ScPMA1 Mutant Sensitivity to Edelfosine: Mechanisms, Methods and Therapeutic Implications for P-type ATPase Research

Abstract

This comprehensive review examines the significant hypersensitivity of ScPMA1 mutants to the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine, a phenomenon with critical implications for P-type ATPase biology and therapeutic development. Drawing from foundational chemical genomics research, we explore the mechanistic basis for this sensitivity, established methodologies for its assessment, troubleshooting approaches for experimental challenges, and comparative analyses with related biological systems. For researchers and drug development professionals, this synthesis provides both practical guidance for investigating P-type ATPase function and strategic insights for targeting analogous pathways in pathogenic systems, including promising antimalarial targets like PfATP4. The edelfosine sensitivity observed in ScPMA1 mutants represents not only a valuable phenotypic marker but also reveals fundamental vulnerabilities in essential cation transport systems that could be exploited therapeutically.

ScPMA1 Mutant Biology: Establishing the Edelfosine Sensitivity Phenomenon

P-type ATPases constitute a large superfamily of primary active transporters that utilize the energy derived from adenosine triphosphate (ATP) hydrolysis to pump ions and lipids across biological membranes against their concentration gradients [1]. These molecular pumps are found in virtually all organisms, from bacteria to humans, and carry out many essential physiological processes [2]. The name "P-type" originates from their characteristic formation of a covalent aspartyl-phosphoanhydride intermediate during the catalytic cycle [2]. These ATPases are also referred to as E1-E2 ATPases because they interconvert between at least two major conformational states, denoted E1 and E2 [2].

The significance of P-type ATPases in biology cannot be overstated. They are responsible for generating and maintaining electrochemical gradients that are critical for numerous cellular functions, including nerve impulse transmission, muscle relaxation, kidney secretion and absorption, nutrient uptake in the intestine, and the removal of toxic ions from cells [2] [1]. In the specific context of antifungal research, understanding P-type ATPase structure and function provides the essential foundation for investigating ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to compounds like edelfosine.

Classification and Biological Roles of P-type ATPases

P-type ATPases are classified into five main subfamilies (P1-P5) based on phylogenetic analysis of conserved sequence motifs, with each subfamily having distinct substrate specificities and biological functions [3] [4]. The table below summarizes the major P-type ATPase families, their substrates, and key functions.

Table 1: Classification of P-type ATPase Families

Family	Substrate Specificity	Key Functions	Representative Examples
P1A	K+	Potassium import, turgor pressure regulation	Bacterial Kdp-ATPase [2] [4]
P1B	Heavy metals (Cu+, Cu2+, Zn2+, Cd2+, Pb2+, Co2+)	Metal detoxification, trace element homeostasis	Human ATP7A/B (Cu+ pumps); Bacterial CopA, ZntA [2] [4]
P2A	Ca2+	Muscle relaxation, signaling, sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ transport	SERCA (Sarcoendoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase) [4]
P2B	Ca2+	Ca2+ transport at plasma membrane, signaling	PMCA (Plasma Membrane Ca2+-ATPase) [4]
P2C	Na+/K+ and H+/K+	Plasma membrane potential, kidney function, stomach acidification	Na+/K+-ATPase; Gastric H+/K+-ATPase [2] [4]
P3A	H+	Plasma membrane potential, pH homeostasis	Plant and fungal H+-ATPases (including ScPMA1) [4]
P4	Phospholipids	Lipid transport, membrane asymmetry	Flippases (e.g., Apt1p in C. neoformans) [2] [5]
P5	Unknown	Unknown, linked to neurodegenerative disorders	ATP13A1-A5 (mutated in Kufor-Rakeb syndrome) [4]

This classification system highlights the functional diversity within the P-type ATPase superfamily. The P3A subfamily, which includes ScPMA1 from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, consists primarily of plasma membrane H+-ATPases that generate electrochemical proton gradients essential for nutrient uptake and pH homeostasis in fungi and plants [4].

Structural Organization of P-type ATPases

P-type ATPases share a common structural organization centered around a single catalytic α-subunit of approximately 70-140 kDa [2]. The first atomic-resolution structure of a P-type ATPase was obtained for the sarco(endo)plasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase (SERCA1a), which has served as a prototype for understanding the structure of the entire superfamily [2] [1]. The catalytic subunit comprises two major sections: a cytoplasmic section containing three principal domains, and a transmembrane section with multiple membrane-spanning helices [2].

Figure 1: Domain Organization of P-type ATPases. The catalytic subunit consists of three cytoplasmic domains (N, P, A) that work in concert with the transmembrane domain to couple ATP hydrolysis to ion transport.

Cytoplasmic Domains

The cytoplasmic portion of P-type ATPases consists of three functionally specialized domains that work in concert to hydrolyze ATP and transduce energy to the transmembrane transport site [2] [1]:

• Phosphorylation (P) Domain: This domain contains the conserved aspartate residue that becomes phosphorylated during the reaction cycle (in a DKTGT motif). It folds into a Rossmann fold characterized by a seven-strand parallel β-sheet with eight short associated α-helices. The phosphorylation reaction follows an SN2 mechanism characteristic of the haloacid dehalogenase (HAD) superfamily [2].

• Nucleotide Binding (N) Domain: This domain functions as a built-in protein kinase that phosphorylates the P domain. It consists of a seven-strand antiparallel β-sheet flanked by two helix bundles and contains the ATP-binding pocket [2].

• Actuator (A) Domain: This domain serves as a built-in protein phosphatase that dephosphorylates the phosphorylated P domain using a highly conserved TGES motif. The A domain plays a crucial role in transducing energy from ATP hydrolysis in the cytoplasmic domains to the vectorial transport of substrates in the transmembrane domain [2].

Transmembrane Domain and Regulation

The transmembrane section typically comprises ten α-helices (M1-M10), though some subfamilies have variations (e.g., P1B ATPases have 8, P5 ATPases have 12) [2]. The transmembrane helices form the transport pathway with substrate-binding sites located near the midpoint of the lipid bilayer. A core of six transmembrane segments (M1-M6) forms the transport domain that harbors the binding sites for the translocated ions or lipids [2].

Some P-type ATPases require additional subunits for proper function and regulation. For instance, the Na+/K+-ATPase has additional β and γ subunits involved in trafficking, folding, and regulation [2]. Similarly, many P4-ATPases (lipid flippases) require a β-subunit from the Cdc50 family for proper localization and activity [5].

Molecular Mechanism of Ion Transport

The Post-Albers Reaction Cycle

P-type ATPases operate through a cyclic mechanism known as the Post-Albers scheme, which involves alternating between E1 and E2 conformational states [2]. The generalized transport reaction for P-type ATPases is:

nLigand1 (out) + mLigand2 (in) + ATP → nLigand1 (in) + mLigand2 (out) + ADP + Pi [2]

The diagram below illustrates the key steps in this transport cycle:

Figure 2: The Post-Albers Reaction Cycle of P-type ATPases. The pump alternates between E1 and E2 conformations with different substrate affinities and accessibilities to accomplish vectorial transport across the membrane.

Energy Transduction

The transport mechanism involves large conformational changes that transpose the energy from ATP hydrolysis in the cytoplasmic domains to the vectorial transport of cations or lipids in the transmembrane domain [1]. The A domain plays a pivotal role in this mechanical coupling, functioning as a molecular actuator that modulates the occlusion of transported substrates in the transmembrane binding sites [2]. ATP hydrolysis occurs at the interface between the N and P domains, with two magnesium ion sites forming part of the active site. This hydrolysis is tightly coupled to substrate translocation through the membrane more than 40 Å away [2].

ScPMA1 as a Model P-type ATPase

Structure and Function of ScPMA1

ScPMA1 (S. cerevisiae Plasma Membrane H+-ATPase 1) belongs to the P3A subfamily of P-type ATPases and serves as an essential primary transporter in yeast [6] [4]. It is responsible for generating the electrochemical proton gradient across the plasma membrane that drives secondary transport of nutrients and maintains cellular pH homeostasis [6]. ScPMA1 is a resident lipid raft protein and its proper function is critical for yeast growth and viability [7].

The structure of ScPMA1 follows the general architecture of P-type ATPases, with cytoplasmic N, P, and A domains, and a transmembrane domain comprising ten helices. As with other P-type ATPases, ScPMA1 undergoes conformational cycling between E1 and E2 states, with proton transport coupled to ATP hydrolysis through the formation and breakdown of an aspartyl-phosphoryl intermediate [2] [6].

Experimental Evidence for Compound Sensitivity

Research has demonstrated that ScPMA1 is a molecular target for certain bioactive compounds, including the antimalarial drug KAE609 (cipargamin) and the alkylphospholipid edelfosine [6] [8]. Key experimental findings include:

• Directed evolution experiments in S. cerevisiae showed that resistance to the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 was conferred by mutations in ScPMA1 (specifically at residues Leu290, Asn291, Gly294, and Pro339) [6].

• In vitro assays demonstrated that KAE609 directly inhibits ScPMA1 ATPase activity and increases cytoplasmic hydrogen ion concentrations in yeast cells [6] [8].

• ScPMA1 mutations conferring KAE609 resistance also resulted in increased sensitivity to edelfosine, suggesting functional interplay between these compounds [6].

Table 2: Experimentally Characterized ScPMA1 Mutations and Their Phenotypes

Mutation	Location	Resistance to KAE609	Sensitivity to Edelfosine	Additional Phenotypes
L290S	Transmembrane domain	2.5-fold increase	7.5-fold increase	Altered membrane trafficking [6]
N291K	Transmembrane domain	Confirmed	Not tested	Potential impact on substrate binding [6]
G294S	Transmembrane domain	Confirmed	Not tested	Possible effect on conformational changes [6]
P339T	E1-E2 ATPase domain	Confirmed	Not tested	Potential effect on domain dynamics [6]

Methodologies for Studying P-type ATPase Function and Inhibition

Experimental Approaches

Several well-established methodologies enable the functional characterization of P-type ATPases and their interactions with inhibitory compounds:

• Directed Evolution and Whole-Genome Sequencing: This approach involves exposing organisms to increasing concentrations of compounds and sequencing resistant mutants to identify target genes [6].

• Heterologous Expression in S. cerevisiae: Using yeast as a model system allows for functional characterization of P-type ATPases from various organisms, including pathogenic fungi [5].

• In Vitro ATPase Activity Assays: Cell-free systems measuring ATP hydrolysis provide direct evidence of compound effects on enzymatic activity [6] [8].

• Cytoplasmic pH Measurements: Assessing intracellular hydrogen ion concentrations can demonstrate functional consequences of ATPase inhibition [6].

• Lipid Uptake and Translocation Assays: For P4-ATPases (flippases), assays using fluorescently labeled lipids evaluate transport activity across membranes [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Studying P-type ATPase Function and Inhibition

Reagent/Condition	Category	Function in Research	Example Applications
KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Spiroindolone compound	P-type ATPase inhibitor	Antimalarial studies; ScPMA1 inhibition mechanisms [6] [8]
Edelfosine (ET-18-OCH3)	Alkylphospholipid analog	Displaces Pma1p from membrane; induces apoptosis	Studies of lipid raft interactions; cancer therapy research [6] [7]
S. cerevisiae ABC16-Monster Strain	Genetically modified yeast	Lacks 16 ABC transporters; enhances compound sensitivity	Target identification; directed evolution experiments [6]
Fluorescent NBD-labeled lipids	Tracing reagents	Substrates for flippase activity assays	Characterizing P4-ATPase substrate specificity [5]
Thapsigargin	Sesquiterpene lactone	SERCA ATPase inhibitor	Calcium signaling studies; P2A ATPase characterization [4]
Ouabain	Cardiac glycoside	Na+/K+-ATPase inhibitor	P2C ATPase studies; physiological regulation research [4]
CRISPR/Cas System	Gene editing tool	Precise introduction of point mutations	Genetic validation of resistance mutations [6]

Implications for Antifungal Drug Development

The study of ScPMA1 and its interactions with compounds like edelfosine has significant implications for antifungal drug development. Several findings highlight the potential of P-type ATPases as antifungal targets:

• The Cryptococcus neoformans P4-ATPase Apt1p has been identified as a virulence factor and potential antifungal target. Heterologous expression in S. cerevisiae revealed that Apt1p forms a heterodimeric complex with the C. neoformans Cdc50 protein, and this complex exhibits broad substrate specificity for various phospholipids and glycolipids [5].

• Apt1p inhibition affects polysaccharide secretion, capsule formation, and fungal virulence, reinforcing the potential of P-type ATPases as targets for antifungal drug development [5].

• The broad substrate specificity of some fungal P-type ATPases, including recognition of alkylphospholipids like miltefosine, suggests opportunities for developing lipid-based antifungal therapies [5].

Understanding the structure-function relationships of P-type ATPases, particularly through the lens of ScPMA1 mutant analysis, provides valuable insights for designing targeted therapeutic strategies against fungal pathogens. The conservation of key structural elements and functional mechanisms across the P-type ATPase superfamily enables researchers to extrapolate findings from model systems like S. cerevisiae to pathogenic fungi of clinical importance.

Chemical genomics, also termed chemical genetics, represents a powerful reverse genetics approach that systematically assesses how genetic variation influences a cell's response to drug treatment [9]. By measuring the fitness of a vast collection of mutants under chemical perturbation, this methodology can delineate a drug's cellular function, reveal its primary target, and uncover mechanisms of uptake, efflux, and resistance [9]. A major application lies in identifying a drug's Mode of Action (MoA), which can be achieved by comparing the fitness profiles ("signatures") of mutants treated with different compounds; drugs with similar signatures are likely to share cellular targets and/or cytotoxicity mechanisms [9]. This review employs chemical-genetic principles to analyze the relationship between resistance to the novel antimalarial KAE609 and cross-sensitivity to the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, focusing on mutations in the essential P-type ATPase gene, ScPMA1.

Compound Profiles and Experimental Models

KAE609 (Cipargamin)

KAE609 (Cipargamin) is a representative of the spiroindolone class, discovered via a phenotypic whole-cell screen against Plasmodium falciparum [10]. It demonstrates exceptional potency, with an average IC~50~ of 550 pM against asexual blood-stage P. falciparum, and has shown in clinical trials to clear parasites from patients twice as rapidly as artemisinin-based therapies [10]. Its mechanism of action was initially suggested by the emergence of resistance-conferring mutations in the parasite P-type ATPase gene, PfATP4, in directed-evolution experiments [10] [8].

Edelfosine

Edelfosine (1-O-octadecyl-2-O-methyl-rac-glycero-3-phosphocholine) is a prototype alkyl-lysophospholipid and antitumor lipid (ATL) [11]. It is known for its selective pro-apoptotic effect on cancer cells, largely due to its propensity to accumulate in lipid rafts and induce the internalization and degradation of essential raft-associated proteins, including the proton pump Pma1p in yeast [11]. Edelfosine has also demonstrated significant efficacy against various Leishmania species, including those resistant to pentavalent antimonials [12].

