Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We report here on a quantitative real-time reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR) assay for assessing drug efficacy against the intracellular pathogen Cryptosporidium parvum. The qRT-PCR assay detects 18S rRNA transcripts from both parasites, that is, the cycle threshold for 18S rRNA from parasites (C(T)([P18S])) and host cells (C(T)([H18S])), and evaluates the relative expression between parasite and host rRNA levels (i.e., deltaC(T) = C(T)([P18S]) - C(T)([H18S])) to minimize experimental and operational errors. The choice of qRT-PCR over quantitative PCR (qPCR) in this study is based on the observations that (i) the relationship between the logarithm of infected parasites (log[P]) and the normalized relative level of rRNA (deltadeltaC(T)) is linear, with a fourfold dynamic range, by qRT-PCR but sigmoidal (nonlinear) by qPCR; and (ii) the level of RNA represents that of live parasites better than that of DNA, because the decay of RNA (99% in approximately 3 h) in dead parasites is faster than that of DNA (99% in approximately 24 to 48 h) under in vitro conditions. The reliability of the qRT-PCR method was validated by testing the efficacies of nitazoxanide and paromomycin on the development of two strains of C. parvum (IOWA and KSU-1) in HCT-8 cells in vitro. Both compounds displayed dose-dependent inhibitions. The observed MIC50 values for nitazoxanide and paromomycin were 0.30 to 0.45 micro/ml and 89.7 to 119.0 microg/ml, respectively, comparable to the values reported previously. Using the qRT-PCR assay, we have also observed that pyrazole could inhibit C. parvum development in vitro (MIC50 = 15.8 mM), suggesting that the recently discovered Cryptosporidium alcohol dehydrogenases may be explored as new drug targets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cai et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: