Altered life history strategies protect malaria parasites against drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drug resistance has been reported against all antimalarial drugs, and while parasites can evolve classical resistance mechanisms (e.g., efflux pumps), it is also possible that changes in life history traits could help parasites evade the effects of treatment. The life history of malaria parasites is governed by an intrinsic resource allocation problem: specialized stages are required for transmission, but producing these stages comes at the cost of producing fewer of the forms required for within-host survival. Drug treatment, by design, alters the probability of within-host survival, and so should alter the costs and benefits of investing in transmission. Here, we use a within-host model of malaria infection to predict optimal patterns of investment in transmission in the face of different drug treatment regimes and determine the extent to which alternative patterns of investment can buffer the fitness loss due to drugs. We show that over a range of drug doses, parasites are predicted to adopt "reproductive restraint" (investing more in asexual replication and less in transmission) to maximize fitness. By doing so, parasites recoup some of the fitness loss imposed by drugs, though as may be expected, increasing dose reduces the extent to which altered patterns of transmission investment can benefit parasites. We show that adaptation to drug-treated infections could result in more virulent infections in untreated hosts. This work emphasizes that in addition to classical resistance mechanisms, drug treatment generates selection for altered parasite life history. Understanding how any shifts in life history will alter the efficacy of drugs, as well as any limitations on such shifts, is important for evaluating and predicting the consequences of drug treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".