2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.02.09.430468
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transcriptome signature of cell viability predicts drug response and drug interaction for Tuberculosis

Abstract: The treatment of tuberculosis (TB), which kills 1.8 million each year, remains difficult, especially with the emergence of multidrug resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb). While there is an urgent need for new drug regimens to treat TB, the process of drug evaluation is slow and inefficient owing to the slow growth rate of the pathogen, the complexity of performing bacteriologic assays in a high-containment facility, and the context-dependent variability in drug sensitivity of the pathogen. Her… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 41 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, Δ madR also showed increased sensitivity to INH (4 µg/mL) compared to the WT and complemented strains (8 µg/mL). In WT M. tuberculosis , desA1 / desA2 are significantly down-regulated in response to 0.18 µg/mL INH for 4, 24, and 72 h (at 24 h, log 2 fold change = −2.50 and −2.712 for desA1 and desA2 , respectively; P < 0.01), and, therefore, the inability of MadR to repress expression may account for this increased susceptibility in the deletion strain ( 30 , 31 ). There was no change in the MIC for ETM between the strains.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interestingly, Δ madR also showed increased sensitivity to INH (4 µg/mL) compared to the WT and complemented strains (8 µg/mL). In WT M. tuberculosis , desA1 / desA2 are significantly down-regulated in response to 0.18 µg/mL INH for 4, 24, and 72 h (at 24 h, log 2 fold change = −2.50 and −2.712 for desA1 and desA2 , respectively; P < 0.01), and, therefore, the inability of MadR to repress expression may account for this increased susceptibility in the deletion strain ( 30 , 31 ). There was no change in the MIC for ETM between the strains.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%