assays on the intracellular amastigotes of wild type and GPI-14-overexpressor L. braziliensis clones
| SbIII (μM) | Percentage of infected macrophagesa | No. of parasites per 100 macrophagesb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LbWT | LbWT | LbWT | LbWT | |
| 12.5 | ||||
| 25 | ||||
| 50 | ||||
| 100 | ||||
| 200 | ||||
aPairwise comparisons (Student’s t-test) (Fig. 2b)
bPairwise comparisons (Student’s t-test) (Fig. 2c)