Malaria: Cracking Ali Baba’s code

A protein called P36 holds the key to how different species of malaria parasite invade liver cells.
  1. Oliver Billker  Is a corresponding author
  1. Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, United Kingdom

“Open sesame!” These are the magic words through which Ali Baba and the 40 thieves gain access to a treasure cave. The malaria parasite is a type of thief that seeks to exploit the riches of a different hiding place. Now, in eLife, Olivier Silvie of Sorbonne University and colleagues – including Giulia Manzoni as first author – report that they have deciphered some of the code that these parasites use to gain entry into cells in the liver (Manzoni et al., 2017).

Malaria is caused by Plasmodium parasites, which are deposited into the skin through the bites of infected mosquitoes. Inside the body, the parasites first have to find and gain entry to liver cells. For the first few days of an infection the liver provides a perfect hiding place, being somewhere the parasites can use the plentiful nutrients inside the cells to develop quickly. A single parasite can exploit this niche to grow and divide rapidly. In this way, it can produce enough parasites to overwhelm the immune system once they are released into the blood stream. Although the liver phase does not cause malaria (the disease is caused by the parasites replicating inside red blood cells), it is important because it allows some species of Plasmodium to survive unnoticed in the human body for years, in a persistent state that can be difficult to treat. However, the liver stage parasites can also be targeted by vaccines.

How malaria parasites recognise and enter liver cells is poorly understood. At least two proteins – called CD81 and SR-B1 – on the surface of liver cells are thought to play a role (Silvie et al., 2003; Rodrigues et al., 2008). However, previous experiments with different Plasmodium species had yielded contradictory and confusing results. Manzoni et al. – who are based at several institutions in France, Thailand and the United Kingdom – now revisit this question by comparing four different species of malaria parasite. Two of these, called Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax, infect humans; the other two, called Plasmodium yoelii and Plasmodium berghei, infect rodents.

In the experiments, the parasites attempted to invade a panel of host cells, which had been genetically modified so that they expressed either CD81, SR-B1 or both. The picture that emerged shows that the two species of Plasmodium that infect humans differ in the pathways they use to enter liver cells: P. falciparum uses CD81, whereas P. vivax uses the SR-B1 pathway. However, P. berghei can use both pathways (Figure 1). The same two liver cell surface proteins exploited by malaria parasites are also used by the hepatitis C virus to enter human liver cells (Bartosch et al., 2003).

Schematic of Plasmodium parasites encountering a liver cell.

Two proteins on the surface of the liver cell, called CD81 and SR-B1, are used by the parasites to invade the cell. However, parasite species differ in which of the pathways they can use. P. falciparum (yellow) and P. yoelii (red) interact with CD81 to enter the liver cell, P. vivax (green) interacts with SR-B1, and P. berghei (blue) can use either protein. Two proteins called P52 and P36 on the surface of the parasite were thought to play roles in the cell invasion process. Manzoni et al. found that the P36 protein on the surface of P. berghei holds the key to the ability of this parasite species to use the SR-B1 pathway. Replacing the P36 protein on P. berghei with the P36 protein from P. yoelii (PyP36) meant that the parasite could now only enter the liver cell via the CD81 pathway (as shown second from right). Conversely, replacing the P36 protein on P. yoelii with the P36 protein from P. berghei (PbP36) enabled this parasite species to use either CD81 or SR-B1 to enter liver cells (as shown far right). It remains to be seen whether P36 and SR-B1 interact directly. SR-B1: Scavenger Receptor B1.

Having described what seems to be part of the lock that opens the host cell, Manzoni et al. then searched for a protein in the parasite that may hold the key. Many parasite proteins are part of the molecular machinery that allows malaria parasites to enter cells (Bargieri et al., 2014), but how the parasites manage to target liver cells specifically is less well understood. Two proteins that may be involved in this process are P36 and P52, both of which the parasite can secrete onto its surface (Labaied et al., 2007). By removing these genes from the genome of the two species of Plasmodium that infect rodents, Manzoni et al. show that both proteins are required for parasites to invade liver cells.

