![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright : © 2007 Xu et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Genome-Wide Fitness Test and Mechanism-of-Action Studies of Inhibitory Compounds in Candida albicans 1 Center of Fungal Genetics, Merck Frosst Canada Ltd., Montreal, Quebec, Canada 2 Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America 3 Institute of Research in Immunology and Cancer, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 4 Department of Biology, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 5 Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 6 Department of Infectious Disease, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, United States of America Brendan P Cormack, Editor Johns Hopkins University, United States of America #Contributed equally. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: terry_roemer/at/merck.com Received May 16, 2006; Accepted May 17, 2007. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Candida albicans is a prevalent fungal pathogen amongst the immunocompromised population, causing both superficial and life-threatening infections. Since C. albicans is diploid, classical transmission genetics can not be performed to study specific aspects of its biology and pathogenesis. Here, we exploit the diploid status of C. albicans by constructing a library of 2,868 heterozygous deletion mutants and screening this collection using 35 known or novel compounds to survey chemically induced haploinsufficiency in the pathogen. In this reverse genetic assay termed the fitness test, genes related to the mechanism of action of the probe compounds are clearly identified, supporting their functional roles and genetic interactions. In this report, chemical–genetic relationships are provided for multiple FDA-approved antifungal drugs (fluconazole, voriconazole, caspofungin, 5-fluorocytosine, and amphotericin B) as well as additional compounds targeting ergosterol, fatty acid and sphingolipid biosynthesis, microtubules, actin, secretion, rRNA processing, translation, glycosylation, and protein folding mechanisms. We also demonstrate how chemically induced haploinsufficiency profiles can be used to identify the mechanism of action of novel antifungal agents, thereby illustrating the potential utility of this approach to antifungal drug discovery. Author Summary Candida albicans is the principal human fungal pathogen responsible for life-threatening fungal infections. Despite an urgent need for more efficacious antifungal agents, the pace of discovery has waned using the traditional approaches. In part, this reflects the longstanding limitation of performing mechanism-of-action–based screening directly in those key fungal pathogens for which new antifungal agents are sought. Here we describe an alternative approach, first developed in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and termed the fitness test, to survey approximately 45% of the C. albicans genome for the molecular targets of growth inhibitory compounds. We demonstrate that mechanistically characterized compounds can be used as chemical probes to assist gene function annotations in C. albicans. Similarly, fitness tests performed using newly discovered compounds provide powerful insights into their mechanism of action and therapeutic potential as antifungal agents. Extending this screening paradigm to C. albicans facilitates a pathogen-focused approach to antifungal drug discovery. Introduction Candida albicans is responsible for approximately 50% of all human life-threatening nosocomial fungal infections [1,2]. Completion of its diploid genome sequence [3,4] now provides a foundation for studies on C. albicans biology and pathogenesis, and offers new opportunities for therapeutic intervention. Critical to such activities, however, remains the task of functionally annotating the C. albicans genome. To date, genomic studies reveal significant differences in genomic organization [3–5] and gene essentiality [6] between C. albicans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In part, these differences reflect their evolutionary divergence and distinct lifestyle as an opportunistic fungal pathogen versus a saprophytic yeast, respectively. Unlike S. cerevisiae, a major impediment to large-scale genetic analyses in C. albicans is the limited ability to perform classical genetic screens, due to its natural diploid state and lack of an easily manipulated sexual cycle. Thus, alternative genetic strategies are required. The phenomenon of haploinsufficiency (HI)—that is, growth phenotypes associated with the loss of function (e.g., deletion) of one allele in a diploid—is widespread amongst eukaryotes [7] and has been effectively applied in C. albicans to screen for genes involved in filamentous growth [8]. HI has been studied extensively in S. cerevisiae and offers a way to exploit the diploidy of C. albicans. While only ~3% of the S. cerevisiae genome displays HI under the standard growth conditions [9], chemically induced HI is more specific. It has been shown in an assay termed the fitness test (also referred to as