Chloroquine exposure triggers distinct cellular responses in sensitive versus resistant Plasmodium falciparum parasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chloroquine (CQ) treatment failure in Plasmodium falciparum parasites has been documented for decades, but the pharmacological explanation of this phenotype is not fully understood. Current concepts attribute CQ resistance to reduced accumulation of the drug at a given external CQ concentration ([CQ]ex) in resistant compared to sensitive parasites. The implication of this explanation is that the mechanisms of CQ-induced toxicity in resistant and sensitive strains are similar once lethal internal concentrations have been reached. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the mechanism of CQ-induced toxicity in CQ-sensitive (CQS) versus CQ-resistant (CQR) parasites by analyzing the time-course of cellular responses in these strains after exposure to varying [CQ]ex as determined in 72 h toxicity assays. Parasite killing was delayed in CQR parasites for up to 10 h compared to CQS parasites when exposed to equipotent [CQ]ex. In striking contrast, brief exposure (1 h) to lethal [CQ]ex in CQS but not CQR parasites caused the appearance of hitherto undescribed hemozoin (Hz)-containing compartments in the parasite cytosol. Hz-containing compartments were very rarely observed in CQR parasites even after CQ exposures sufficient to cause irreversible cell death. These findings challenge current concepts that CQ killing of malaria parasites is solely concentration-dependent, and instead suggest that CQS and CQR strains fundamentally differ in the consequences of CQ exposure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".