Intriguingly, swapping around genes between parasite species revealed that P. berghei requires its unique form of P36 in order to use the SR-B1 pathway. Normally, P. yoelii cannot use the SR-B1 pathway to enter cells. However, P. yoelii was able to use the SR-B1 pathway if its P36 was swapped with the version of P36 used by P. berghei (which is able to use the SR-B1 pathway). This raises the possibility that P36 may interact directly with SR-B1.

Every child knows the code for Ali Baba’s treasure cave, but how the magic works remains Scheherazade’s secret. Now that we know some of the code that malaria parasites use to get into liver cells, we can investigate the mechanisms behind the invasion. It will be important to look for direct interactions between parasite proteins and host proteins. How do P36 and P52 interact with each other and with the parasite’s invasion machinery? Do host proteins play an active part through the signals they can send into the host cell? It will be particularly interesting to see how the small differences found in the gene sequence that encodes P36 in different species can open up an entirely new invasion pathway.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Oliver Billker

    Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    oliver.billker@sanger.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The author declares that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1716-168X

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: June 14, 2017 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2017, Billker

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 966
    Page views
  • 94
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Oliver Billker
(2017)
Malaria: Cracking Ali Baba’s code
eLife 6:e28600.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28600

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Ceri Alan Fielding et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The outcome of infection is dependent on the ability of viruses to manipulate the infected cell to evade immunity, and the ability of the immune response to overcome this evasion. Understanding this process is key to understanding pathogenesis, genetic risk factors, and both natural and vaccine-induced immunity. SARS-CoV-2 antagonises the innate interferon response, but whether it manipulates innate cellular immunity is unclear. An unbiased proteomic analysis determined how cell surface protein expression is altered on SARS-CoV-2-infected lung epithelial cells, showing downregulation of activating NK ligands B7-H6, MICA, ULBP2, and Nectin1, with minimal effects on MHC-I. This occurred at the level of protein synthesis, could be mediated by Nsp1 and Nsp14, and correlated with a reduction in NK cell activation. This identifies a novel mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 host-shutoff antagonises innate immunity. Later in the disease process, strong antibody-dependent NK cell activation (ADNKA) developed. These responses were sustained for at least 6 months in most patients, and led to high levels of pro-inflammatory cytokine production. Depletion of spike-specific antibodies confirmed their dominant role in neutralisation, but these antibodies played only a minor role in ADNKA compared to antibodies to other proteins, including ORF3a, Membrane, and Nucleocapsid. In contrast, ADNKA induced following vaccination was focussed solely on spike, was weaker than ADNKA following natural infection, and was not boosted by the second dose. These insights have important implications for understanding disease progression, vaccine efficacy, and vaccine design.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Atanas Radkov et al.
    Research Article

    Members of the bacterial T6SS amidase effector (Tae) superfamily of toxins are delivered between competing bacteria to degrade cell wall peptidoglycan. Although Taes share a common substrate, they exhibit distinct antimicrobial potency across different competitor species. To investigate the molecular basis governing these differences, we quantitatively defined the functional determinants of Tae1 from Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 using a combination of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and a high-throughput in vivo genetic approach called deep mutational scanning (DMS). As expected, combined analyses confirmed the role of critical residues near the Tae1 catalytic center. Unexpectedly, DMS revealed substantial contributions to enzymatic activity from a much larger, ring-like functional hot spot extending around the entire circumference of the enzyme. Comparative DMS across distinct growth conditions highlighted how functional contribution of different surfaces is highly context-dependent, varying alongside composition of targeted cell walls. These observations suggest that Tae1 engages with the intact cell wall network through a more distributed three-dimensional interaction interface than previously appreciated, providing an explanation for observed differences in antimicrobial potency across divergent Gram-negative competitors. Further binding studies of several Tae1 variants with their cognate immunity protein demonstrate that requirements to maintain protection from Tae activity may be a significant constraint on the mutational landscape of tae1 toxicity in the wild. In total, our work reveals that Tae diversification has likely been shaped by multiple independent pressures to maintain interactions with binding partners that vary across bacterial species and conditions.