haploinsufficient phenotype assay) that target-specific inhibitory molecules typically induce a growth disadvantage (i.e., hypersensitivity) of heterozygous deletion strains corresponding to the drug targets and/or other mechanism of action (MOA)–related genes [10–14]. If this specificity is also prevalent in C. albicans, chemically induced HI by mechanistically characterized inhibitors could be used to identify essential cellular processes and genetic interactions relevant to this pathogen. Conversely, when a novel inhibitory compound is tested, the response (hypersensitivity and resistance; i.e., haploinsufficiency and haploproficiency, respectively) of specific heterozygous strains may provide phenotypic information reflecting the MOA of the compound. Here, we report on the application of chemically induced HI on a genomic scale in C. albicans. Drawing from analogous studies performed in S. cerevisiae, we term this assay the C. albicans fitness test, or CaFT (Figure 1
Results C. albicans genes selected for construction of heterozygous deletion strains in this pilot study were chosen based on 1) their predicted orthologs being essential in S. cerevisiae, 2) their broad conservation across fungi (including Aspergillus fumigatus), and/or 3) sharing strong homology to genes conserved in higher eukaryotes. Approximately 29% of the C. albicans genes used are essential for viability [6], and Table S1 lists all genes examined in this study. Heterozygous deletion strains were constructed using previously described PCR methodologies [6]. A pool containing equal proportions of all 2,868 strains was prepared and aliquots frozen, with thawed aliquots used to perform all the CaFT experiments described. To identify specific haploinsufficiency and/or haploproficiency, a normalized z-score was used to assess the response of individual strains to inhibitory compounds (see Materials and Methods for details). For each strain, the normalized z-scores of both barcodes are determined by 1) the average (“historical”) behavior of this strain, as determined by each barcode, in a set of reference experiments with chemically diverse compounds (i.e., barcode-specific error modeling), and 2) the overall responsiveness of all the strains in a given experiment. Since the up- and down-barcodes are analyzed separately, individual strains are independently appraised twice in each experiment. A positive normalized z-score indicates a relative decrease in abundance in the compound-treated culture (i.e., insufficiency or hypersensitivity) and a negative normalized z-score indicates a relative increase (i.e., proficiency or resistance). To fully examine the effects elicited by any compound, experiments were performed at multiple sub-lethal inhibitory concentrations (ICs). A series of known antifungal agents with well-characterized MOAs were tested to validate the CaFT. Several of these compounds have been previously examined in the S. cerevisiae fitness test (ScFT), and they enable classification of functionally orthologous genes between organisms. CaFT Profiling of Inhibitors of Ergosterol Biosynthesis The CaFT strain pool includes heterozygotes for all but three genes involved in the ergosterol biosynthetic pathway (Figure 2
Fluconazole is clinically used to treat C. albicans infections. It inhibits the sterol 14α-demethylase, which is encoded by ERG11. (Note that we use standard gene names as appear in the Candida Genome Database and MycoPathPD, with orf19 designations given in the appropriate figure legends, and that the prefix Sc is used to refer to S. cerevisiae genes.) The heterozygous deletion strains for genes involved in ergosterol biosynthesis were tested against fluconazole by spot tests at multiple concentrations. While none showed significant HI under the standard growth conditions, the ERG11 and NCP1 (encoding a NADP-cytochrome P450 reductase required for the Erg11p function) strains displayed specific hypersensitivity to fluconazole (Figure 2 The five strains identified with fluconazole in the CaFT represent different aspects of its MOA: the drug target (Erg11p) and its accessory protein (Ncp1p), the principal efflux pump (Cdr1p), and two additional factors, Pdr17p and Erg6p, that are likely involved in drug uptake [18,19]. Another triazole (voriconazole) and imidazoles (ketoconazole, clotrimazole, econazole, and sulconazole) yielded similar CaFT profiles (Figure S1). The profiles of additional inhibitors of ergosterol biosynthesis, including terbinafine, lovastatin, and dyclonine, are described in Text S1 (Figure S2 and Table S1), and their results largely corroborate those determined in the ScFT [13]. Inhibitors that do not act through specific protein targets were also examined, including amphotericin B, which binds preferentially to ergosterol in the plasma membrane of fungi, and two toxic ergosterol analogs (ECC69 and ECC1384). In each case, complex CaFT profiles affecting multiple aspects of metabolism and membrane-related functions were produced but with no clear target(s) resolved (Figure S3). CaFT Profiling of Inhibitors of Other Enzymes and Protein Complexes The CaFT profiles of