Differential effects of translation inhibitors on <i>Plasmodium berghei</i> liver stage parasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing numbers of antimalarial compounds are being identified that converge mechanistically at inhibition of cytoplasmic translation, regardless of the molecular target or mechanism. A deeper understanding of how their effectiveness as liver stage translation inhibitors relates to their chemoprotective potential could prove useful. Here, we probed that relationship using the Plasmodium berghei –HepG2 liver stage infection model. After determining translation inhibition EC 50 s for five compounds, we tested them at equivalent effective concentrations to compare the parasite response to, and recovery from, a brief period of translation inhibition in early schizogony, followed by parasites to 120 h post-infection to assess antiplasmodial effects of the treatment. We show compound-specific heterogeneity in single parasite and population responses to translation inhibitor treatment, with no single metric strongly correlated to the release of hepatic merozoites for all compounds. We also demonstrate that DDD107498 is capable of exerting antiplasmodial effects on translationally arrested liver stage parasites and uncover unexpected growth dynamics during the liver stage. Our results demonstrate that translation inhibition efficacy does not determine antiplasmodial efficacy for these compounds.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".