Cargando…

A model-based analysis identifies differences in phenotypic resistance between in vitro and in vivo: implications for translational medicine within tuberculosis

Proper characterization of drug effects on Mycobacterium tuberculosis relies on the characterization of phenotypically resistant bacteria to correctly establish exposure–response relationships. The aim of this work was to evaluate the potential difference in phenotypic resistance in in vitro compare...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clewe, Oskar, Faraj, Alan, Hu, Yanmin, Coates, Anthony R. M., Simonsson, Ulrika S. H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7520421/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32488575
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10928-020-09694-0
_version_ 1783587783003078656
author Clewe, Oskar
Faraj, Alan
Hu, Yanmin
Coates, Anthony R. M.
Simonsson, Ulrika S. H.
author_facet Clewe, Oskar
Faraj, Alan
Hu, Yanmin
Coates, Anthony R. M.
Simonsson, Ulrika S. H.
author_sort Clewe, Oskar
collection PubMed
description Proper characterization of drug effects on Mycobacterium tuberculosis relies on the characterization of phenotypically resistant bacteria to correctly establish exposure–response relationships. The aim of this work was to evaluate the potential difference in phenotypic resistance in in vitro compared to murine in vivo models using CFU data alone or CFU together with most probable number (MPN) data following resuscitation with culture supernatant. Predictions of in vitro and in vivo phenotypic resistance i.e. persisters, using the Multistate Tuberculosis Pharmacometric (MTP) model framework was evaluated based on bacterial cultures grown with and without drug exposure using CFU alone or CFU plus MPN data. Phenotypic resistance and total bacterial number in in vitro natural growth observations, i.e. without drug, was well predicted by the MTP model using only CFU data. Capturing the murine in vivo total bacterial number and persisters during natural growth did however require re-estimation of model parameter using both the CFU and MPN observations implying that the ratio of persisters to total bacterial burden is different in vitro compared to murine in vivo. The evaluation of the in vitro rifampicin drug effect revealed that higher resolution in the persister drug effect was seen using CFU and MPN compared to CFU alone although drug effects on the other bacterial populations were well predicted using only CFU data. The ratio of persistent bacteria to total bacteria was predicted to be different between in vitro and murine in vivo. This difference could have implications for subsequent translational efforts in tuberculosis drug development. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10928-020-09694-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7520421
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75204212020-10-13 A model-based analysis identifies differences in phenotypic resistance between in vitro and in vivo: implications for translational medicine within tuberculosis Clewe, Oskar Faraj, Alan Hu, Yanmin Coates, Anthony R. M. Simonsson, Ulrika S. H. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn Original Paper Proper characterization of drug effects on Mycobacterium tuberculosis relies on the characterization of phenotypically resistant bacteria to correctly establish exposure–response relationships. The aim of this work was to evaluate the potential difference in phenotypic resistance in in vitro compared to murine in vivo models using CFU data alone or CFU together with most probable number (MPN) data following resuscitation with culture supernatant. Predictions of in vitro and in vivo phenotypic resistance i.e. persisters, using the Multistate Tuberculosis Pharmacometric (MTP) model framework was evaluated based on bacterial cultures grown with and without drug exposure using CFU alone or CFU plus MPN data. Phenotypic resistance and total bacterial number in in vitro natural growth observations, i.e. without drug, was well predicted by the MTP model using only CFU data. Capturing the murine in vivo total bacterial number and persisters during natural growth did however require re-estimation of model parameter using both the CFU and MPN observations implying that the ratio of persisters to total bacterial burden is different in vitro compared to murine in vivo. The evaluation of the in vitro rifampicin drug effect revealed that higher resolution in the persister drug effect was seen using CFU and MPN compared to CFU alone although drug effects on the other bacterial populations were well predicted using only CFU data. The ratio of persistent bacteria to total bacteria was predicted to be different between in vitro and murine in vivo. This difference could have implications for subsequent translational efforts in tuberculosis drug development. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10928-020-09694-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2020-06-01 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7520421/ /pubmed/32488575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10928-020-09694-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Clewe, Oskar
Faraj, Alan
Hu, Yanmin
Coates, Anthony R. M.
Simonsson, Ulrika S. H.
A model-based analysis identifies differences in phenotypic resistance between in vitro and in vivo: implications for translational medicine within tuberculosis
title A model-based analysis identifies differences in phenotypic resistance between in vitro and in vivo: implications for translational medicine within tuberculosis
title_full A model-based analysis identifies differences in phenotypic resistance between in vitro and in vivo: implications for translational medicine within tuberculosis
title_fullStr A model-based analysis identifies differences in phenotypic resistance between in vitro and in vivo: implications for translational medicine within tuberculosis
title_full_unstemmed A model-based analysis identifies differences in phenotypic resistance between in vitro and in vivo: implications for translational medicine within tuberculosis
title_short A model-based analysis identifies differences in phenotypic resistance between in vitro and in vivo: implications for translational medicine within tuberculosis
title_sort model-based analysis identifies differences in phenotypic resistance between in vitro and in vivo: implications for translational medicine within tuberculosis
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7520421/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32488575
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10928-020-09694-0
work_keys_str_mv AT cleweoskar amodelbasedanalysisidentifiesdifferencesinphenotypicresistancebetweeninvitroandinvivoimplicationsfortranslationalmedicinewithintuberculosis
AT farajalan amodelbasedanalysisidentifiesdifferencesinphenotypicresistancebetweeninvitroandinvivoimplicationsfortranslationalmedicinewithintuberculosis
AT huyanmin amodelbasedanalysisidentifiesdifferencesinphenotypicresistancebetweeninvitroandinvivoimplicationsfortranslationalmedicinewithintuberculosis
AT coatesanthonyrm amodelbasedanalysisidentifiesdifferencesinphenotypicresistancebetweeninvitroandinvivoimplicationsfortranslationalmedicinewithintuberculosis
AT simonssonulrikash amodelbasedanalysisidentifiesdifferencesinphenotypicresistancebetweeninvitroandinvivoimplicationsfortranslationalmedicinewithintuberculosis
AT cleweoskar modelbasedanalysisidentifiesdifferencesinphenotypicresistancebetweeninvitroandinvivoimplicationsfortranslationalmedicinewithintuberculosis
AT farajalan modelbasedanalysisidentifiesdifferencesinphenotypicresistancebetweeninvitroandinvivoimplicationsfortranslationalmedicinewithintuberculosis
AT huyanmin modelbasedanalysisidentifiesdifferencesinphenotypicresistancebetweeninvitroandinvivoimplicationsfortranslationalmedicinewithintuberculosis
AT coatesanthonyrm modelbasedanalysisidentifiesdifferencesinphenotypicresistancebetweeninvitroandinvivoimplicationsfortranslationalmedicinewithintuberculosis
AT simonssonulrikash modelbasedanalysisidentifiesdifferencesinphenotypicresistancebetweeninvitroandinvivoimplicationsfortranslationalmedicinewithintuberculosis