enzyme inhibitors are usually concise. For example, ALG7 and AUR1 heterozygotes correspond to the target gene of tunicamycin and aureobasidin A, respectively, and each displayed highly significant and specific hypersensitivity to its cognate inhibitor (Figure S4). Similarly, the catalytic subunit (FKS1) and the regulatory subunit (RHO1) of glucan synthase were identified in the CaFT with their cognate inhibitors, caspofungin and ergokonin A (Figure S5). Brefeldin A is unusual in that it binds to the interface of two proteins, both of which are members of two protein families in C. albicans. Despite such apparent complexity, a single target pair, SEC7 and ARF2, was robustly identified in the CaFT (Figure S6). Cerulenin specifically inhibits the condensation reaction associated with the α subunit of the fatty acid synthase (FAS), a heteromultimeric complex of α (Fas2p) and β (Fas1p) subunits. Although not examined in the ScFT, cerulenin elicited reproducibly specific hypersensitivity of the FAS1 strain but not of FAS2, even at the highest drug concentration tested (Figure 3
Failure to detect hypersensitivity of the FAS2 heterozygote to cerulenin reflects a more general difficulty in correctly identifying chemically induced HI within protein complexes, due to regulation of subunit stoichiometry, its assembly, or activation. To further investigate these potential issues, additional reference compounds that inhibit distinct protein complexes were examined. Microtubules are comprised of α- and β-tubulin subunits encoded by TUB1 and TUB2, respectively. A potential binding site for benomyl, a microtubule depolymerizing agent, has been suggested in the core of S. cerevisiae β-tubulin [22], and the heterozygous deletion strains for both ScTUB1 and ScTUB2 are benomyl hypersensitive [23]. In the CaFT, however, only the TUB1 strain displayed significant hypersensitivity to benomyl, as well as to additional microtubule inhibitors, including nocodazole, mebendazole, and thiabendazole, while the TUB2 strain was marginally hypersensitive only to nocodazole (Figure 4
Radicicol inhibits cell growth by competitively binding to the conserved chaperone, HSP90 [28], a key molecular chaperone that, together with its co-chaperones, facilitates proper folding of multiple client proteins [29]. Unlike S. cerevisiae, which contains two HSP90 proteins, ScHsc82p and ScHsp82p, C. albicans possesses only one. Despite sharing all the conserved amino acid residues in both yeast HSP90 proteins implicated in radicicol binding [28], the HSP90 heterozygous deletion strain lacked detectable hypersensitivity when tested in the CaFT (Figure 5
Additional inhibitors of protein complexes tested with informative mechanistic CaFT profiles included cytochalasin D, roridin A, and verrucarin A. Cytochalasin D inhibits both association and dissociation of actin filaments in vitro. The CaFT results reveal a particular aspect of actin polymerization affected in vivo by cytochalasin D, namely, the branching of actin cables to produce cortical actin, as multiple members of the ARP2/3 complex showed markedly HI (Figure S7). The structurally related mycotoxins roridin A and verrucarin A both noticeably affected multiple subunits of the initiation factor eIF3 complex (Figure S8). CaFT Profiling and MOA Studies of 5-Fluorouracil, 5-Fluorocytosine, and Tubercidin The preceding examples demonstrate the specificity of chemically induced HI and the biological relevance of information contained within CaFT profiles; that is, small molecules that selectively inhibit proteins or protein complexes typically elicit specific CaFT profiles comprising the target proteins and/or other factors that functionally interact with the targets. The base analogs, 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), on the other hand, do not exert inhibitory effects directly on specific proteins. We tested whether both analogs and tubercidin (7-deazaadenosine) elicit specific HI indicative of their MOAs. 5-FC and 5-FU are pro-drugs whose MOA has been well characterized in S. cerevisiae and to a lesser extent in C. albicans (see below). 5-FC, once inside the cell, is converted to 5-FU by cytosine deaminase, and 5-FU to 5-FUMP by uracil phosphoribosyltransferase (UPRT). Both enzymes are part of the pyrimidine salvage pathway (Figure 6
The CaFT profiles of 5-FU and 5-FC also provide mechanistic insights into their uptake and metabolism. Counterintuitively, 5-FC is over 200-fold more potent than 5-FU (Figure 6 Novel Antifungal Compounds That Affect Microtubule Dynamics Mechanisms inferred from screening known antifungal agents in the fitness tests of S. cerevisiae and C. albicans imply that MOA information could similarly be obtained for new compounds. To test this possibility, we examined a group of chemically related active compounds with unknown MOA (Figure 7
To further characterize the MOA of these compounds, multiple microtubule-based secondary assays were performed. Microtubules form the core structural component of the nuclear mitotic spindle and are necessary for chromosomal movement. In the yeast, the movement of nuclei to the bud neck before mitosis and the subsequent separation of nuclei depend on cytoplasmic microtubules [39,40]. In the wild-type cells, these events occur in a highly coordinated cell cycle–dependent manner such that the large-budded cells are almost never observed without the nucleus at, or extended through, the bud neck. As nuclear migration defects associated with microtubule perturbation can readily be visualized by DAPI staining of DNA, we examined the terminal phenotypes associated with a TUB1 conditional shut-off strain and compared them with those observed in the wild-type C. albicans cells chemically inhibited with benomyl, nocodazole, and representative compounds from each sub-class (ECC85, ECC248, and ECC275). One hour after TUB1 repression, cell division and nuclear migration were largely arrested in the majority of the cells examined, as large-budded cells were predominantly observed, with nuclear staining being restricted to the mother cell (Figure 8
Discussion The impact of the baker's yeast, S. cerevisiae, as a eukaryotic model system in biology is immense. Indeed, the extensive knowledge base of biological information gained from these studies has greatly facilitated our understanding of fungal biology in medically significant pathogens, including C. albicans (e.g., [3,4,6,8]) and A. fumigatus (e.g., [43,44]). However, the differences in lifestyles and the functional disconcordance at the genomic level between yeast and fungi [6,8], combined with the extensive genome sequence information across the fungal kingdom that is now available [45–48], provide a timely opportunity to develop fungal genomics tools for basic and applied research in this field. The CaFT, based on the chemically induced responses of heterozygous deletion strains, exploits the diploid nature of C. albicans and provides a global genetic strategy to directly perform such studies in this pathogen. The genetic basis of the fitness test is the consequence of heterozygosity in the presence of an inhibitory compound, and hence its readout is based on observable phenotypes and is often concise. As first reported in S. cerevisiae [11–13], chemically induced HI is largely restricted to the target and to other genes whose functions are genetically associated with the target and/or MOA of the inhibitor. This is in stark contrast with results of expression profiling of inhibitory compounds. Examination of the transcriptional responses of either S. cerevisiae or C. albicans to azoles revealed nearly 300 significantly responsive genes [49,50]. Although many genes in the ergosterol pathway are included in these complex profiles, there is a lack of clear quantitative correlation between the level of responsiveness and their biological relevance to the primary MOA of azoles. The CaFT profiles of fluconazole, however, contain only five significant responsive genes corresponding to the target (Erg11p), its accessory factor (Ncp1p), the principal efflux pump (Cdr1p), and two additional factors involved in drug uptake (Pdr17p and Erg6p, Figure 2 Enzyme inhibitors such as azoles, terbinafine, dyclonine, tunicamycin, aureobasidin A, glucan synthase inhibitors, and brefeldin A all induce significant and specific hypersensitivity of heterozygotes corresponding to their targets (including co-factors and regulatory subunits) in the CaFT. Thus, a compelling indication of MOA is generally achieved. Cerulenin is an exception to this trend, as its known target, FAS2, showed no HI. Instead, the heterozygote for the other subunit of the FAS complex, FAS1, was noticeably hypersensitive. These results are consistent with the Fas1p-dependent stoichiometric regulation of the FAS complex demonstrated in S. cerevisiae [20]. We speculate that a FAS1 strain is specifically hypersensitive to cerulenin because only in this strain is the overall level of the FAS complex compromised, whereas Fas2p levels in the FAS2 heterozygote are likely upregulated by normal levels of Fas1p to restore the wild-type levels of the FAS complex (see Figure 3 Inhibitors of protein complexes, such as cytochalasin D (Figure S7), roridin A, and verrucarin A (Figure S8), typically produced CaFT profiles reflecting a rich diversity of biologically relevant responses of strains that corroborate their known MOAs. Despite this, discerning the specific subunit targeted within a complex is problematic, as multiple components of the complex are routinely observed as chemically haploinsufficient. Thus, CaFT profiling only yielded a general classification of MOA (ARP2/3-based cortical actin assembly and eIF3-directed translation, respectively), and further studies would be required to refine their molecular targets. Radicicol provides another cogent example of the limitation of the CaFT, in that its well-characterized target (Hsp90p) was unresponsive to drug treatment as a heterozygote (Figure 5 Mechanistic insights of fitness test profiling can also be extended to nucleoside and base analogs ([11,13] and this study). For example, both ScFT and CaFT profiling reinforce that ribosomal RNAs are likely the primary target on which the toxicity of 5-FU and 5-FC is exerted. It is unclear whether rRNA processing and ribosomal biogenesis is affected largely due to the relative abundance of rRNAs over other RNAs, or if these compounds exert a more specific mechanism targeting rRNAs (Figure 6 CaFT profiles often contain additional responsive genes, some of which illuminate drug uptake and efflux mechanisms that play important roles in acquired and inherent resistance to antifungal drugs such as azoles and 5-FC. For example, CDR1 displays chemically induced HI against all the azoles we examined, as well as other predicted efflux substrates, including brefeldin A, as reported [21], radicicol (Figure 5 In this study, over 100 C. albicans genes have been classified according to their chemically induced HI with the ~20 types of inhibitors tested. Although some of these genes have been experimentally characterized in C. albicans, most are annotated solely by their similarity to S. cerevisiae orthologs. Their phenotypes in response to selected inhibitors provide a first level of functional annotation. This is best exemplified by screening brefeldin A, which binds to the interface of two proteins (ARF and GEF), both of which are members of conserved protein families in C. albicans. CaFT profiling identified the functional pair that is most susceptible to brefeldin A (Figure S6). The CaFT is, however, currently biased against the identification of C. albicans specific genes for two reasons: 1) only ~3% of the genes represented in this pilot study are Candida-specific (as defined by their absence of clear homologs in S. cerevisiae, A. fumigatus, S. pombe, or the human genes, using a BLAST cutoff of 1 × 10−20), and 2) the selected probe inhibitors have intrinsic activity against both S. cerevisiae and C. albicans, and are mechanistically conserved. It is therefore not surprising that the majority of genes identified in this study are conserved. Notwithstanding these restrictions, Nnt1p, a nucleoside transporter absent in S. cerevisiae, was identified as required for the uptake of tubercidin in C. albicans (Figure S9), suggesting that expanding genomic coverage in the CaFT and screening more diverse inhibitory compounds will likely uncover specific features of C. albicans biology. Other potential limitations to the CaFT include: 1) The C. albicans diploid genome contains allelic polymorphisms, some of which may inactivate genes and confound their identity as haplo-responsive strains. However, as summarized in Table S2, failure to detect hypersensitivity of strains for target genes (e.g., FAS2, HSP90) was not due to allelic differences, which is only rarely observed amongst 69 other genes pertinent to the CaFT profiles reported here. Although eight of these genes possess some allelic differences, they result in only one or two conservative amino acid change(s) in their corresponding proteins. 2) The inherent HI under the standard growth conditions, as demonstrated by TIF35 (Figure S8), may obscure chemically induced HI. However, severe intrinsic HI is rarely observed. Other heterozygotes with modest growth defects (e.g., FAS1, TUB1) are not problematic to assay in the fitness test format. 3) The detection of strain responses in the CaFT relies solely on robust hybridization signals of error-free barcodes. The introduction of double barcodes significantly reduces the occurrence of unassayable strains (e.g., [14]). Barcodes of such strains can be sequenced and microarrays redesigned with fully complementary oligonucleotides (e.g., [51]), or such strains can be simply reconstructed with new barcodes. 4) In S. cerevisiae, it is known that deletion strains can become aneuploid [52]. Our strain stocks are stored with minimal manipulation, and the strain pool is preserved in aliquots. All the CaFT experiments were performed with aliquots from the same preparation. Although the problem of aneuploidy has not been examined in C. albicans, our standard practices should minimize its occurrence. We have also explored the CaFT assay as an approach to predicting the MOA of novel antifungal compounds. To this end, a collection of structurally related synthetic compounds with antifungal activity but unknown MOA were examined. Their profiles were highly related to known microtubule inhibitors and highlighted by marked hypersensitivity of the TUB1 heterozygote (Figures 4 CaFT screening of inhibitory compounds, combined with recent target validation strategies in both C. albicans [6,53] and A. fumigatus [43,54], may provide several significant advantages to antifungal drug discovery. The CaFT facilitates a reverse genetic approach; that is, it links traits (responses to inhibitory compounds) to preexisting mutations (heterozygous deletion strains), potentially on a global scale and within the major fungal pathogen. Drug resistance mechanisms can be identified early and in parallel to MOA determination of potential antifungal agents. Drug targets are identified empirically and are biased towards those with intrinsic susceptibility to chemical inhibition. Moreover, only subsequent to the identification of a target–inhibitor interaction is target validation in key fungal pathogens required [6,43,53,54]. In this way, compound–target pairs may be efficiently prioritized as antifungal drug leads according to their chemical attributes, MOA, and target validation information. In summary, an assayable and comprehensive target set screened across broad chemical diversity may offer a new opportunity to identify antifungal agents that are both mechanistically and structurally novel. Materials and Methods Genome annotation. The C. albicans genome sequence at 10.9X coverage was determined by the Stanford Genome Technology Center (http://www-sequence.stanford.edu/). A precise genome annotation for C. albicans [3] was not publicly available during the course of this project. Instead, a list of 7,680 open reading frames (ORFs) encoding proteins ≥100 amino acids provided in an earlier release was used to initiate an internal annotation effort. To select ORFs for construction of heterozygous deletion strains, only those satisfying either of the following conditions were initially chosen: 1) ORFs (n = 4,068) with clear homologs (BLAST e-value < 1 × 10−20) at amino acid level in other fungal species, or 2) ORFs (n = 1,635) with no clear fungal homolog but ≥ 600 nucleotides in length. Recent S. cerevisiae annotation efforts demonstrate that such rules provide 99% and 98% confidence of a bona fide gene locus rather than a spurious ORF [5,55]. The high degree of conservation in gene structure between S. cerevisiae and C. albicans, including average length, intron structure, intron-occurring frequency, GC-contents, and promoter elements [3], strongly reinforces the applicability of such gene-coding “rules” to C. albicans genome annotations. C. albicans heterozygote strain construction and the CaFT strain pool composition. Heterozygous deletion strains were constructed essentially as in S. cerevisiae, with some modifications [6,56,57]. Briefly, individual strains were constructed by replacing the entire ORF of a particular gene with a cassette of HIS3 gene flanked by distinct upstream and downstream barcodes, termed up-tag and down-tag, respectively. Each tag is in turn flanked by two primer sequences that are common to all the up- or down-tags (Figure 1 Construction of homozygous deletion strains. Heterozygous deletion strains were used to construct homozygous deletions with the PCR-based method described [6], except that the coding region of the second allele was replaced by the SAT-1 gene, which confers resistance to nourseothricin. Antifungal compounds. Compounds were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/), with the following exceptions: caspofungin from Merck (http://www.merck.com/), fluconazole from Pfizer (http://www.pfizer.com/), and aureobasidin A from Takara/Fisher (http://www.fishersci.com/). ECC220 is available from AKos Consulting and Solutions GmbH (Basel, Switzerland; http://www.akosgmbh.eu/), ECC22 from Interchim (Montlucon, France; http://www.interchim.com/), ECC248 from ASINEX (Moscow, Russia; http://www.asinex.com/), and ECC275 from Ambinter (Paris, France; http://www.ambinter.com/). The CaFT DNA microarrays. We custom-built a set of two DNA microarrays using Amersham CodeLink Activated Slides (http://www.gelifesciences.com/). These microarrays contain DNA oligos identical to the up- or down-tags, with each oligonucleotide duplicated side by side. Each array contains 16 sub-arrays (of 16 × 24 spots), for a total of 3,072 duplicated features, corresponding to all the strains in the CaFT pool, and various controls. The CaFT experiments and data analysis. For each compound tested, a prior IC curve was determined using the CaFT strain pool (with an initial OD600 of 0.025) in liquid RPMI medium (in 96-well format), grown at 30 °C for 15 h. Based on the IC curve, 5-ml cultures of the CaFT pool (with the initial OD600 of 0.025) were treated with the selected compound at multiple concentrations, together with mocks. After 15 h of growth at 30 °C, the fitness (F) values of compound-treated cultures were determined, F = OD(compound-treated) / OD(mock); that is, the inverse of IC. Cultures of desired F values were selected and diluted to OD600 0.05 with the medium containing the compound at the original concentrations. After another 23 h of growth, all cultures were collected and cell pellets frozen. Following extraction (MasterPure Yeast DNA Purification Kit; Epicentre, http://www.epibio.com/), genomic DNA preparations from compound-treated and mock cultures were PCR amplified with Cy3- or Cy5-labeled common primers. Labeled tags from compound-treated and mock cultures were mixed and hybridized against the corresponding DNA microarray (Figure 1 C. albicans spot tests. Individual heterozygous strains were first grown in liquid medium (without compound) to OD600 ~2. Cultures were diluted to OD600 0.2 and transferred to 96-well microtiter plate, followed by 1:5 serial dilutions. Aliquots (3 μl) of diluted cultures were spotted onto solid media (YPD) containing 1% DMSO (mock) and inhibitory compounds at the concentrations indicated with 1% DMSO. Plates were incubated at 30 °C, and photographed after 2 d (unless otherwise noted in the figure). In vitro tubulin polymerization assay. Cytoskeleton CytoDYNAMIXTM Screen 3 (http://www.cytoskeleton.com/) was employed in these assays, in which purified tubulin (>99% pure tubulin isolated from bovine brain, from Cytoskeleton catalog # TL238) was used to follow the in vitro microtubule polymerization process. To initiate the assay, different concentrations of ECC85, ECC248, ECC275, or nocodazole were added to the standard assay solution, which contains 3.5 mg/ml purified bovine tubulin in 80 mM PIPES (pH 6.9), 1 mM MgCl2, 1 mM EGTA, 1 mM GTP, 5% glycerol, and 1% DMSO. The assay mixtures were incubated at 37 °C for 60 min, and the polymerization process was monitored by turbidity measurements at OD340 at 1-min intervals. Figure S1: CaFT Profiles of Imidazoles and a Triazole (222 KB PPT) Click here for additional data file.(223K, ppt) Figure S2: CaFT Profiles of Inhibitors of Enzymes Involved in Ergosterol Biosynthesis (389 KB PPT) Click here for additional data file.(389K, ppt) Figure S3: CaFT Profiles of Amphotericin B and Two Ergosterol Analogs (189 KB PPT) Click here for additional data file.(189K, ppt) Figure S4: CaFT Profiles of Tunicamycin and Aureobasidin (2.4 MB PPT) Click here for additional data file.(2.2M, ppt) Figure S5: CaFT Profiles of the β-1,3-glucan Synthase Inhibitors, Caspofungin and Ergokonin A (259 KB PPT) Click here for additional data file.(259K, ppt) Figure S6: CaFT Profiling and Characterization of Brefeldin A (101 KB PPT) Click here for additional data file.(102K, ppt) Figure S9: CaFT Profiles of 5-FU, 5-FC, Tubercidin, and 6-AU, and Characterization of C. albicans Nucleoside Transporter Nnt1p (72 KB PPT) Click here for additional data file.(73K, ppt) Figure S10: Dose-Dependent Inhibition of In Vitro Polymerization of Bovine Tubulin by Nocodazole, ECC85, ECC248, and ECC275 (283 KB PPT) Click here for additional data file.(283K, ppt) Table S1: List of Normalized z-Scores of the CaFT Experiments (3.9 MB XLS) Click here for additional data file.(3.7M, xls) Table S2: Summary of Allelic Polymorphism (101 KB DOC) Click here for additional data file.(101K, doc) Acknowledgments We thank past members of Mycota Biosciences and Elitra Canada. We also thank Cam Douglas, Guy Harris, Jenny Nielsen Kahn, Paul Liberator, Pek Yee Lum, and John Phillips for helpful comments on the manuscript. Thanks are also due to Pam Ocampo for help essential to group operation, Craig Parish for help in identifying commercial vendors of microtubule-inhibiting compounds, and Tara Ransom for editorial assistance. We thank the Stanford Genome Center for publicly providing to the research community the C. albicans genome sequence and annotation information. Abbreviations
Footnotes Competing interests. DX, BJ, KV, NM, JD, SS, ST, PY, and TR are employees of Merck & Co., and TK is an employee of Infinity Pharmaceuticals. Author contributions. DX, BJ, TK, SL, HB, PY, and TR conceived and designed the experiments. DX, TK, KV, NM, JD, SS, ST, and CB performed the experiments. DX, BJ, TK, SL, KV, NM, JD, SS, ST, HB, PY, and TR analyzed the data. BJ, SL, and CB contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. DX, BJ, HB, PY, and TR wrote the paper. Funding. This work was supported in part by Genome Canada and Genome Quebec. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Sep 1; 37(5):634-43.
[Clin Infect Dis. 2003]Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Aug 1; 39(3):309-17.
[Clin Infect Dis. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 May 11; 101(19):7329-34.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Nature. 2004 Apr 8; 428(6983):617-24.
[Nature. 2004]Mol Microbiol. 2003 Oct; 50(1):167-81.
[Mol Microbiol. 2003]Bioessays. 2002 Feb; 24(2):175-84.
[Bioessays. 2002]EMBO J. 2003 Jun 2; 22(11):2668-78.
[EMBO J. 2003]Genetics. 2005 Apr; 169(4):1915-25.
[Genetics. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 30; 101(13):4525-30.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Nat Genet. 1996 Dec; 14(4):450-6.
[Nat Genet. 1996]Mol Microbiol. 2003 Oct; 50(1):167-81.
[Mol Microbiol. 2003]Trends Microbiol. 2003 Jun; 11(6):272-9.
[Trends Microbiol. 2003]Cell. 2004 Jan 9; 116(1):121-37.
[Cell. 2004]Mol Microbiol. 2006 Jun; 60(6):1546-62.
[Mol Microbiol. 2006]Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002 Jun; 46(6):1704-13.
[Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002]Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002 Dec; 46(12):3695-705.
[Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002]J Biol Chem. 1999 Jan 22; 274(4):1934-41.
[J Biol Chem. 1999]Cell. 2004 Jan 9; 116(1):121-37.
[Cell. 2004]Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Nov 15; 29(22):4625-32.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2001]Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996 Oct; 40(10):2300-5.
[Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996]Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Nov 15; 29(22):4625-32.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2001]Mol Biol Cell. 2000 May; 11(5):1887-903.
[Mol Biol Cell. 2000]Nature. 2002 Jul 25; 418(6896):387-91.
[Nature. 2002]Mol Cell Biol. 1989 Mar; 9(3):1049-59.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1989]Genetics. 1988 Jun; 119(2):249-60.
[Genetics. 1988]Mol Cell Biol. 1986 Nov; 6(11):3722-33.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1986]Science. 2000 May 26; 288(5470):1379-85.
[Science. 2000]J Med Chem. 1999 Jan 28; 42(2):260-6.
[J Med Chem. 1999]Drug Discov Today. 2004 Oct 15; 9(20):881-8.
[Drug Discov Today. 2004]Mol Cell Biol. 2004 Sep; 24(18):8069-79.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2003 Aug 29; 278(35):32692-701.
[J Biol Chem. 2003]Mol Cell Biol. 2004 Sep; 24(18):8069-79.
[Mol Cell Biol. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jan 20; 101(3):793-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Cell. 2004 Jan 9; 116(1):121-37.
[Cell. 2004]Curr Genet. 1992 Jul; 22(1):9-11.
[Curr Genet. 1992]Mol Cell Biol. 1999 Dec; 19(12):7897-912.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1999]Mol Microbiol. 2003 Oct; 50(1):167-81.
[Mol Microbiol. 2003]J Bacteriol. 1970 Jun; 102(3):607-15.
[J Bacteriol. 1970]Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004 Jun; 48(6):2223-7.
[Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004]Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004 Nov; 48(11):4377-86.
[Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004]Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002 Nov; 46(11):3518-21.
[Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002]J Cell Biol. 1988 Jun; 106(6):1997-2010.
[J Cell Biol. 1988]J Cell Biol. 1988 Oct; 107(4):1409-26.
[J Cell Biol. 1988]Mol Microbiol. 2002 Jul; 45(1):31-44.
[Mol Microbiol. 2002]Cell. 1991 Aug 9; 66(3):507-17.
[Cell. 1991]Mol Microbiol. 2003 Oct; 50(1):167-81.
[Mol Microbiol. 2003]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 May 11; 101(19):7329-34.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Mol Microbiol. 2003 Oct; 50(1):167-81.
[Mol Microbiol. 2003]EMBO J. 2003 Jun 2; 22(11):2668-78.
[EMBO J. 2003]Nature. 2005 Dec 22; 438(7071):1151-6.
[Nature. 2005]Science. 2005 Feb 25; 307(5713):1321-4.
[Science. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jan 20; 101(3):793-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Cell. 2004 Jan 9; 116(1):121-37.
[Cell. 2004]Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000 May; 44(5):1255-65.
[Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000]Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001 Jun; 45(6):1660-70.
[Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001]Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Nov 15; 29(22):4625-32.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2001]Drug Discov Today. 2004 Oct 15; 9(20):881-8.
[Drug Discov Today. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jan 20; 101(3):793-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Cell. 2004 Jan 9; 116(1):121-37.
[Cell. 2004]Mol Cell Biol. 1999 Dec; 19(12):7897-912.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1999]Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996 Oct; 40(10):2300-5.
[Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996]J Bacteriol. 1970 Jun; 102(3):607-15.
[J Bacteriol. 1970]Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004 Nov; 48(11):4377-86.
[Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004]Cell. 2004 Jan 9; 116(1):121-37.
[Cell. 2004]Nat Genet. 1996 Dec; 14(4):450-6.
[Nat Genet. 1996]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jul 27; 101(30):11046-51.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Nat Genet. 2000 Jul; 25(3):333-7.
[Nat Genet. 2000]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jan 20; 101(3):793-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]Mol Microbiol. 2002 Jul; 45(1):31-44.
[Mol Microbiol. 2002]Mol Microbiol. 2003 Oct; 50(1):167-81.
[Mol Microbiol. 2003]Genetics. 2002 Dec; 162(4):1573-81.
[Genetics. 2002]Curr Genet. 2007 Apr; 51(4):277-84.
[Curr Genet. 2007]Nature. 2004 Apr 8; 428(6983):617-24.
[Nature. 2004]Science. 2003 Jul 4; 301(5629):71-6.
[Science. 2003]Mol Microbiol. 2003 Oct; 50(1):167-81.
[Mol Microbiol. 2003]Yeast. 2003 Dec; 20(16):1339-47.
[Yeast. 2003]Science. 1999 Aug 6; 285(5429):901-6.
[Science. 1999]Mol Microbiol. 2003 Oct; 50(1):167-81.
[Mol Microbiol. 2003]Bioinformatics. 2002 Mar; 18(3):413-22.
[Bioinformatics. 2002]Bioinformatics. 2001 Jun; 17(6):509-19.
[Bioinformatics. 2001]