Increased copy number of the target gene squalene monooxygenase as the main resistance mechanism to terbinafine in Leishmania infantum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use here two genomic screens in an attempt to understand the mode of action and resistance mechanism of terbinafine, an antifungal contemplated as a potential drug against the parasite Leishmania. One screen consisted in in vitro drug evolution where 5 independent mutants were selected step-by-step for terbinafine resistance. Sequencing of the genome of the 5 mutants revealed no single nucleotide polymorphisms related to the resistance phenotype. However, the ERG1 gene was found amplified as part of a linear amplicon, and transfection of ERG1 fully recapitulated the terbinafine resistance phenotype of the mutants. The second screen, Cos-seq, consisted in selecting a gene overexpression library with terbinafine followed by the sequencing of the enriched cosmids. This screen identified two cosmids derived from loci on chromosomes 13 and 29 encoding the squalene monooxygenase (ERG1) and the C8 sterol isomerase (ERG2), respectively. Transfection of the ERG1-cosmid, but not the ERG2-cosmid, produced resistance to terbinafine. Our screens suggest that ERG1 is the main, if not only, target for terbinafine in Leishmania and amplification of its gene is the main resistance mechanism.
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".