The Yeast Model: ABC16-Monster Strain

The baker's yeast, S. cerevisiae, serves as a highly tractable model organism for eukaryotic biology. To facilitate the study of KAE609, a modified yeast strain termed "ABC16-Monster" was utilized [10]. This strain lacks 16 genes encoding ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters, which function as drug efflux pumps. The absence of these pumps dramatically increased the potency of KAE609 against yeast, reducing the IC~50~ from 89.4 ± 18.1 µM in the wild-type strain to 6.09 ± 0.74 µM in the ABC16-Monster strain, making target identification studies feasible [10].

Table 1: Key Compounds and Experimental Organisms

Compound / Organism	Description / Key Feature	Relevance to the Study
KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Spiroindolone antimalarial; inhibits P-type ATPases.	Primary compound for which resistance mutations were selected.
Edelfosine	Alkyl-lysophospholipid; displaces Pma1p from plasma membrane.	Compound to which KAE609-resistant mutants show cross-sensitivity.
S. cerevisiae (ABC16-Monster)	Yeast strain with 16 ABC transporter genes deleted.	Enables KAE609 studies by preventing drug efflux; used for directed evolution.

Experimental Workflow for Target Identification and Validation

The identification of ScPMA1 as the target of KAE609 and the discovery of its functional link to edelfosine involved a multi-step experimental process, visualized in the diagram below.

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for identifying KAE609 target and cross-sensitivity.

Directed Evolution and Genome Sequencing

The ABC16-Monster yeast cells were exposed to escalating concentrations of KAE609 in three independent clonal cultures [10]. Resistance emerged after several selection rounds, with IC~50~ values increasing from 6.09 µM to over 60 µM in the most resistant clones [10]. Whole-genome sequencing of the resistant clones, with coverage exceeding 40-fold, was performed. Subsequent comparison with the parental genome revealed a limited number of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) per clone. Strikingly, ScPMA1 was the only gene mutated in all three independently evolved resistant lineages [10]. The specific mutations identified were Pro339Thr, Leu290Ser, and Gly294Ser, all clustering within the E1-E2 ATPase domain [10].

Genetic Validation Using CRISPR/Cas

To confirm that the identified ScPMA1 mutations were sufficient to confer resistance, researchers employed CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing to introduce the Leu290Ser mutation into a naive ABC16-Monster background [10]. The engineered mutant displayed a significant increase in KAE609 resistance, validating that mutations in ScPMA1 alone are a direct cause of the resistant phenotype, rather than a secondary consequence of other mutations.

Phenotypic Profiling and Discovery of Cross-Sensitivity

To determine the specificity of the resistance conferred by ScPMA1 mutation, the engineered Leu290Ser mutant was tested against a panel of antimicrobials with unrelated mechanisms [10]. The mutant did not show cross-resistance to these other drugs. However, it exhibited a pronounced 7.5-fold increase in sensitivity to the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine [10]. This inverse relationship—resistance to one drug coupled with hypersensitivity to another—is known as collateral sensitivity.

In Vitro Biochemical Assays

To provide direct evidence for KAE609's mechanism, an in vitro cell-free assay was conducted using purified ScPma1p [10]. The results demonstrated that KAE609 directly inhibits the ATPase activity of ScPma1p, confirming it as the bona fide cellular target and not merely a resistance gene [10] [8].

The following tables consolidate the key experimental findings from the chemical-genetic analysis.

Table 2: Resistance and Cross-Sensitivity Profiles of ScPMA1 Mutants

Yeast Strain / Genotype	KAE609 IC~50~ (µM)	Fold Change (Resistance)	Edelfosine IC~50~	Fold Change (Sensitivity)
ABC16-Monster (Parental)	6.09 ± 0.74 [10]	1.0 (Reference)	Not Reported	-
ScPMA1 L290S (CRISPR)	Increased [10]	~2.5-fold [10]	Decreased [10]	7.5-fold increase in sensitivity [10]
Evolved Resistant Lineages	Up to 61.5 ± 7.1 [10]	Up to ~10-fold [10]	Not Reported	-

Table 3: Functional Consequences of KAE609 and Edelfosine on ScPma1p

Assay Type	Compound	Observed Effect	Biological Interpretation
Intracellular pH	KAE609	Cytoplasmic pH dropped from 7.14 to 6.88 [10]	Inhibits ScPma1p H+-pumping activity, leading to H+ accumulation.
Protein Localization	Edelfosine	Displaces ScPma1p from lipid rafts/plasma membrane [11]	Triggers internalization and vacuolar degradation of the pump.
In Vitro ATPase Activity	KAE609	Direct inhibition of ScPma1p ATPase activity [10]	Confirms ScPma1p as the direct molecular target of KAE609.

Molecular Mechanism and Signaling Pathways

The molecular interplay between KAE609, edelfosine, and ScPma1p is complex, involving direct inhibition and protein trafficking pathways. The following diagram synthesizes the mechanisms as revealed by the chemical-genetic data.

Diagram 2: Molecular mechanisms of KAE609 resistance and edelfosine cross-sensitivity. Mutations in ScPMA1 (e.g., L290S) reduce KAE609 binding, conferring resistance, but simultaneously destabilize the pump, making it more vulnerable to edelfosine-induced displacement and degradation, leading to collateral sensitivity.

In a wild-type cell, KAE609 directly binds to and inhibits ScPma1p, disrupting proton efflux and lowering intracellular pH [10]. Edelfosine acts via a different mechanism, causing the displacement of ScPma1p from plasma membrane lipid rafts and its subsequent trafficking to the vacuole for degradation [11]. In mutant cells, amino acid substitutions in ScPma1p (e.g., Leu290Ser) likely alter the drug-binding pocket, reducing KAE609 affinity and thereby conferring resistance [10]. However, these same mutations appear to destabilize the pump's interaction with the membrane or its structural integrity, rendering it more susceptible to edelfosine-mediated displacement. This enhanced degradation leads to a critical loss of proton-pumping capacity, explaining the observed collateral sensitivity [10] [11].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Research Materials and Reagents

Reagent / Resource	Function in Research	Specific Application in this Context
ABC16-Monster S. cerevisiae	Engineered yeast strain with enhanced compound sensitivity.	Deletion of 16 ABC transporters allows KAE609 accumulation, enabling in vitro evolution and target identification [10] [13].
Genome-Wide Mutant Libraries	Systematic collections of gene knockouts, knockdowns, or overexpressions.	Used in chemical-genetic profiling to map drug targets and resistance genes by fitness scoring [9].
CRISPR/Cas System for Yeast	Tool for precise genome editing.	Validated that specific SNVs in ScPMA1 are sufficient to confer KAE609 resistance and edelfosine sensitivity [10].
pH-Sensitive GFP (pHluorin)	Genetically encoded fluorescent biosensor for intracellular pH.	Measured cytoplasmic acidification upon KAE609 treatment, confirming functional inhibition of ScPma1p [10].
Homology Modeling & Computer Docking	Computational methods for predicting protein structure and ligand binding.	Mapped resistance mutations to a defined binding pocket in ScPma1p, suggesting a shared site with other antimalarials [10] [8].

The chemical-genetic evidence unequivocally demonstrates that resistance to the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609, conferred by mutations in the P-type ATPase ScPMA1, is mechanistically linked to cross-sensitivity to the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine. This relationship is a powerful example of collateral sensitivity, a phenomenon with significant implications for designing combination therapies and sequential treatment regimens to combat drug resistance [9]. The finding that KAE609 and edelfosine, two structurally unrelated compounds, functionally converge on the same essential pump—albeit through distinct molecular mechanisms (direct inhibition versus induced degradation)—highlights the power of chemical genomics in uncovering deep functional connections within the cellular network.

From a therapeutic perspective, this pairing suggests a potential strategy: the emergence of resistance to a KAE609-like drug could potentially be managed or suppressed by the subsequent use of an edelfosine-like agent, to which the resistant pathogen becomes hyper-vulnerable. Future research should focus on exploring whether this specific collateral sensitivity relationship is conserved in pathogenic systems, such as Plasmodium parasites with mutant PfATP4, and on screening for other compound pairs that exhibit similar exploitable genetic interactions.

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Plasma Membrane ATPase 1 (ScPMA1) encodes an essential P-type ATPase that functions as the primary proton pump in yeast, responsible for maintaining cellular pH homeostasis and the electrochemical gradient across the plasma membrane [6] [14]. As a member of the P-type ATPase family, ScPma1p shares significant homology with malarial parasite PfATP4, making it a valuable model for studying antimalarial drug mechanisms and resistance [6]. Directed evolution experiments have identified several point mutations in ScPMA1 that confer resistance to the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 (cipargamin), with L290S, G294S, and P339T representing the most characterized variants [6] [14]. These mutations cluster within the E1-E2 ATPase domain's membrane-spanning region, specifically lining a cytoplasm-accessible pocket that serves as a binding site for small molecule inhibitors [6] [14]. This characterization guide provides a comprehensive comparison of these clinically relevant ScPMA1 mutants, focusing on their biochemical properties, drug resistance profiles, and sensitivity to the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine.

Comparative Analysis of ScPMA1 Mutants

Mutant Resistance Profiles and Functional Characterization

Table 1: Comparative Characterization of ScPMA1 Mutant Variants

Mutation	Location/Domain	KAE609 Resistance Fold-Change	Edelfosine Sensitivity Fold-Change	Impact on Intracellular pH	ATPase Activity
L290S	Membrane-spanning, cytoplasm-accessible pocket	~4-fold increase in IC50 [6]	7.5-fold increase in sensitivity [6]	Significant cytosolic acidification [14]	Impaired proton transport [6]
G294S	Membrane-spanning, cytoplasm-accessible pocket	~4-fold increase in IC50 [6]	Data not specified	Significant cytosolic acidification [14]	Impaired proton transport [6]
P339T	Membrane-spanning, cytoplasm-accessible pocket	~4-fold increase in IC50 [6]	Data not specified	Significant cytosolic acidification [14]	Impaired proton transport [6]
Wild Type	N/A	Reference IC50: 6.09 ± 0.74 μM [6]	Reference sensitivity [6]	Normal pH homeostasis [14]	Normal ATPase activity [6]

Table 2: Specificity Profiling of ScPMA1 L290S Mutant

Compound Class	Test Compound	Effect on L290S Mutant	Implications
Spiroindolones	KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Resistance (4-fold ↑ IC50) [6]	Confirms target engagement
Alkyl-lysophospholipids	Edelfosine	Hypersensitivity (7.5-fold ↓ IC50) [6]	Suggests conformational vulnerability
Diverse Antimicrobials	Unrelated mechanism antibiotics	No cross-resistance or sensitivity [6]	Confirms specificity of mutation effect
Dihydroisoquinolones	Antimalarial compounds	Proposed shared binding site [6]	Suggests common resistance mechanism

Structural and Mechanistic Insights

The ScPMA1 mutations L290S, G294S, and P339T all localize to a critical region within the transporter's membrane-spanning domain, precisely lining a well-defined, cytoplasm-accessible pocket that serves as the binding site for spiroindolone inhibitors like KAE609 [6] [14]. Structural modeling reveals that these amino acid substitutions likely cause subtle alterations in the topology of this binding pocket, sufficient to reduce drug affinity while preserving the essential proton-pumping function enough to maintain viability [6]. The mutated residues correspond to homologous positions in Plasmodium falciparum PfATP4 that also confer resistance to both spiroindolones and dihydroisoquinolones, suggesting evolutionary conservation of this resistance mechanism across species [6].

The conformational changes induced by these mutations appear to create a structural vulnerability to alkyl-lysophospholipids like edelfosine, which selectively displaces ScPma1p from the plasma membrane to endosomal compartments for degradation [6]. This hypersensitivity phenotype suggests that the mutant proteins experience impaired membrane stability or altered trafficking kinetics, making them more susceptible to compounds that disrupt their membrane association [6].

Diagram 1: ScPMA1 Mutant Drug Sensitivity Pathways

Experimental Protocols for Characterization

Yeast Growth Inhibition Assay

The determination of half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values for KAE609 and edelfosine against ScPMA1 mutants follows a standardized yeast proliferation protocol [6]. Briefly, yeast strains (preferably the ABC16-Monster strain lacking 16 ABC transporters to enhance compound susceptibility) are grown in appropriate liquid media while monitoring culture density at OD600 [6]. Serial dilutions of compounds are prepared in DMSO or PBS, with final concentrations typically ranging from 0-100 μM for KAE609 and 0-50 μM for edelfosine [6]. Cells are exposed to compounds for 16-24 hours, and growth inhibition is calculated relative to DMSO-treated controls. IC50 values are determined using non-linear regression analysis of dose-response curves from at least three independent experiments performed in technical triplicate [6].

Intracellular pH Measurement Protocol

Cytosolic pH changes in response to ScPMA1 inhibition are quantified using a pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (pHluorin) expressed in S. cerevisiae [14]. Yeast strains are grown to mid-log phase, treated with compounds (typically 200 μM KAE609 for 3 hours), and washed with appropriate buffers [14]. Fluorescence measurements are taken at excitation wavelengths of 395 nm and 475 nm, with emission detected at 509 nm. The ratio of emissions (395/475) is calculated and converted to pH values using a standard curve generated with buffers of known pH in the presence of ionophores [14]. Statistical significance is determined using Student's t-test for paired samples, with p<0.05 considered significant.

Vesicle-Based ATPase Activity Assay

A cell-free system using secretory vesicles enriched with ScPma1p provides direct measurement of ATPase inhibition [15]. Vesicles are harvested from yeast strains with engineered defects in secretory-vesicle/plasma-membrane fusion transformed with ScPMA1 overexpression plasmids [15]. The assay mixture contains vesicles, test compounds (typically 0-20 μM), and ATP in appropriate buffer. Reactions are incubated at 30°C, terminated at specific timepoints, and inorganic phosphate release is quantified colorimetrically [15]. Specific ScPma1p activity is calculated by subtracting values obtained in the presence of the specific P-type ATPase inhibitor sodium orthovanadate. IC50 values are determined from dose-response curves of ATP hydrolysis inhibition.

Diagram 2: ScPMA1 Mutant Characterization Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for ScPMA1 Mutant Research

Reagent/Chemical	Specific Function	Application Context	Key Experimental Notes
KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Spiroindolone antimalarial; direct ScPMA1 inhibitor	Resistance profiling, target validation	Use ABC16-Monster strain for enhanced sensitivity; IC50 ~6.09 μM in wild type [6]
Edelfosine (ET-18-O-CH3)	Alkyl-lysophospholipid; membrane disruptor	Hypersensitivity assessment, combination studies	7.5-fold increased sensitivity in L290S mutant; induces apoptosis in tumor cells [6] [16]
ABC16-Monster Yeast Strain	Lacks 16 ABC transporter genes	Enhanced compound susceptibility background	Essential for KAE609 studies; reduces IC50 from 89.4 μM to 6.09 μM [6] [15]
pHluorin	pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein	Intracellular pH measurement	Excitation ratios 395/475 nm, emission 509 nm; detects cytosolic acidification [14]
ScPMA1-Overexpressing Vesicles	Enriched ScPma1p membranes	Cell-free ATPase activity assays	Measure inorganic phosphate release; vanadate-sensitive component reflects ScPma1p activity [15]

Research Implications and Future Directions

The characterization of ScPMA1 mutants L290S, G294S, and P339T provides critical insights into the mechanism of action of spiroindolone antimalarials and the molecular basis of resistance. The consistent finding that these mutations confer resistance to KAE609 while simultaneously increasing sensitivity to edelfosine suggests a therapeutic opportunity for combination therapies that could potentially overcome resistance in clinical settings [6]. The structural homology between ScPma1p and PfATP4 indicates that these findings in yeast models likely translate to malaria parasites, providing a platform for anticipating resistance mechanisms before they emerge in field isolates [6] [14].

Future research should focus on high-resolution structural studies of these mutant proteins, expanded combination screening with additional drug classes, and translational studies examining whether edelfosine or similar compounds show enhanced activity against PfATP4-mutant malaria strains. The experimental protocols outlined herein provide a standardized framework for characterizing novel ScPMA1 mutations and evaluating next-generation P-type ATPase inhibitors with potential as antifungal or antimalarial therapeutics.

The alkylphospholipid analog edelfosine is a potent antitumor agent that targets cellular membranes, and its mechanism of action has been a subject of extensive research. A key aspect of its bioactivity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae involves the disruption of plasma membrane organization and the subsequent displacement of the essential proton pump Pma1p. This review synthesizes current understanding of how edelfosine induces Pma1p internalization, examines experimental approaches for studying this phenomenon, and explores the implications for both basic science and therapeutic development. The focus on Pma1p, a resident lipid raft protein and the master regulator of cytoplasmic pH, provides a paradigm for understanding how membrane-targeting compounds can exert profound cellular effects.

Experimental Evidence: Key Findings and Quantitative Data

Multiple studies have demonstrated that edelfosine alters plasma membrane organization and specifically affects Pma1p localization and function. The table below summarizes the key experimental findings:

Table 1: Key Experimental Findings on Edelfosine-Induced Pma1p Displacement

Experimental Finding	Experimental System	Significance	Citation
Alters PM organization and induces intracellular acidification	S. cerevisiae	Demonstrates functional consequence of Pma1p displacement	[17]
Selectively reduces lateral segregation of PM proteins like Pma1p	S. cerevisiae	Shows specificity of edelfosine for raft-resident proteins	[17]
Induces ubiquitination and internalization of Pma1p and nutrient H+-symporters	S. cerevisiae	Reveals downstream trafficking events following initial disruption	[17]
ScPMA1 mutations confer resistance to antimalarial KAE609 but sensitivity to edelfosine	Genetically engineered S. cerevisiae	Provides genetic evidence for Pma1p as a key determinant of edelfosine sensitivity	[10]
Displacement of Pma1p from lipid rafts	S. cerevisiae	Establishes lipid rafts as the primary site of action for edelfosine	[18]

Genetic Interaction Data

Research has revealed a compelling genetic link between Pma1p and edelfosine sensitivity. Mutations in the ScPMA1 gene that confer resistance to the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 (a known P-type ATPase inhibitor) simultaneously cause increased sensitivity to edelfosine. The table below quantifies this relationship:

Table 2: Sensitivity of ScPMA1 Mutant to Edelfosine and Other Compounds

Compound Tested	Effect in ScPMA1 Mutant (L290S) vs. Wild Type	Experimental Measurement	Citation
Edelfosine	7.5-fold increase in sensitivity	Growth inhibition assay	[10]
KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Resistance conferred	Growth inhibition assay	[10]
Unrelated antimicrobials	No cross-resistance or sensitivity	Growth inhibition assay	[10]

This inverse relationship suggests that while the ScPma1p mutant can evade inhibition by KAE609, the mutation likely compromises pump stability or function in a way that paradoxically enhances its displacement by edelfosine or the toxicity of the subsequent internalization.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To facilitate reproducibility and further research, this section outlines key methodologies used in the cited studies.

Protocol for Assessing Edelfosine-Induced Internalization of Plasma Membrane Proteins

This protocol is adapted from genome-wide surveys in S. cerevisiae [17].

• Cell Culture and Treatment:

  • Grow S. cerevisiae wild-type or mutant strains (e.g., ABC16-monster strain lacking efflux pumps) in appropriate medium to mid-logarithmic phase.
  • Treat cells with a predetermined IC50 or sub-IC50 concentration of edelfosine (e.g., 20-30 µM for the ABC16-monster strain) for a defined period (e.g., 1-3 hours).
  • Include a vehicle control (e.g., DMSO) for comparison.

• Measurement of Intracellular Acidification:

  • Use a strain expressing a cytosolic pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (e.g., pHluorin).
  • Harvest treated and control cells, wash, and resuspend in appropriate buffer.
  • Measure fluorescence emission ratios (excitation at 395 nm and 475 nm) using a fluorometer or flow cytometer.
  • Calculate cytoplasmic pH and hydrogen ion concentration from a standard calibration curve.

• Analysis of Protein Internalization:

  • After edelfosine treatment, harvest cells and subject them to fractionation or immunofluorescence microscopy.
  • For fractionation: Prepare plasma membrane and intracellular vesicle fractions via differential and density gradient centrifugation. Detect Pma1p and other transporters (e.g., Can1p, Fur4p) in each fraction by western blotting using specific antibodies.
  • For microscopy: Fix cells and stain for Pma1p. The redistribution of Pma1p from the plasma membrane to punctate intracellular structures indicates internalization.

• Detection of Ubiquitination:

  • Immunoprecipitate Pma1p or other target proteins from cell lysates under denaturing conditions.
  • Analyze the immunoprecipitates by western blotting with anti-ubiquitin antibodies to detect ubiquitinated species.

Protocol for Genetic Validation of Edelfosine Sensitivity

This protocol is based on directed evolution and CRISPR/Cas9 validation experiments [10].

• Generation of Resistant Mutants:

  • Subject a susceptible yeast strain (e.g., the ABC16-monster) to serial passages in increasing concentrations of edelfosine or a related compound like KAE609.
  • Isolate resistant clones from the terminal selection rounds.

• Whole-Genome Sequencing:

  • Prepare genomic DNA from resistant clones and the parental strain.
  • Sequence the genomes with high coverage (>40-fold). Identify single nucleotide variants (SNVs) by comparing sequences to the parental clone.

• CRISPR/Cas9 Validation:

  • Introduce the identified missense mutations (e.g., L290S in ScPMA1) into the native locus of a naive strain using a CRISPR/Cas9 system.
  • Verify the correct genome editing by Sanger sequencing of the ScPMA1 locus.

• Phenotypic Confirmation:

  • Perform dose-response growth assays with the engineered mutant and the isogenic wild-type control in the presence of a concentration gradient of edelfosine.
  • Determine the IC50 values for both strains to confirm the mutation is sufficient to alter sensitivity.

Visualization of Mechanisms and Workflows

Molecular Mechanism of Edelfosine Action on Pma1p

The following diagram illustrates the proposed sequence of events leading from edelfosine treatment to Pma1p internalization and its physiological consequences.

Experimental Workflow for Genetic Analysis

This diagram outlines the key steps in a genetic approach to identify and validate genes involved in edelfosine sensitivity, as performed in the cited research.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

The table below lists essential materials and reagents used in the experimental studies of edelfosine's action on Pma1p.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Studying Edelfosine-Pma1p Interaction

Reagent / Material	Function / Application in Research	Example from Search Results
Edelfosine (ET-18-OCH3)	The alkylphospholipid analog under study; used to treat cells and induce Pma1p displacement.	Used across all studies as the primary experimental compound [17] [10] [18].
S. cerevisiae Strains	Model organism for genetic studies on membrane biology and drug mechanism.	Wild-type and ABC16-monster strain used for sensitivity and resistance studies [17] [10].
ScPMA1 Mutant Strains	Genetically engineered yeast (e.g., L290S, P339T) to validate the role of specific residues in sensitivity.	CRISPR-engineered L290S mutant showed 7.5-fold increased sensitivity to edelfosine [10].
Anti-Pma1p Antibodies	Essential for detecting Pma1p localization (via microscopy) and quantifying its levels in membrane fractions (via western blot).	Used in studies analyzing Pma1p internalization and raft displacement [17] [18].
pH-Sensitive Fluorophore (pHluorin)	A genetically encoded biosensor expressed in the cytosol to measure drug-induced changes in intracellular pH.	Cytoplasmic pH dropped from 7.14 to 6.88 after KAE609 treatment, indicating H+-ATPase inhibition [10].
CRISPR/Cas9 System	For precise genome editing in yeast to introduce specific point mutations identified in resistance screens.	Used to confirm that ScPMA1 mutations are sufficient for the resistant/sensitive phenotype [10].

The body of evidence unequivocally demonstrates that edelfosine induces the displacement of Pma1p from the plasma membrane by selectively altering the organization of cholesterol-rich lipid rafts. This initial event triggers a cascade involving ubiquitination and internalization of the pump, leading to a loss of proton gradient and cytoplasmic acidification, which ultimately impairs cell growth and survival. The genetic evidence showing that mutations in ScPMA1 can dramatically alter sensitivity to edelfosine underscores the central role of this pump in the drug's mechanism. The well-established experimental protocols and specialized reagents provide a solid foundation for continued research into membrane-targeting therapeutics, leveraging yeast as a powerful model system.

P-type ATPases constitute a large family of membrane pumps that utilize ATP hydrolysis to transport cations across biological membranes. These enzymes undergo significant conformational changes during their catalytic cycle, alternating between two principal states: the E1 state (ion-binding sites open to the cytoplasm) and the E2 state (ion-binding sites open to the extracellular or lumenal side) [19] [20]. This E1-E2 transition involves large-scale domain motions that are essential for ion transport function [21]. The structural knowledge of well-characterized P-type ATPases, particularly the sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase (SERCA), has enabled homology modeling of less characterized family members. This approach provides valuable structural frameworks for mapping disease-causing mutations and understanding their mechanistic consequences [21] [22].

Within this family, ScPma1p (Saccharomyces cerevisiae plasma membrane H+-ATPase) represents a crucial model system for investigating the relationship between protein structure and function. As the essential proton pump in yeast, ScPma1p maintains electrochemical gradients across the plasma membrane and has emerged as a surrogate for studying conserved structural and functional principles across P-type ATPases [10] [11]. Recent research has positioned ScPma1p as a key model for investigating how mutations in conserved E1-E2 domains affect sensitivity to therapeutic compounds like edelfosine, revealing important insights into structure-function relationships within this medically significant protein family [10].

Structural Foundations of Homology Modeling

Template Selection and Model Construction

Homology modeling of P-type ATPases relies heavily on high-resolution crystal structures of related family members. The Ca2+-ATPase from sarcoplasmic reticulum (SERCA) serves as the primary template due to its well-characterized structures in both E1 and E2 conformations [21] [19]. These structures reveal a conserved architecture consisting of three cytoplasmic domains (actuator [A], nucleotide-binding [N], and phosphorylation [P] domains) and a transmembrane domain typically composed of 10 helices (M1-M10) that form the ion transport pathway [19] [20].

The modeling process typically begins with sequence alignment using specialized algorithms such as mGenTHREADER, which identifies the best fit to known 3D structures [21]. For Wilson's disease protein (WNDP), this approach detected the best fit to the Ca2+-ATPase E1 state structure with an E-value of 8×10-5, indicating a statistically significant match [21]. Subsequent model building utilizes software such as Modeller to generate three-dimensional structures, followed by validation using programs like Profiles_3D to verify folding compatibility [21]. Molecular dynamics simulations in explicit solvent further refine these models and provide insights into domain movements and conformational flexibility [21].

Table 1: Key Structural Domains in P-Type ATPases

Domain	Structural Features	Functional Role
Transmembrane Domain	10 helices (M1-M10); forms ion pathway	Ion binding and translocation across membrane
Actuator Domain (A)	Contains conserved TGES motif	Participates in dephosphorylation; involved in conformational transitions
Nucleotide-Binding Domain (N)	Flexible domain near P-domain	ATP binding and coordination
Phosphorylation Domain (P)	Contains conserved DKTGT motif with catalytic aspartate	Catalytic phosphorylation site; energy transduction
N-terminal Domain (NTD)	β-sheet structure (P5A-ATPases)	Class-specific regulatory function

E1-E2 Transition Mechanisms

The E1-E2 transition involves substantial tertiary structural changes while largely preserving secondary structure elements [22]. Research on gastric H+/K+-ATPase revealed that residues 516-530 of the cytoplasmic domain and TM10 within transmembrane regions undergo the most significant movements during this conformational switch [22]. These rearrangements enable the alternating access mechanism that characterizes P-type ATPase function, with the transmembrane helices undergoing repacking to open and close the ion pathway to different sides of the membrane [19].

The irregular packing of transmembrane α-helices in these pumps, combined with relatively diffuse structure on the lumenal side, may contribute to a low activation energy for changing helix packing, facilitating the conformational transitions required for ion transport [19]. These structural dynamics are not spontaneous but are triggered by specific molecular events—ion binding in the transmembrane domain and ATP binding in the cytoplasmic nucleotide-binding domain [21].

Experimental Approaches for Validating Homology Models

Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations provide critical insights into the flexibility and conformational sampling of homology models. For WNDP, long-term MD simulations in explicit solvent revealed large-scale motions that significantly altered distances between functionally important residues [21]. These simulations demonstrated that domain "closure" movements bring the nucleotide-binding region closer to the phosphorylation site, facilitating ATP hydrolysis [21]. Similarly, MD approaches have been applied to study the E1-E2 transition in H+/K+-ATPase, identifying specific regions undergoing maximal structural changes [22].

ATP Docking Studies

Docking simulations help identify potential nucleotide-binding modes within homology models. Studies on WNDP revealed two possible ATP binding modes: one with adenosine buried in a cleft near residues H1069, R1151, and D1164, and another with the phosphate moiety anchored by hydrogen bonds near catalytic D1027 [21]. Importantly, efficient interaction with both sites requires specific spatial proximity achieved through domain motions observed in MD simulations [21]. This approach provides a framework for understanding how disease mutations might disrupt nucleotide binding and catalysis.

Experimental Validation in Model Systems

Yeast as a Model Organism: Saccharomyces cerevisiae serves as an powerful experimental system for validating homology model predictions. The ABC16-Monster strain, which lacks 16 genes encoding ATP-binding cassette transporters, shows enhanced sensitivity to compounds like KAE609 due to reduced drug efflux, making it ideal for drug-target studies [10].

Directed Evolution: Experimental evolution in yeast has identified resistance-conferring mutations in ScPMA1 after exposure to compounds like the spiroindolone KAE609 [10]. Sequencing resistant clones reveals specific missense mutations (e.g., Pro339Thr, Leu290Ser, Gly294Ser) clustered in the E1-E2 ATPase domain [10]. CRISPR/Cas-mediated genetic validation confirms that these mutations are sufficient to confer resistance.

Functional Assays: Intracellular pH measurements using pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (pHluorin) demonstrate that inhibition of ScPma1p by KAE609 causes cytoplasmic acidification (pH drops from 7.14 to 6.88), consistent with impaired proton pumping [10]. Similar functional assays can test predictions from homology models about specific residue contributions to pump function.

Table 2: Key Experimental Methods for Studying E1-E2 ATPase Mutations

Method	Application	Key Outcomes
Homology Modeling	3D structure prediction based on templates (e.g., SERCA)	Generates testable structural models of target ATPases
Molecular Dynamics Simulations	Studying domain motions and conformational changes	Reveals large-scale movements and residue distance changes
Directed Evolution + Sequencing	Identifying resistance mutations	Maps functional residues (e.g., ScPMA1: L290, N291, G294, P339)
CRISPR/Cas Genetic Validation	Testing mutation sufficiency	Confirms causal relationship between mutation and phenotype
Intracellular pH Measurement	Assessing proton pump function	Quantifies functional consequences of inhibition/mutation

Case Study: ScPMA1 Mutations and Edelfosine Sensitivity

Edelfosine Mechanism of Action

Edelfosine (1-O-octadecyl-2-O-methyl-rac-glycero-3-phosphocholine) is an alkyl-lysophospholipid that targets plasma membrane organization and function. In yeast, edelfosine incorporates into lipid rafts and selectively displaces essential raft-associated proteins, including the proton pump Pma1p [11]. This displacement triggers Pma1p internalization from the plasma membrane followed by vacuolar degradation, ultimately disrupting proton gradient maintenance and leading to intracellular acidification [11]. The compound's antineoplastic properties stem from its similar action in cancer cells, where it induces apoptosis through lipid raft-mediated mechanisms [23].

Mapping Resistance Mutations

Directed evolution experiments in yeast have identified specific ScPMA1 mutations that confer resistance to spiroindolone compounds like KAE609 [10]. When mapped onto homology models, these mutations (Leu290Ser, Asn291Lys, Gly294Ser, Pro339Thr) cluster within a well-defined, cytoplasm-accessible pocket in the transmembrane domain [10]. This pocket represents a potential binding site for small molecule inhibitors and highlights regions critical for pump function. The location of these mutations in ScPma1p corresponds structurally to regions where mutations in Plasmodium falciparum ATP4 (PfATP4) confer resistance to spiroindolones, demonstrating evolutionary conservation of functional sites [10].

Edelfosine Sensitivity Patterns

Research demonstrates that ScPMA1 mutations confer distinctive sensitivity patterns to edelfosine. While resistant to spiroindolones, ScPMA1 mutants show increased sensitivity (approximately 7.5-fold) to edelfosine [10]. This hypersensitivity suggests that the mutations, while protecting against one class of inhibitors, may compromise pump stability or trafficking, making the protein more vulnerable to edelfosine-induced displacement and degradation. This inverse resistance pattern provides important insights into the structure-function relationships of ScPma1p and highlights how different compounds exploit distinct aspects of pump biology.

Visualization of Experimental Workflows and Structural Relationships

Experimental Workflow for Mutation Mapping

The following diagram illustrates the integrated computational and experimental approach for mapping mutations to conserved E1-E2 ATPase domains:

Structural Impact of E1-E2 Mutations

The diagram below illustrates the structural and functional consequences of mutations in conserved E1-E2 ATPase domains:

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for E1-E2 ATPase Studies

Reagent/Cell Line	Key Features	Research Applications
ABC16-Monster Yeast Strain	Deleted for 16 ABC transporters; enhanced drug sensitivity	Drug target identification; resistance studies [10]
pHluorin-expressing Yeast	Expresses pH-sensitive GFP variant	Real-time measurement of intracellular pH changes [10]
ScPMA1 Homology Model	Based on SERCA templates; E1 and E2 states	Structure-function analysis; mutation mapping [10]
Edelfosine (ET-18-OCH3)	Alkyl-lysophospholipid; raft-disrupting compound	Probing Pma1p membrane association and trafficking [11]
KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Spiroindolone P-type ATPase inhibitor	Studying conserved inhibition mechanisms [10]
CRISPR/Cas System for Yeast	Genome editing platform	Validating mutation effects; isogenic strain creation [10]

Homology modeling of E1-E2 ATPase domains provides a powerful framework for understanding the structural basis of mutation-induced functional changes in P-type ATPases. The integration of computational approaches with experimental validation in model systems like yeast has revealed conserved principles governing these essential membrane pumps. The case of ScPMA1 mutations demonstrates how specific amino acid changes can simultaneously confer resistance to one class of compounds while increasing sensitivity to others, highlighting the complex relationship between protein structure and compound sensitivity. These insights not only advance our fundamental understanding of P-type ATPase biology but also inform drug discovery efforts targeting these medically important proteins.

Within the field of antimicrobial and anticancer drug development, the emergence of resistance is often a double-edged sword for the pathogenic organism. Mutations that confer survival advantages in the presence of a drug frequently come with functional compromises that reduce an organism's overall fitness, a concept central to understanding and combating resistance. This guide provides a structured comparison of this phenomenon across two distinct biological systems: the model yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Using the evaluation of ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine as a primary context, we will objectively compare the fitness costs and functional alterations in resistant strains, supported by experimental data and detailed methodologies. The insights are critical for researchers and drug development professionals aiming to design therapeutic strategies that exploit these inherent weaknesses in resistant mutants.

Core Concepts: Resistance and Its Trade-Offs

Drug resistance mutations often alter essential proteins or pathways, leading to a reduction in an organism's viability or reproductive rate in the absence of the selective drug pressure. This reduction is known as fitness cost. These costs arise from functional compromises, which can include impaired nutrient uptake, reduced metabolic efficiency, altered cellular signaling, or defective organelle physiology. Investigating these compromises requires a multidisciplinary approach, combining genetic screens, biochemical assays, and functional phenotyping.

System Comparison: ScPMA1 in Yeast vs. PfCRT in Malaria Parasites

The table below provides a high-level comparison of resistance and fitness costs in the two primary model systems discussed in this guide.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Resistance and Fitness in Model Systems

Feature	S. cerevisiae (ScPMA1 Model)	P. falciparum (PfCRT Model)
Resistant Gene	PMΑ1 (Essential plasma membrane H+-ATPase) [11]	PfCRT (Chloroquine Resistance Transporter) [24]
Primary Drug	Edelfosine (Antitumor ether lipid) [11]	Chloroquine (CQ), 4-Aminoquinoline drug [24]
Resistance Mechanism	Mutations preventing edelfosine-induced displacement from lipid rafts and subsequent vacuolar degradation [11]	Mutations (e.g., K76T) that allow the transporter to efflux CQ from the digestive vacuole [24]
Documented Fitness Cost	Resistance linked to impaired vesicle trafficking and protein recycling [11]	Many mutant alleles (e.g., Dd2) show reduced growth rates compared to wild-type [24]
Functional Compromise	Alterations in vesicular trafficking and intracellular pH regulation [11]	Altered digestive vacuole physiology, metabolism, and hemoglobin catabolism [24]
Fitness-Neutral Mutant	Not explicitly described	Cam734 allele: Confers CQ resistance without measurable growth defect [24]

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship between drug pressure, the emergence of resistance, and the associated fitness outcomes in these systems.

Diagram 1: Resistance and Fitness Relationship

Detailed Experimental Data and Protocols

Yeast System: ScPMA1 and Edelfosine Resistance

Research on S. cerevisiae has been instrumental in elucidating the mechanism of action of the alkyl-lysophospholipid drug edelfosine. A chemogenomic screen of the yeast gene-deletion strain collection identified several genes involved in vesicular trafficking that, when deleted, conferred resistance to edelfosine [11].

Table 2: Yeast Mutants Resistant to Edelfosine and Their Functional Compromises

Affected Gene/Pathway	Resistance Phenotype	Documented Functional Compromise / Mechanism
Lem3, Agp2, Doc1	Resistant; required for drug uptake [11]	Impaired intracellular accumulation of edelfosine [11]
Retromer Complex (e.g., Vps29, Vps35)	Resistant; prevents Pma1p internalization [11]	Defective retrograde transport from endosomes to Golgi; impaired recycling of proteins to plasma membrane [11]
ESCRT Complex (e.g., Snf7)	Resistant; prevents Pma1p internalization [11]	Disrupted multivesicular body (MVB) sorting and vacuolar degradation pathways [11]
End4 (Sla2)	Resistant [11]	Defective in receptor-mediated endocytosis and actin cytoskeleton organization [11]

Key Experimental Protocol: Analysis of Edelfosine-Induced Pma1p Mis-localization [11]

• Objective: To determine if edelfosine treatment induces the internalization and vacuolar degradation of the essential proton pump Pma1p.
• Materials:
  • Yeast strains (e.g., BY4741 and isogenic deletion mutants in vps29Δ, vps35Δ, snf7Δ).
  • Plasmid expressing Pma1p-GFP [11].
  • Edelfosine stock solution.
  • Standard rich medium (YPD) and synthetic minimal medium (SD).
  • Fluorescence microscope.
• Methodology:
  • Transform relevant yeast strains with a plasmid expressing Pma1p-GFP.
  • Grow transformed cells to mid-log phase in appropriate selective medium.
  • Treat cells with a sublethal concentration of edelfosine (e.g., 5-10 µg/mL) for a defined period (e.g., 2-4 hours).
  • Harvest cells and visualize Pma1p-GFP localization via fluorescence microscopy.
  • In sensitive wild-type strains, Pma1p-GFP signal will be lost from the plasma membrane and appear in the vacuole.
  • In resistant mutants (e.g., vps29Δ), Pma1p-GFP will remain predominantly at the plasma membrane after treatment.
• Supporting Data: The accompanying paper referenced in [11] links the internalization and degradation of Pma1p to intracellular acidification, which is a key event in edelfosine-induced yeast cell death.

Parasite System: PfCRT and Chloroquine Resistance

The PfCRT protein is a major determinant of chloroquine resistance (CQR) in P. falciparum. Different mutant alleles confer varying degrees of resistance and are associated with distinct fitness costs.

Table 3: Fitness Costs Associated with Mutant PfCRT Alleles [24]

PfCRT Allele	Resistance Phenotype	Documented Fitness Cost / Physiological Alteration
Dd2 (Southeast Asian variant)	CQ Resistant	Reduced growth rate in competition assays with wild-type parasites; altered parasite metabolism and digestive vacuole physiology [24]
Cam734 (Cambodian variant)	CQ Resistant	Fitness-neutral; no growth defect compared to wild-type; unique A144F mutation is critical for this cost-neutral resistance [24]
7G8 (South American variant)	CQ Resistant	Shows intermediate fitness costs compared to Dd2 and Cam734 [24]

Key Experimental Protocol: Genetic Dissection of PfCRT using Zinc-Finger Nucleases (ZFNs) [24]

• Objective: To precisely determine the contribution of individual mutations within a PfCRT allele (like Cam734) to drug resistance and parasite fitness.
• Materials:
  • P. falciparum cultures (e.g., GC03 strain).
  • ZFN constructs targeting the pfcrt locus.
  • Donor DNA templates with desired mutations.
  • Culture medium with antimalarials (e.g., chloroquine).
  • Equipment for parasite culture and flow cytometry-based proliferation assays.
• Methodology:
  • Design ZFNs to introduce double-strand breaks in the native pfcrt locus.
  • Co-transfect parasites with ZFNs and a donor DNA template containing the specific set of mutations to be investigated (e.g., introducing the A144F mutation into a Dd2 background).
  • Select for successfully edited parasites using drug selection.
  • Clone the transgenic parasites to ensure a homogeneous population.
  • Phenotypic Analysis:
    • Drug Sensitivity: Perform IC₅₀ assays against chloroquine and other antimalarials.
    • Fitness Assessment: Conduct in vitro growth competition assays between recombinant parasite lines and a reference strain (e.g., wild-type). Parasite growth is monitored over multiple cycles.
    • Physiological Profiling: Measure nucleoside triphosphate levels, analyze hemoglobin catabolism, and assess digestive vacuole pH and volume.
• Supporting Data: This approach revealed that the A144F mutation in the Cam734 allele is essential for CQ resistance and that the full complement of mutations in Cam734 collectively offsets the fitness costs associated with intermediate mutational steps [24].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

The following table lists essential materials and reagents used in the experiments cited above, which are fundamental for research in this field.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Their Applications

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Specific Example
Gene-Deletion Strain Collection	Genome-wide screening to identify genes involved in drug sensitivity/resistance.	S. cerevisiae deletion collection (e.g., from Euroscarf) [11].
Isogenic Parasite Lines	Comparing genotypes without confounding genetic background effects.	Recombinant P. falciparum lines expressing different pfcrt alleles in the GC03 strain [24].
Fluorescent Protein Tags	Visualizing protein localization and trafficking in live cells.	Pma1p-GFP fusion in yeast [11].
Zinc-Finger Nucleases (ZFNs)	Precise genome editing to introduce or revert specific point mutations.	Used to dissect the contributions of mutations in the pfcrt Cam734 allele [24].
Chemical Inhibitors	Probing specific pathways and validating targets.	Edelfosine to induce raft protein internalization [11].
Antibodies for Western Blot	Detecting protein expression and post-translational modifications.	Used to monitor protein levels in various mutant backgrounds.

The comparative analysis of ScPMA1 and PfCRT mutants unequivocally demonstrates that drug resistance is frequently coupled with significant functional compromises and fitness costs. In yeast, resistance to edelfosine is achieved through mutations that disrupt the finely tuned machinery of vesicular trafficking and protein recycling, processes essential for cellular homeostasis [11]. In malaria parasites, resistance-conferring mutations in PfCRT can alter fundamental aspects of parasite physiology, including metabolism and digestive vacuole function [24]. However, the existence of fitness-neutral mutants like PfCRT Cam734 serves as a critical reminder that pathogens can evolve pathways to overcome these costs. For drug development, this underscores the importance of not only identifying primary resistance mechanisms but also thoroughly characterizing the associated physiological trade-offs, as these vulnerable pathways can represent novel targets for combination therapies that suppress the emergence of resistance.

Experimental Approaches: Assessing Edelfosine Sensitivity in Yeast Model Systems

Experimental Comparison of Yeast Strain Performance

The comparative analysis of engineered yeast strains reveals distinct phenotypic profiles, particularly in their response to the spiroindolone KAE609 and the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine. The data, consolidated from key studies, are presented in the table below.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Engineered S. cerevisiae Strains

Strain / Genotype	Key Characteristic	KAE609 IC₅₀ (μM)	Fold Change in KAE609 Resistance vs. Parent Strain	Edelfosine Sensitivity	Primary Experimental Evidence
Wild-type (SY025)	Parental strain with full ABC transporter complement	89.4 ± 18.1 [10] [6]	1x (baseline)	Not Reported	Whole-cell proliferation assay (OD600) [10] [6]
ABC16-Monster	Deletion of 16 ABC transporter genes [10] [25] [6]	6.09 ± 0.74 [10] [6]	~0.07x (Increased potency)	Not Reported	Whole-cell proliferation assay [10] [6]
ABC16-Monster (KAE609-Resistant Lineages)	Selected via in vitro evolution; possess ScPMA1 mutations (e.g., L290S, G294S, P339T) [10] [6]	20.4 - 61.5 [10] [6]	~3.3 - 10x	Not Reported	Directed evolution with whole-genome sequencing [10] [6]
ABC16-Monster + CRISPR ScPMA1 (L290S)	Engineered point mutation in the ScPMA1 E1-E2 ATPase domain [10] [6]	~15.2 [10] [6]	~2.5x	7.5-fold increase (vs. unmodified ABC16-Monster) [10] [6]	CRISPR/Cas9 genetic validation; antimicrobial sensitivity profiling [10] [6]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

The following section outlines the core methodologies used to generate the comparative data, providing a reproducible framework for similar investigations.

Generation of ABC Transporter Deletion Strain ("ABC16-Monster")

• Objective: To create a hypersensitive yeast background by eliminating major drug efflux pumps, thereby facilitating the study of compound potency and resistance mechanisms [10] [25] [6].
• Procedure:
  • Strain Selection: Use a wild-type S. cerevisiae strain (e.g., SY025).
  • Gene Targeting: Systematically delete 16 genes encoding ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters. This is typically achieved through homologous recombination using selectable markers.
  • Validation: Confirm genotypic deletions via PCR and/or whole-genome sequencing. Phenotypic validation is performed by demonstrating increased susceptibility to known cytotoxic compounds compared to the wild-type strain [10] [6].

Directed Evolution for KAE609 Resistance

• Objective: To spontaneously generate resistant mutants and identify the genetic basis of resistance [10] [6].
• Procedure:
  • Inoculum: Initiate multiple (e.g., three) clonal cultures of the ABC16-Monster strain.
  • Stepwise Selection: Culture cells in the presence of progressively increasing concentrations of KAE609 over multiple rounds (e.g., 5 rounds). The drug concentration is increased only after robust growth is observed at the current concentration.
  • IC₅₀ Monitoring: At each round, assess resistance by measuring the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) using a proliferation assay (e.g., OD600 measurement).
  • Genomic Analysis: Prepare genomic DNA from terminal, resistant clones. Perform whole-genome sequencing (e.g., >40-fold coverage) and align sequences to the parent reference genome to identify single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and copy number variants (CNVs) [10] [6].

CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Genetic Validation

• Objective: To conclusively validate that specific ScPMA1 mutations are sufficient to confer the observed resistance phenotype [10] [6].
• Procedure:
  • Guide RNA Design: Design sgRNAs to target the specific locus (e.g., encoding Leu290) in the ScPMA1 gene within the ABC16-Monster strain.
  • Repair Template: Co-transform with a donor DNA template containing the desired mutation (e.g., L290S).
  • Screening: Screen for successful editing via antibiotic selection and colony PCR, followed by Sanger sequencing to confirm the introduction of the point mutation.
  • Phenotypic Confirmation: Measure the IC₅₀ of the engineered mutant against KAE609 to confirm the increase in resistance. Test cross-sensitivity against a panel of unrelated antimicrobials and edelfosine [10] [6].

Vesicle-Based ScPma1p ATPase Activity Assay

• Objective: To measure the direct inhibition of ScPma1p pump activity by compounds like KAE609 in a cell-free system [25].
• Procedure:
  • Vesicle Production: Use a yeast strain engineered for vesicle overproduction (e.g., with a defect in secretory-vesicle/plasma-membrane fusion) transformed with a ScPMA1 overexpression plasmid.
  • Vesicle Harvest: Isolate vesicles bearing high levels of ScPma1p from the culture via differential centrifugation.
  • Inhibition Assay: Incubate vesicles with ATP in the presence or absence of the inhibitor (e.g., KAE609, NSC11668, hitachimycin).
  • Activity Measurement: Quantify the amount of inorganic phosphate (Pi) released by ATP hydrolysis. ScPma1p inhibition is calculated as the reduction in Pi production relative to a no-inhibitor control [25].

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the logical relationship between strain engineering and the resulting phenotype, as well as the workflow for the key resistance mechanism study.

ScPMA1 Mutation and Edelfosine Sensitivity Link

KAE609 Resistance Mechanism Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents and Resources for ScPMA1 and Membrane Transport Research

Reagent / Resource	Function/Description	Relevance in Featured Studies
ABC16-Monster S. cerevisiae Strain	Engineered strain lacking 16 ABC transporters, increasing compound susceptibility.	Base strain for directed evolution and CRISPR engineering; crucial for revealing KAE609 potency [10] [25] [6].
KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Spiroindolone antimalarial; a potent and specific inhibitor of P-type ATPases (PfATP4/ScPma1p) [10] [6].	Selective pressure agent for evolution experiments; tool compound for validating ScPma1p as a direct target [10] [25] [6].
Edelfosine (ET-18-OCH3)	Alkyl-lysophospholipid known to displace ScPma1p from the plasma membrane [10] [6].	Critical tool for demonstrating fitness cost in ScPMA1 mutants via cross-sensitivity assays [10] [6].
ScPma1p-Enriched Vesicles	Cell-free system derived from yeast vesicles overexpressing ScPma1p.	Enables direct measurement of ATPase enzyme activity and its inhibition, confirming target engagement [25].
CRISPR/Cas9 System for Yeast	Genome editing tool for precise introduction of point mutations.	Used for definitive genetic validation that ScPMA1 mutations are sufficient for the KAE609 resistance phenotype [10] [6].

Cell proliferation assays are fundamental tools in biological research and drug development, providing critical insights into cell growth, differentiation, and the inhibitory effects of chemical compounds or therapeutic agents. These assays play a pivotal role in studying compound toxicity, screening anti-tumor drug efficacy, and evaluating cellular responses to various treatments. In the context of basic research, such as investigating ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine, proliferation assays offer a quantitative means to measure phenotypic changes resulting from genetic alterations or drug treatments. The sensitivity and accuracy of these assays have evolved significantly with technological advancements, moving from basic metabolic readouts to sophisticated image-based analyses that provide real-time kinetic data in live cells.

The fundamental principle underlying proliferation assays involves measuring increases in cell number over time, typically using markers such as DNA content, metabolic activity, or direct cell counting. When evaluating drug effects, researchers often determine the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50), a critical parameter quantifying the potency of a compound in inhibiting biological processes. However, recent research highlights that traditional parameters like IC50 and GI50 can lead to misinterpretation of results due to the exponential, rather than linear, proliferation of cells in culture. This has prompted the development of more accurate parameters such as relative population doubling capacity for properly quantifying anti-proliferative activity [26].

Comparison of Proliferation Assay Technologies

Classification and Principles of Common Proliferation Assays

Proliferation assays can be broadly categorized into several types based on their detection principles: DNA content measurement, metabolic activity assessment, direct cell counting, and DNA synthesis monitoring. Each category offers distinct advantages and limitations, making them suitable for different experimental contexts.

DNA content-based assays utilize fluorescent dyes that bind specifically to nucleic acids, providing a direct correlation between fluorescence intensity and cell number since DNA content per cell remains constant within a specific cell line. The CyQUANT family of assays exemplifies this approach, employing dyes that dramatically enhance fluorescence upon binding to nucleic acids. These assays offer excellent sensitivity with linear detection ranges from approximately 50 to 50,000 cells per sample, depending on the specific format. A significant advantage of DNA-binding assays is their independence from cellular metabolic state, allowing signal comparison across diverse experimental conditions [27].

Metabolic activity assays measure cell viability through indicators like reductase enzymes (e.g., MTT, alamarBlue) or ATP production. These methods operate on the principle that metabolically active cells will convert substrates into detectable signals. While widely used, metabolic assays can be influenced by factors beyond cell number, including changes in cellular metabolism induced by experimental conditions, potentially leading to misinterpretation if used as sole proliferation indicators.

Direct cell counting approaches have been revolutionized by live-cell imaging systems like the Incucyte, which uses automated microscopy and artificial intelligence algorithms to monitor cell confluence or count individual cells over time without manual intervention. This label-free method enables continuous monitoring of the same cell population throughout an experiment, capturing temporal dynamics of drug effects and proliferation patterns [28].

DNA synthesis assays measure new DNA synthesis by incorporating labeled nucleosides such as EdU (5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine) or BrdU (bromodeoxyuridine) during cell division. The Click-iT EdU Microplate Assay, for instance, uses click chemistry for detection and is particularly valuable for assessing proliferation rates in subpopulations or specific phases of the cell cycle [27].

Comparative Performance of Proliferation Assay Platforms

Table 1: Comparison of Major Proliferation Assay Technologies

Assay Type	Detection Principle	Key Advantages	Limitations	Linear Range	Throughput
CyQUANT Direct	DNA-binding dye	No washing/fixation; live-cell compatible; dead cell exclusion	Requires dye optimization	~100-20,000 cells	High
Incucyte Label-Free	Confluence/Cell counting	Continuous monitoring; minimal perturbation; multiplexing capability	Limited at high density	Varies by cell type	Medium-High
Click-iT EdU	DNA synthesis	Specific to proliferating cells; compatible with fluorescence multiplexing	Requires nucleotide incorporation	Depends on proliferation rate	High
MTT/Metabolic	Metabolic activity	Established methodology; inexpensive	Influenced by metabolism; endpoint only	Varies by cell type	Medium
CyQUANT NF	DNA content	No freeze required; rapid protocol (1 hour)	Requires permeabilization	~100-20,000 cells	High

Application in ScPMA1 Mutant Research: Experimental Design and Protocols

Background: ScPMA1 Mutants and Edelfosine Sensitivity

The investigation of ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine provides an excellent case study for the application of proliferation assays in basic research. ScPMA1 encodes a P-type ATPase responsible for maintaining hydrogen ion homeostasis across the plasma membrane in yeast. Research has demonstrated that mutations in ScPMA1 (such as Leu290Ser, Pro339Thr, and Gly294Ser) confer resistance to the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 while simultaneously increasing sensitivity to the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine by 7.5-fold [10]. This inverse relationship highlights the functional importance of ScPma1p in membrane stability and drug transport.

Edelfosine, a synthetic alkyl-lysophospholipid, exerts its cytotoxic effects by selectively displacing ScPma1p from the plasma membrane to endosomal compartments, ultimately leading to its degradation [10]. The molecular mechanism involves edelfosine accumulation in plasma membrane lipid rafts, triggering apoptotic signaling pathways independent of DNA damage. This mechanism of action makes edelfosine particularly effective against various cancer types, including triple-negative breast cancer, as demonstrated in zebrafish xenograft models [29].

Experimental Workflow for ScPMA1 Mutant Sensitivity Profiling

The following diagram illustrates the integrated experimental workflow for evaluating ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine using proliferation assays:

Detailed Experimental Protocol

Step 1: Cell Culture and Preparation

• Utilize wild-type (SY025) and isogenic ScPMA1 mutant (L290S, G294S, P339T) yeast strains. For eukaryotic cell studies, appropriate cell lines (e.g., MDA-MB-231 for breast cancer) are selected.
• Culture cells in appropriate media (YPD for yeast; RPMI or DMEM for mammalian cells) supplemented with necessary nutrients and maintain at optimal growth conditions (30°C for yeast; 37°C with 5% CO2 for mammalian cells).
• Harvest cells in logarithmic growth phase, count using a hemocytometer or automated cell counter, and seed into 96-well or 384-well microplates at optimized densities (typically 1,000-5,000 cells/well for mammalian cells; OD600 ~0.1 for yeast) [10] [28].

Step 2: Compound Treatment and Dose-Response Curves

• Prepare edelfosine stock solutions in appropriate solvents (DMSO or ethanol) and serially dilute to create a concentration gradient spanning at least 3-4 orders of magnitude.
• For ScPMA1 mutant studies, include KAE609 (200 μM) as a positive control for resistance confirmation alongside edelfosine sensitivity testing.
• Add compound dilutions to cells in triplicate or quadruplicate, including vehicle controls (0.1-0.5% DMSO) and blank wells (media only).
• Incubate cells for predetermined time periods (typically 24-72 hours) under optimal growth conditions [10] [29].

Step 3: Proliferation Assessment Option A: DNA Content-Based Assay (CyQUANT NF)

• Remove culture media and add reagent containing cell-permeant CyQUANT NF dye and plasma membrane permeabilization reagent.
• Incubate for 60 minutes at 37°C protected from light.
• Measure fluorescence using a microplate reader with excitation at 485 nm and emission detection at 530 nm [27].

Option B: Live-Cell Analysis (Incucyte System)

• For continuous monitoring, place microplate in Incucyte instrument maintained at appropriate temperature and CO2.
• Acquire phase-contrast and fluorescence images every 2-4 hours for the duration of the experiment.
• Analyze cell confluence or count using integrated software tools (AI Confluence Analysis or Cell-by-Cell Analysis) [28].

Step 4: IC50 Determination and Data Analysis

• Normalize fluorescence or confluence data to vehicle controls (100% proliferation) and blank wells (0% proliferation).
• Fit normalized dose-response data to a four-parameter logistic model using software such as GraphPad Prism: Y = Bottom + (Top - Bottom) / (1 + 10^((LogIC50 - X) * HillSlope))
• Calculate fold-sensitivity by comparing IC50 values between wild-type and ScPMA1 mutant strains [10] [26].

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms

ScPMA1 Function in Membrane Homeostasis and Drug Response

The molecular mechanism underlying ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine involves intricate signaling pathways that regulate membrane protein trafficking and stability. The following diagram illustrates these key pathways:

Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for ScPMA1-Edelfosine Studies

Reagent/Cell Line	Specific Function	Application Context
CyQUANT NF Assay	DNA-binding dye for proliferation quantification	Ideal for yeast cells; no freezing required; 1-hour protocol
Incucyte System	Live-cell imaging and confluence analysis	Continuous monitoring of proliferation kinetics
pHluorin	pH-sensitive GFP for intracellular pH measurement	Detects cytoplasmic acidification after ScPma1p inhibition
MitoTracker Probes	Mitochondrial membrane potential assessment	Apoptosis detection in edelfosine-treated cells
Yeast ABC16-Monster Strain	Lacks 16 ABC transporters for enhanced compound sensitivity	Background for ScPMA1 mutant studies [10]
MDA-MB-231 Cell Line	Triple-negative breast cancer model	Edelfosine anti-cancer efficacy testing [29]
Click-iT EdU Assay	Detection of DNA synthesis in proliferating cells	Cell cycle progression analysis

Data Interpretation and Analytical Considerations

IC50 Determination and Validation

The accurate determination of IC50 values requires careful experimental design and appropriate data analysis. Research indicates that traditional parameters like IC50 and GI50 can lead to misinterpretation due to the exponential proliferation of cells in culture. The introduction of the relative population doubling capacity parameter offers a more accurate alternative for quantifying anti-proliferative activity [26]. When evaluating ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity, the 7.5-fold increase in edelfosine sensitivity provides a clear phenotypic signature of the mutation's functional consequences [10].

For robust IC50 determination, several considerations are essential:

• Ensure adequate concentration range spanning the anticipated IC50
• Include sufficient replicate wells (minimum n=3, preferably n=6 for high-throughput screens)
• Verify normal distribution of response data before curve fitting
• Use appropriate controls (vehicle, positive inhibition, and no-cell blanks)
• Validate IC50 values across multiple independent experiments

Troubleshooting Common Assay Limitations

Proliferation assays face several technical challenges that can compromise data quality. Metabolic assays like MTT may produce misleading results when testing compounds that affect cellular metabolism independent of proliferation. DNA content assays can overestimate cell numbers in apoptosis experiments where DNA fragmentation occurs. The direct cell counting approaches, while powerful, may face limitations at high cell densities due to overlapping cells [28].

Advanced solutions include multiplexing proliferation assays with viability markers. For example, combining CyQUANT Direct assays with Annexin V or Caspase 3/7 staining enables simultaneous assessment of proliferation inhibition and apoptosis induction. This approach is particularly valuable for distinguishing cytostatic versus cytotoxic effects of compounds like edelfosine [27] [28].

Proliferation assays provide indispensable tools for quantifying growth inhibition and determining compound potency through IC50 values. The case study of ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine demonstrates how these assays reveal fundamental biological mechanisms of membrane protein function and drug transport. As assay technologies continue to evolve, particularly with live-cell imaging and AI-powered analysis, researchers gain increasingly powerful methods for kinetic monitoring of cellular responses under physiologically relevant conditions.

The integration of proliferation data with complementary assays measuring intracellular pH, protein localization, and apoptotic markers creates a comprehensive understanding of compound mechanisms. This multi-faceted approach is essential for advancing both basic science, such as understanding P-type ATPase biology, and therapeutic development, including optimizing edelfosine-based treatments for cancer applications. Through careful assay selection, validation, and data interpretation, proliferation assays remain cornerstones of biological research and drug discovery.

The plasma membrane of eukaryotic cells is a complex, organized structure, featuring dynamic sterol- and sphingolipid-rich microdomains known as lipid rafts. These domains act as critical platforms for signal transduction and membrane trafficking [30]. The proper function of many membrane proteins is dependent on their localization within these specific lipid environments [31]. A protein of paramount importance in yeast, and a central figure in this guide, is the plasma membrane proton pump Pma1p. This essential P-type ATPase is responsible for maintaining cellular pH homeostasis by pumping protons out of the cell, and its function and stability at the plasma membrane are intimately linked to the integrity of lipid rafts [31] [10]. The alkyl-lysophospholipid drug edelfosine (ET-18-OCH3) has emerged as a potent antitumor lipid that targets cellular membranes. A key aspect of its mechanism of action is the selective alteration of lipid raft integrity, which triggers the displacement and subsequent endosomal degradation of raft-associated proteins, most notably Pma1p [31] [10]. This displacement disrupts pH homeostasis, leading to intracellular acidification and ultimately inhibiting cell growth or causing cell death [31]. The study of these phenomena relies on a suite of sophisticated techniques designed to track protein localization and membrane organization. This guide provides a comparative analysis of the key methodologies used to monitor Pma1p displacement, providing a resource for researchers evaluating ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity in the context of drug development.

Key Methodologies for Tracking Membrane Protein Localization

Researchers employ a multifaceted approach to study how edelfosine disrupts Pma1p membrane localization. The techniques below represent the cornerstone methods for this analysis, each providing unique and complementary information.

Detergent-Resistant Membrane (DRM) Isolation and Flotation Assay

This biochemical method is a standard for assessing protein association with lipid rafts.

• Experimental Protocol: Cells are treated with edelfosine and then lysed in a cold non-ionic detergent (e.g., Triton X-100). The lysate is mixed with a sucrose solution to create a dense bottom layer, over which a discontinuous sucrose gradient is formed. Upon ultracentrifugation, detergent-resistant membranes (DRMs), which are rich in sterols and sphingolipids, float to the lower-density regions of the gradient. Fractions are collected from the top of the tube, and the distribution of Pma1p across these fractions is analyzed by immunoblotting. A shift of Pma1p from the low-density DRM fractions to the high-density detergent-soluble fractions indicates its displacement from lipid rafts [31] [30].
• Data Interpretation: The reliability of this assay can be strengthened by including a control for cholesterol depletion using methyl-β-cyclodextrin, which should similarly disrupt raft association and release Pma1p from DRMs [30].

Fluorescence Microscopy and Protein Trafficking Analysis

Microscopy provides direct visual evidence of Pma1p's location within the cell before and after drug treatment.

• Experimental Protocol: Pma1p is typically tagged with a fluorescent protein, such as GFP. Live or fixed yeast cells are then imaged using fluorescence microscopy following treatment with edelfosine. The images are analyzed for changes in Pma1p localization, specifically looking for a loss of the characteristic smooth, ring-like staining at the plasma membrane and the appearance of punctate structures inside the cell, which represent internalized protein in endosomal or vacuolar compartments [31] [10].
• Advanced Imaging: Techniques with higher temporal and spatial resolution, such as Total Internal Reflection Fluorescence (TIRF) microscopy or single-particle tracking, can provide deeper insights into the dynamics of Pma1p displacement, revealing the real-time coalescence of raft platforms or the change in protein mobility upon drug addition [30].

Intracellular pH Measurement

As Pma1p function is directly tied to proton extrusion, measuring cytoplasmic pH serves as a powerful functional readout of its activity and membrane localization.

• Experimental Protocol: A common method involves using a yeast strain expressing a pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein, such as pHluorin. The fluorescence intensity or emission spectrum of pHluorin changes in response to the surrounding hydrogen ion concentration. Cells are treated with edelfosine, and fluorescence is measured using a plate reader or microscope. A decrease in intracellular pH (increase in hydrogen ion concentration) is a clear indicator of impaired Pma1p pump activity, consistent with its displacement from the membrane [10].
• Data Interpretation: As demonstrated in one study, KAE609 (a P-type ATPase inhibitor) treatment dropped the cytoplasmic pH from 7.14 to 6.88, equating to an 80.6% increase in hydrogen ion concentration, confirming pump inhibition [10]. This method can be effectively correlated with localization data.

The table below summarizes the quantitative data and key findings from pivotal experiments investigating Pma1p and its response to edelfosine and related compounds.

Table 1: Summary of Key Experimental Findings on Pma1p Displacement and Dysfunction

Experimental Readout	Key Finding	Experimental System	Citation
Pma1p Localization	Edelfosine selectively reduces lateral segregation of Pma1p, inducing its ubiquitination and internalization from the plasma membrane.	S. cerevisiae	[31]
Intracellular pH	Treatment with the Pma1p inhibitor KAE609 caused a significant drop in cytosolic pH (from 7.14 to 6.88), an 80.6% increase in [H+].	S. cerevisiae (pHluorin)	[10]
Drug Sensitivity	An ScPMA1 mutant (L290S) showed a 7.5-fold increase in sensitivity to edelfosine, indicating a fitness cost from the mutation.	S. cerevisiae (CRISPR mutant)	[10]
Genetic Screening	Mutations in ScPMA1 were identified in all yeast clones that evolved resistance to the antimalarial KAE609, highlighting its essential role.	S. cerevisiae (ABC16-Monster strain)	[10]
Raft Disruption	Edelfosine alters plasma membrane organization and lipid raft integrity, triggering internalization of sterols and Pma1p.	S. cerevisiae	[31]

The ScPMA1 Mutant and Edelfosine Sensitivity Pathway

The study of ScPMA1 mutants has been instrumental in understanding the mechanism of edelfosine. Specific mutations in ScPMA1 (e.g., L290S, G294S) confer resistance to certain drugs like the spiroindolone KAE609, which directly inhibits Pma1p ATPase activity. However, these mutations come with a fitness cost, making the mutant proton pump more vulnerable to disruption. This is visualized in the following pathway, which outlines the logical sequence from drug exposure to cellular outcome.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful experimentation in this field requires a carefully selected set of biological and chemical tools. The table below catalogs the key reagents used in the featured studies.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Pma1p-Edelfosine Studies

Reagent / Material	Function in Experiment	Specific Example / Strain
Edelfosine (ET-18-OCH3)	The primary alkyl-lysophospholipid drug used to disrupt lipid rafts and induce Pma1p internalization.	Medmark Pharma GmbH / Inkeysa [31]
S. cerevisiae Deletion Mutants	Genetic screening to identify genes that enhance or prevent edelfosine cytotoxicity.	Euroscarf deletion collection (e.g., Δvma2, Δsnf1) [31]
ABC Transporter-Deficient Strain	Strain with increased drug sensitivity due to lack of efflux pumps, useful for resistance studies.	ABC16-"Monster" strain [10]
ScPMA1 Mutant Strains	Engineered strains to study the functional impact of specific point mutations on drug sensitivity.	CRISPR-engineered L290S, G294S mutants [10]
Plasmid for Pma1p Tagging	For expressing fluorescently tagged Pma1p (e.g., Pma1p-GFP) for localization studies.	pRS315 (LEU2) centromeric plasmid [31]
pH Biosensor	A fluorescent reporter for measuring intracellular pH changes resulting from Pma1p inhibition.	pHluorin-expressing strain [10]

The displacement of Pma1p by edelfosine is a complex process that unfolds at the intersection of membrane biophysics, protein trafficking, and cellular physiology. A robust research approach, integrating the comparative techniques and reagents detailed in this guide, is essential for elucidating the precise mechanisms involved. The consistent experimental finding that ScPMA1 mutants exhibit heightened sensitivity to edelfosine underscores the functional importance of the lipid raft environment for this essential pump. For drug development professionals, these findings highlight the potential of targeting membrane microdomains and their associated proteins as a viable therapeutic strategy. Future work leveraging advanced imaging and high-throughput genetic screening will continue to refine our understanding and open new avenues for intervention.

The precise maintenance of cytoplasmic pH is a fundamental requirement for cellular function, influencing enzyme activity, protein conformation, and numerous biochemical pathways. Monitoring intracellular acidity is particularly crucial in research focused on cellular stress responses, drug mechanisms, and ion transport physiology. Within the specific context of evaluating ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine, cytoplasmic pH monitoring becomes an essential tool for deciphering the molecular basis of drug action. ScPma1p, the essential plasma membrane H+-ATPase in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast), is responsible for extruding protons from the cell to maintain the cytoplasmic pH gradient [10]. When its function is compromised, either by mutation or pharmacological inhibition, a characteristic drop in cytoplasmic pH occurs due to the accumulation of hydrogen ions [10]. The spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 (Cipargamin), for instance, has been shown to directly inhibit ScPma1p, leading to a measurable acidification of the cytoplasm [10]. Similarly, studying the sensitivity of ScPMA1 mutants to compounds like the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine relies on accurate assessment of pH homeostasis to understand the fitness cost and mechanistic consequences of these mutations. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of pHluorin-based methodologies, which offer a genetically encoded, non-invasive, and ratiometric means to quantify these critical changes in cytoplasmic pH.

pHluorin is a pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (GFP) variant that serves as a powerful tool for real-time, non-invasive measurement of intracellular pH. Its utility stems from a characteristic bimodal excitation spectrum; as the environment becomes more acidic, excitation at 395 nm decreases while excitation at 475 nm increases [32]. This ratiometric property makes pHluorin resistant to artifacts caused by photobleaching, variable expression levels of the probe, or changes in sample thickness, providing a robust and reliable readout [32]. As a genetically encoded sensor, pHluorin can be targeted to specific organelles or expressed in the cytosol, allowing for compartment-specific pH measurements [33] [34]. The development of improved variants, such as pHluorin2 and superfolder pHluorin (sfpHluorin), has further expanded its application. pHluorin2 offers enhanced performance, while sfpHluorin was specifically engineered to fold correctly and fluoresce in the oxidizing environment of the endoplasmic reticulum, a challenge for the original pHluorin [33]. This principle of pH-dependent fluorescence is the cornerstone of the experimental applications described below.

The following diagram illustrates the fundamental working principle of ratiometric pHluorin and its application in cytoplasmic pH measurement.

Comparative Analysis of pHluorin-Based Methodologies

Different technological platforms can be leveraged to detect and quantify pHluorin signals, each with distinct advantages and limitations. The table below provides a direct comparison of the three primary methods.

Table 1: Comparison of pHluorin Detection Methodologies

Method	Key Principle	Throughput	Spatial Resolution	Key Advantage	Primary Limitation
Flow Cytometry [32]	Laser-based excitation (405 nm, 488 nm) and ratio calculation for single cells.	Very High	No	Rapid analysis of thousands of cells, reveals population heterogeneity.	No spatial information on subcellular localization.
Fluorescence Microscopy [34]	Ratiometric imaging of cells; can be widefield or confocal.	Low	High	Enables spatial mapping of pH within and between single cells.	Laborious image analysis; lower statistical power.
Microplate Reader [33]	Bulk measurement of fluorescence intensity ratios in cell populations.	High	No	Suitable for high-throughput screening of chemical libraries or growth conditions.	Provides only population-average pH values.

Application in ScPMA1 and Edelfosine Research

In the specific context of ScPMA1 research, flow cytometry emerges as a particularly powerful method. It combines the quantitative, ratiometric benefits of pHluorin with the ability to rapidly analyze large populations of cells. This is crucial for identifying minor subpopulations of cells that may respond differently to stress, such as exposure to edelfosine or other inhibitors [32]. For example, a key experiment demonstrated that treatment with the ScPma1p inhibitor KAE609 caused a significant drop in cytoplasmic pH, from 7.14 ± 0.01 to 6.88 ± 0.04, representing an 80.6% increase in cytoplasmic hydrogen ion concentration [10]. This level of quantitative precision, applied across thousands of individual wild-type versus ScPMA1 mutant cells, can precisely define the functional impact of mutations on pump activity and drug sensitivity.

Experimental Protocols for Cytoplasmic pH Measurement

This section details a standardized protocol for measuring cytoplasmic pH in yeast using ratiometric flow cytometry, a method that provides high-sensitivity, single-cell data with high throughput [32].

Strain Engineering and Sample Preparation

• Strain Construction: Genetically engineer Saccharomyces cerevisiae to express a cytosolic ratiometric pHluorin variant (e.g., pHluorin2 or sfpHluorin) from a stable genomic integration site to ensure consistent expression [32]. An inducible or constitutive promoter can be used.
• Cell Culture: Grow the pHluorin-expressing yeast strain in appropriate selective medium to the desired growth phase (e.g., exponential or stationary phase). The growth conditions and medium should be standardized as they can influence basal pH homeostasis [32] [33].
• Sample Treatment: For kinetic assays of pH homeostasis, expose cells to experimental stresses. In the context of ScPMA1 research, this includes:
  • Drug Challenge: Addition of compounds like edelfosine or KAE609 [10].
  • Nutrient Perturbation: Glucose pulse to glucose-starved cells [33] or addition of weak acids like octanoic acid [33].
  • Control Baseline: Always include an untreated control sample to establish the starting cytoplasmic pH.

Ratiometric Flow Cytometry Data Acquisition

• Instrument Setup: Use a flow cytometer equipped with 405-nm (violet) and 488-nm (blue) lasers. Configure the detection optics with a 520/20-nm band-pass filter to collect emission signals from both excitation lasers [32].
• Data Collection: Analyze cells at a low flow rate (~200–400 cells per second) to ensure accuracy. Collect data for at least 20,000 cells per sample to achieve statistically robust results [32].
• Kinetic Measurements: To monitor dynamic pH changes, record the baseline fluorescence ratio for 30-60 seconds, briefly pause the run to add the stressor (e.g., drug), and then immediately continue data acquisition for the required duration (e.g., 5-10 minutes) [32].

Data Analysis and Calibration

• Ratiometric Calculation: For each cell, the fluorescence intensity after excitation at 405 nm (F405-nm) and 488 nm (F488-nm) is measured. The ratio (F405-nm / F488-nm) is calculated for every individual cell using flow cytometry analysis software (e.g., FlowJo) [32].
• In situ Calibration: To convert fluorescence ratios to absolute pH values, a calibration curve must be generated. This involves exposing an aliquot of the pHluorin-expressing cells to a series of buffered solutions of known pH (e.g., from pH 5.0 to 8.0) in the presence of ionophores like nigericin and monensin. These ionophores equalize the intra- and extracellular pH, allowing the mean fluorescence ratio at each known pH to be plotted, creating a standard curve [32] [34].
• pH Calculation and Visualization: The mean ratio from the experimental sample is then interpolated from the standard curve to determine the mean cytoplasmic pH. For population heterogeneity analysis, the ratio can be converted to pH for each cell, allowing visualization of the pH distribution across the entire population [32].

The following diagram summarizes the core workflow for this experiment.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents for pHluorin-Based Cytoplasmic pH Measurements

Reagent / Tool	Function in Experiment	Specific Examples / Notes
Ratiometric pHluorin	Genetically encoded pH sensor; core of the measurement system.	pHluorin [32], pHluorin2 [32], superfolder pHluorin (sfpHluorin) [33].
Flow Cytometer	Instrument for high-throughput, single-cell ratiometric analysis.	Requires 405-nm and 488-nm lasers and a 520/20-nm emission filter [32].
Ionophores	Critical for generating the pH calibration curve by clamping intra- and extracellular pH.	Nigericin and Monensin [34].
Calibration Buffers	Solutions of known pH for generating the standard curve.	Typically a range from pH 5.0 to 8.0, containing KCl, NaCl, HEPES/MES, and ionophores [34].
ScPMA1 Mutant Strains	Biological models for studying P-type ATPase function and drug sensitivity.	CRISPR-engineered strains with point mutations (e.g., L290S, G294S) [10].
P-type ATPase Inhibitors	Pharmacological tools to perturb pH homeostasis and validate the assay.	KAE609 (Cipargamin) [10], Edelfosine [10].

pHluorin-based intracellular acidity measurements provide a powerful, versatile, and quantitative framework for advancing cellular physiology research. The ability to perform non-invasive, ratiometric, and high-throughput analyses makes this technology particularly suited for dissecting complex biological questions, such as the mechanism of drug action and resistance. Within the specific thesis context of evaluating ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine, the application of pHluorin, especially when coupled with flow cytometry, offers an unambiguous metric of ScPma1p functional integrity. By directly quantifying the collapse of cytoplasmic pH homeostasis in mutant strains under drug pressure, researchers can move beyond simple growth assays to a deeper, mechanistic understanding of how specific mutations affect the essential proton-pumping activity of this prime cellular target.

Within antifungal drug discovery, understanding resistance mechanisms is paramount for developing effective therapeutic agents. A critical step in this process is cross-resistance profiling, which determines whether a specific resistance mutation confers protection against other, unrelated antimicrobials, or if it leads to increased sensitivity. This guide focuses on the experimental approach for profiling yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) mutants of ScPMA1, a P-type ATPase and the target of the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609, against a panel of antimicrobials. The central thesis evaluates whether ScPMA1 mutations, which provide resistance to KAE609, result in a fitness cost detectable as hypersensitivity to other drugs, specifically the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine [10]. This methodology provides a framework for assessing the specificity and potential clinical viability of novel antimicrobial compounds.

Core Concepts and Key Findings

The Spiroindolone KAE609 and Its Target

The spiroindolone KAE609 (Cipargamin) is a novel, fast-acting antimalarial agent discovered through phenotypic screening. Although it was initially identified for its activity against Plasmodium falciparum, its mechanism of action is conserved in the model organism S. cerevisiae. In both organisms, resistance to KAE609 maps to mutations in genes encoding essential P-type ATPases—PfATP4 in the parasite and ScPMA1 in yeast. ScPMA1 is the primary proton pump responsible for maintaining cytoplasmic pH by extruding hydrogen ions from the cell. Research demonstrates that KAE609 directly inhibits the ATPase activity of ScPma1p, leading to a drop in intracellular pH, confirming it as the drug's physiological target [10].

Key Experimental Findings on Cross-Resistance and Hypersensitivity

Directed evolution experiments in a drug-hypersensitive yeast strain (ABC16-Monster) selected for resistance to KAE609 consistently yielded mutations in the ScPMA1 gene. When these mutant strains were profiled against a panel of unrelated antimicrobials, a critical finding emerged: the ScPMA1 mutations did not confer cross-resistance to any other tested antimicrobials. This indicated that the resistance was specific to the KAE609 chemotype and not part of a general multidrug resistance response. However, this resistance came at a cost. The same ScPMA1 mutant exhibited a 7.5-fold increase in sensitivity to the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine, a compound known to displace ScPma1p from the plasma membrane. This hypersensitivity suggested that the KAE609-resistance mutation impairs normal ScPma1p function, making the cell more vulnerable to other compounds that target its membrane localization or stability [10].

Comparative Data Presentation

The following tables consolidate the key quantitative and qualitative data from the cross-resistance profiling of ScPMA1 mutants.

Table 1: Phenotypic Profile of ScPMA1 Mutant Strains

Phenotypic Measure	Wild-Type Strain	ScPMA1 Mutant (L290S)	Fold Change
KAE609 IC₅₀	6.09 ± 0.74 µM [10]	20.4 - 61.5 µM [10]	~3.3 to 10-fold Increase (Resistance)
Edelfosine Sensitivity	Baseline IC₅₀	Not Reported	7.5-fold Increase (Hypersensitivity) [10]
Intracellular pH	7.14 ± 0.01 [10]	6.88 ± 0.04 (post-KAE609 treatment) [10]	80.6% Increase in [H⁺]
Sensitivity to Unrelated Antimicrobials	Normal susceptibility	Normal susceptibility [10]	No cross-resistance

Table 2: Summary of ScPMA1 Mutations Identified in KAE609-Resistant Yeast

Mutation in ScPMA1	Location (Homolog to PfATP4)	Proposed Functional Impact
Leu290Ser	E1-E2 ATPase domain [10]	Alters drug-binding pocket lining [10]
Gly294Ser	E1-E2 ATPase domain [10]	Alters drug-binding pocket lining [10]
Asn291Lys	E1-E2 ATPase domain [10]	Alters drug-binding pocket lining; charge change [10]
Pro339Thr	E1-E2 ATPase domain [10]	Alters drug-binding pocket lining [10]

Experimental Protocols for Cross-Resistance Profiling

Strain Generation and Validation

• In vitro Evolution for Resistance: Begin with a drug-hypersensitive yeast strain (e.g., ABC16-Monster lacking 16 ABC transporters). Grow clonal cultures in the presence of sub-lethal concentrations of KAE609, gradually increasing the drug pressure over multiple rounds until resistant populations emerge [10] [13].
• Whole-Genome Sequencing & Mutation Identification: Isolate genomic DNA from resistant clones. Perform next-generation sequencing (e.g., >40-fold coverage) and compare sequences to the parental strain using a bioinformatics pipeline to identify single nucleotide variants (SNVs). ScPMA1 is a key gene to validate in this analysis [10] [13].
• Genetic Validation via CRISPR/Cas9: Engineer identified point mutations (e.g., L290S) into a naive strain using CRISPR/Cas9 to confirm they are sufficient to confer the KAE609 resistance phenotype without other background mutations [10].

Antimicrobial Specificity Testing

• Panel Design: Compile a panel of antimicrobials with diverse, unrelated mechanisms of action. This should include the drug of interest (KAE609), the compound of hypothesized hypersensitivity (edelfosine), and other classes such as azoles, polyenes, and echinocandins.
• Dose-Response Assays: Determine the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) for each antimicrobial against both the wild-type and the validated ScPMA1 mutant strain. Use a standardized proliferation assay (e.g., measuring OD₆₀₀) over a range of drug concentrations. Perform experiments in biological replicates [10] [13].
• Data Analysis: Calculate fold-changes in IC₅₀ to determine resistance (increase) or hypersensitivity (decrease). A significant increase in sensitivity to one drug (like edelfosine) without changes to others indicates a specific fitness cost, not broad cross-resistance.

Functional Assay for Target Engagement

• Intracellular pH Measurement: Use a strain expressing a cytosolic pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (e.g., pHluorin). Treat log-phase cells with KAE609 and monitor the fluorescence emission ratio. A statistically significant drop in cytoplasmic pH confirms the functional inhibition of ScPma1p's proton-pumping activity in the mutant [10].

Diagram Title: Experimental Workflow for Cross-Resistance Profiling.

Signaling Pathways and Mechanistic Insights

The mechanistic relationship between KAE609 inhibition, ScPMA1 mutation, and edelfosine hypersensitivity can be visualized as a disrupted signaling and homeostasis pathway.

Diagram Title: Mechanism of KAE609 Resistance and Edelfosine Hypersensitivity.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Cross-Resistance Profiling Experiments

Reagent / Material	Function in Experimental Protocol	Example / Note
Drug-Sensitive Yeast Strain	Host for evolution & assays; reduces efflux-based masking of resistance.	ABC16-Monster (lacks 16 ABC transporters) [10] [13]
Compound of Interest	Selective pressure for evolution; focus of resistance profiling.	KAE609 (Cipargamin) [10]
Specificity Panel Antimicrobials	Test for cross-resistance or collateral sensitivity.	Edelfosine, azoles, polyenes, etc. [10]
CRISPR/Cas9 System	For precise genetic validation of point mutations in the target gene.	Enables L290S knock-in [10]
pH Biosensor	Functional assay to confirm on-target drug activity.	pHluorin (ratiometric pH-sensitive GFP) [10]
Homology Model of Target Protein	In silico analysis of resistance mutations and docking studies.	ScPma1p model for mapping mutations/docking KAE609 [10]

Within the context of evaluating Saccharomyces cerevisiae Pma1p (ScPma1) mutant sensitivity to edelfosine, precise dosage optimization is fundamental for accurate phenotypic detection. This guide objectively compares the effective concentration ranges of edelfosine across different experimental systems, with a particular focus on the phenotypic responses of yeast models, especially those with mutations in the essential proton pump ScPma1. The concentration of edelfosine required to elicit a detectable phenotype varies significantly based on the biological system (e.g., yeast vs. human cells), the cellular phenotype being measured (e.g., apoptosis vs. growth inhibition), and the genetic background of the cells. This article provides a consolidated resource of quantitative data and methodologies to guide researchers in selecting appropriate dosing regimens for their experimental designs.

Comparative Efficacy Data: Edelfosine Across Biological Systems

The effective concentration of edelfosine is highly dependent on the experimental model and the readout being assessed. The table below summarizes key quantitative data from various studies to facilitate comparison.

Table 1: Effective Concentration Ranges of Edelfosine for Phenotypic Detection in Different Models

Experimental System	Phenotype / Assay Type	Effective Concentration Range	Key Findings	Source
Yeast (S. cerevisiae) ABC16-Monster Strain	Growth Inhibition (IC50)	~6.1 μM	Baseline sensitivity in yeast strain lacking ABC transporters. [10]
Yeast (S. cerevisiae) ScPMA1 L290S Mutant	Growth Inhibition & Sensitivity to Edelfosine	7.5-fold increase in sensitivity vs. wild-type	CRISPR-engineered ScPMA1 mutant shows heightened sensitivity, indicating a fitness cost. [10]
Human CD4+ T Cells	Apoptosis/Cell Death (Annexin V/PI staining)	10-33.3 μg/mL (≈20-67 μM)	Concentration-dependent increase in apoptotic and dead cells; 33.3 μg/mL leaves only 2% of CD4+ T cells viable. [35]
Human CD4+ T Cells	Inhibition of Homeostatic Proliferation	1.0 μg/mL (≈2 μM) and higher	Reduction in T cell proliferation detectable at this concentration. [35]
Human Leukemia Cell Line (HL-60)	Cytotoxicity (Clonogenic & Dye Exclusion Assays)	Sensitive at tested concentrations	Sensitivity correlates with production of reactive oxygen species. [36]
Human Pancreatic Cancer Stem Cells (CSCs)	Apoptosis (Caspase-3 Activation, PARP Cleavage)	Not explicitly stated, but effective	Induces ER stress and apoptosis in CSCs; primary cultures from patients are sensitive. [37]
Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) Zebrafish Xenograft	Tumor Growth Inhibition	Effective in nanoemulsion form	Edelfosine nanoemulsions inhibited tumor growth in an in vivo model. [29]

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Assays

Protocol: Directed Evolution and Genomic Analysis of KAE609 Resistance in Yeast

This methodology, adapted from the study that identified ScPMA1 as a key resistance factor, outlines how to select for and validate resistant mutants [10].

• Step 1: Strain Selection and Baseline IC50 Determination

  • Utilize a genetically tractable yeast strain. The "ABC16-Monster" strain, which lacks 16 ABC transporter genes, is recommended for compounds like KAE609 that may be effluxed, as it provides a lower and more workable baseline IC50 [10].
  • Determine the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) of the compound against the parental strain using a proliferation assay (e.g., measuring OD600 over time) [10].

• Step 2: In Vitro Evolution for Resistance

  • Expose multiple clonal cultures of the sensitive strain to increasing, sub-lethal concentrations of the compound (e.g., KAE609).
  • Passage the cultures through several rounds of selection, allowing resistant populations to emerge. Monitor the increase in IC50 after each round [10].

• Step 3: Whole-Genome Sequencing and Variant Identification

  • Prepare genomic DNA from clonal isolates from the terminal selection round.
  • Sequence genomes with high coverage (e.g., >40-fold) and compare to the parental clone sequence to identify single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and copy number variants (CNVs) [10].

• Step 4: Genetic Validation of Resistance Alleles

  • Engineer identified mutations (e.g., in ScPMA1) back into a naive parental strain using a system like CRISPR/Cas.
  • Confirm that the introduced mutation is sufficient to recapitulate the resistance phenotype by re-measuring the IC50 [10].

Protocol: Assessing ScPma1p Functional Inhibition via Intracellular pH

This protocol measures the physiological consequence of ScPma1p inhibition, which can be applied to compounds like edelfosine that affect its function [10].

• Step 1: Engineer a Reporting Strain

  • Use a strain of S. cerevisiae expressing a cytosolic, pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (pHluorin). Note that if using a strain with functional drug efflux pumps, higher compound concentrations may be required [10].

• Step 2: Compound Treatment and Measurement

  • Treat the reporting strain with the target compound (e.g., 200 μM KAE609) for a defined period (e.g., 3 hours).
  • Measure the fluorescence of pHluorin. A decrease in the fluorescence ratio at the specific excitation wavelengths indicates a drop in cytosolic pH [10].

• Step 3: Data Analysis

  • Calculate the cytoplasmic hydrogen ion concentration from the pH values.
  • A statistically significant increase in hydrogen ion concentration in treated cells versus untreated controls is consistent with the inhibition of the proton-pumping activity of ScPma1p [10].

Protocol: Analysis of Apoptosis in Human Cell Lines

This standard flow cytometry-based protocol is used to determine the pro-apoptotic effects of edelfosine on human cells, such as T cells or cancer cell lines [35] [37].

• Step 1: Cell Culture and Treatment

  • Isolate and culture target cells (e.g., human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) or specific cancer cell lines).
  • Expose cells to a range of edelfosine concentrations (e.g., 1-33 μg/mL) for a set duration (e.g., 24 hours) [35].

• Step 2: Staining for Flow Cytometry

  • Harvest cells and stain with Annexin V conjugated to a fluorochrome (e.g., FITC) to detect phosphatidylserine externalization, an early marker of apoptosis.
  • Co-stain with Propidium Iodide (PI) to detect late apoptotic and necrotic cells with compromised membrane integrity [35].

• Step 3: Acquisition and Analysis

  • Analyze cells using a flow cytometer.
  • Quantify the percentages of viable (Annexin V-/PI-), early apoptotic (Annexin V+/PI-), and late apoptotic/necrotic (Annexin V+/PI+) cells. A dose-dependent increase in Annexin V+ populations indicates apoptosis induction [35].

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the established and proposed mechanisms of edelfosine action in yeast, highlighting its impact on ScPma1p and downstream nuclear phenotypes, which is central to the thesis on ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity.

Figure 1: Mechanisms of Edelfosine Action in Yeast and Human Cells. In yeast, edelfosine inhibits or displaces the ScPma1p proton pump, disrupting pH homeostasis. It also accumulates at the ER/NE, leading to defects in telomere silencing. ScPma1p mutants exhibit heightened sensitivity to these effects. In human cells, its primary pro-apoptotic action involves ER accumulation and stress induction [10] [35] [37].

The experimental workflow for determining effective concentration ranges and elucidating the mechanism of action involves multiple parallel paths, as summarized below.

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Dosage Optimization and Mechanistic Study. A combined approach of phenotypic screening (left) and mechanistic investigation (right) is used to define effective concentration ranges and understand the biological basis of compound action [10] [35] [38].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

The following table catalogues essential materials and reagents frequently employed in edelfosine sensitivity research, particularly in the context of ScPMA1.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Edelfosine and ScPMA1 Sensitivity Studies

Reagent / Material	Function / Application in Research	Specific Examples / Notes
Edelfosine (ET-18-OCH3)	The core alkyl-lysophospholipid (ALP) compound under investigation.	A synthetic ether lipid; stock solutions often prepared in culture medium with serum or DMSO [35] [37].
S. cerevisiae ABC16-Monster Strain	A yeast strain lacking 16 ABC transporters; useful for studying compounds that are efflux pumps substrates.	Provides a lower baseline IC50 for KAE609, facilitating resistance studies [10].
CRISPR/Cas System for Yeast	For precise genetic engineering to validate resistance mutations.	Used to introduce specific point mutations (e.g., L290S) into ScPMA1 to confirm their role in resistance/sensitivity [10].
pHluorin	A pH-sensitive GFP for ratiometric measurement of intracellular pH.	Expressed in yeast cytosol to demonstrate inhibition of ScPma1p proton pump activity [10].
Annexin V & Propidium Iodide (PI)	Fluorescent dyes for detecting apoptosis and necrosis via flow cytometry.	Standard kit for quantifying apoptotic cells in human cell cultures treated with edelfosine [35].
Anti-CD44, CD24, EpCAM Antibodies	Cell surface markers for isolation of Cancer Stem Cells (CSCs) by FACS.	Used to isolate pancreatic CSCs from cell lines or patient samples for sensitivity testing [37].
Edelfosine Nanoemulsions (ET-NEs)	Lipid-based nanocarrier to improve drug delivery and reduce toxicity.	Composed of edelfosine, Miglyol 812, and phosphatidylcholine; used in in vivo zebrafish xenograft models [29].
Yeast NPC2 Protein	A soluble sterol/lipid transfer protein in the vacuolar lumen.	Binds edelfosine; part of the system that may be involved in its intracellular trafficking and action [39].

Technical Challenges: Overcoming Limitations in Sensitivity Assessment

The alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine (ET-18-OCH₃) exhibits selective antitumor activity through its direct targeting of the endoplasmic reticulum and plasma membrane components. However, treatment responses display significant heterogeneity across cell populations, presenting a major challenge for therapeutic development. This review examines the molecular basis for variable edelfosine sensitivity, focusing on genetic polymorphisms in P-type ATPases like ScPMA1 in yeast and their orthologs in human cells. We synthesize experimental evidence from directed evolution studies, transcriptomic analyses, and mechanistic investigations to elucidate how specific mutations confer resistance or hypersensitivity to edelfosine. By integrating quantitative sensitivity data, detailed experimental protocols, and visual representations of key signaling pathways, this analysis provides researchers with a comprehensive framework for investigating incomplete penetrance in edelfosine response and designing strategies to overcome heterogeneous treatment outcomes.

Edelfosine (1‐O‐octadecyl‐2‐O‐methyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphocholine), the prototype antitumor ether lipid, belongs to a class of synthetic alkyl-lysophospholipids characterized by high metabolic stability and selective apoptotic activity in tumor cells while sparing normal cells [40]. Unlike conventional chemotherapeutic agents that target DNA, edelfosine does not interact directly with the replication machinery and exerts its effects independently of the proliferative state of target cells [40]. The drug demonstrates pleiotropic effects across multiple cancer types, including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, triple-negative breast cancer, leukemia, and brain tumors, with several clinical trials showing promising results [41] [29] [40].

A fundamental challenge in edelfosine therapy is the incomplete penetrance of its cytotoxic effects across cellular populations. Variable penetrance refers to the phenomenon where a genetic variant (such as ScPMA1 mutations) does not always produce the expected phenotypic outcome (edelfosine sensitivity) in all cells or organisms [42]. This variability arises from complex interactions between genetic background, environmental factors, and stochastic biological processes. In the context of edelfosine response, cells with identical ScPMA1 mutations may exhibit dramatically different sensitivity profiles due to modifier genes, epigenetic regulation, and cellular compensatory mechanisms [42] [43].

ScPMA1 Mutations and Edelfosine Sensitivity: Experimental Evidence

Genetic Insights from Directed Evolution Studies

Directed evolution experiments in S. cerevisiae have revealed compelling evidence that mutations in the P-type ATPase gene ScPMA1 significantly alter cellular response to edelfosine. These studies employed comparative chemical genomics approaches in which yeast cells were exposed to increasing concentrations of spiroindolone compounds, leading to the emergence of resistant populations through selective pressure [44] [45].

Genomic sequencing of resistant clones identified specific missense mutations in ScPMA1 (Leu290Ser, Gly294Ser, Asn291Lys, and Pro339Thr) clustered within the E1-E2 ATPase domain [44]. When these mutations were reintroduced into naive yeast strains using CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, they conferred 2.5-fold increased resistance to KAE609 (a spiroindolone antimalarial) and unexpectedly induced 7.5-fold hypersensitivity to edelfosine [44]. This inverse relationship demonstrates the complex functional relationships between P-type ATPase inhibitors and highlights how resistance mechanisms to one compound can produce collateral sensitivity to another.

Table 1: ScPMA1 Mutations and Their Impact on Edelfosine Sensitivity

Mutation	Domain Location	KAE609 Response	Edelfosine Response	Fold Change in Edelfosine Sensitivity
Leu290Ser	E1-E2 ATPase	Resistant	Hypersensitive	7.5x increase
Gly294Ser	E1-E2 ATPase	Resistant	Hypersensitive	Not specified
Asn291Lys	E1-E2 ATPase	Resistant	Hypersensitive	Not specified
Pro339Thr	E1-E2 ATPase	Resistant	Hypersensitive	Not specified

Molecular Mechanisms of Altered Drug Sensitivity

ScPma1p functions as the essential primary proton pump in yeast, maintaining electrochemical gradients across the plasma membrane by extruding protons from the cytoplasm [44]. Computational modeling and docking studies indicate that edelfosine interacts with ScPma1p in a specific binding pocket within the membrane-spanning domain, potentially disrupting its structural stability or catalytic activity [44] [45].

The hypersensitivity of ScPMA1 mutants to edelfosine may result from conformational alterations in the protein that enhance drug binding or interfere with normal regulatory mechanisms. Additionally, edelfosine is known to displace ScPma1p from the plasma membrane, promoting its endosomal degradation [44]. Mutations that partially compromise ScPma1p function may synergize with edelfosine-induced displacement, leading to accelerated protein degradation and severe disruption of cellular pH homeostasis.

Experimental Approaches for Assessing Edelfosine Sensitivity

Protocol 1: Directed Evolution and Resistance Selection

This methodology identifies mutations conferring altered drug sensitivity through progressive adaptation under selective pressure [44].

• Strain Selection: Use the ABC16-Monster S. cerevisiae strain (lacking 16 ABC transporter genes) to minimize drug efflux [44].
• Culture Conditions: Grow yeast in standard rich medium (YPD) at 30°C with shaking at 200 rpm.
• Drug Exposure: Treat cultures with initial KAE609 concentration at IC₅₀ (6.09 ± 0.74 μM for ABC16-Monster) [44].
• Progressive Selection: Passage surviving cells into fresh medium containing incrementally increasing drug concentrations (2-3× previous level) every 48-72 hours.
• Clone Isolation: After 3-5 selection rounds, isolate single colonies on drug-free solid medium.
• Genomic Analysis: Prepare sequencing libraries from clonal isolates using fragmentation and adapter ligation. Sequence with >40-fold coverage and align to reference genome to identify acquired mutations [44].

Protocol 2: Intracellular pH Measurement After Edelfosine Treatment

This assay quantifies the functional impact of edelfosine on ScPma1p activity by monitoring cytoplasmic acidification [44].

• Strain Engineering: Transform yeast with plasmid expressing pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (pHluorin) under constitutive promoter.
• Culture Preparation: Grow pHluorin-expressing cells to mid-log phase (OD₆₀₀ ≈ 0.6-0.8) in appropriate selective medium.
• Drug Treatment: Expose cells to edelfosine (200 μM for wild-type strains) for 3 hours under standard growth conditions.
• Fluorescence Measurement: Harvest cells by gentle centrifugation and resuspend in buffer. Measure fluorescence emission at 510 nm with excitation at 395 nm and 475 nm using a plate reader or fluorometer.
• pH Calculation: Calculate ratio of emissions (395 nm/475 nm) and convert to intracellular pH values using a calibration curve generated with buffers of known pH in the presence of ionophores.
• Data Analysis: Compare cytoplasmic hydrogen ion concentrations ([H⁺]) between treated and untreated cells. A significant decrease in pH indicates impaired ScPma1p function [44].

Protocol 3: Nuclear Envelope Lipid Composition Analysis

This method evaluates how edelfosine-induced changes in nuclear envelope lipids affect telomere silencing and chromatin organization [38].

• Drug Treatment: Treat yeast cells with edelfosine (concentration range: 10-50 μM) for 4-16 hours.
• Subcellular Fractionation: Harvest cells and isolate nuclei by differential centrifugation. Purify nuclear envelopes through sucrose density gradient centrifugation.
• Lipid Extraction: Extract lipids from nuclear envelope fractions using chloroform:methanol (2:1 v/v) mixture.
• Lipidomic Analysis: Separate and quantify lipid species by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Focus particularly on lysophosphatidylcholine analogs, phosphatidic acid, and unsaturated fatty acids.
• Immunofluorescence: Fix cells and stain with antibodies against Sir4 protein and telomere-associated proteins. Quantify fluorescence intensity at telomeric foci using confocal microscopy.
• RNA-seq: Isolate total RNA, prepare sequencing libraries, and analyze transcriptomic changes, particularly in sub-telomeric regions (0-10 kb from chromosome ends) [38].

Visualization of Key Signaling Pathways

The following diagram illustrates the molecular mechanisms through which edelfosine impacts cellular processes and how ScPMA1 mutations alter drug sensitivity:

Diagram Title: Edelfosine Mechanisms and ScPMA1 Mutation Effects

This diagram illustrates the dual mechanisms of edelfosine action: (1) at the plasma membrane, where it interacts with ScPma1p, leading to protein displacement and impaired proton pumping; and (2) at the endoplasmic reticulum/nuclear envelope, where it accumulates and alters lipid composition, disrupting telomere silencing. ScPMA1 mutations (red) enhance edelfosine binding and exacerbate its effects, leading to cytoplasmic acidification and ultimately apoptotic cell death.

Research Reagent Solutions for Edelfosine Studies

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Investigating Edelfosine Mechanisms

Reagent/Cell Line	Specifications	Research Application	Key Features
ABC16-Monster S. cerevisiae	Knockout of 16 ABC transporter genes	Directed evolution and resistance studies	Enhanced drug sensitivity due to reduced efflux [44]
MDA-MB-231 Cell Line	Triple-negative breast cancer line	Xenograft tumor models	Highly aggressive and invasive; responsive to edelfosine nanoemulsions [29]
Edelfosine Nanoemulsions (ET-NEs)	Miglyol 812, phosphatidylcholine, edelfosine (85:10.7:4.3%)	In vivo drug delivery studies	120 nm average size, neutral zeta potential, stable in biorelevant media [29]
pHluorin Plasmid	pH-sensitive GFP variant	Intracellular pH measurements	Enables ratiometric quantification of cytoplasmic pH changes [44]
Anti-Sir4 Antibodies	Specific for yeast Sir4 protein	Telomere silencing assays	Visualizes Sir4 localization and telomere clustering by immunofluorescence [38]

Discussion and Research Implications

The variable penetrance of edelfosine sensitivity in mixed cellular populations presents both challenges and opportunities for therapeutic development. The experimental evidence demonstrates that ScPMA1 mutations serve as key determinants of edelfosine response, but their effects are modulated by complex genetic and environmental factors [44] [42]. Understanding these relationships requires sophisticated experimental approaches that account for population heterogeneity and dynamic adaptation.

From a translational perspective, the collateral hypersensitivity of ScPMA1 mutants to edelfosine suggests potential combination therapies where resistance to one agent sensitizes cells to another [44]. Furthermore, the development of nanoemulsion formulations has improved edelfosine delivery and efficacy in preclinical models, particularly for challenging malignancies like triple-negative breast cancer and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma [41] [29].

Future research should focus on combinatorial screening approaches to identify genetic and pharmacological modifiers that enhance edelfosine sensitivity across diverse cellular contexts. Additionally, advanced single-cell sequencing technologies could elucidate the transcriptional and epigenetic states that determine individual cell responses within heterogeneous populations, ultimately enabling more predictive models of drug sensitivity and resistance.

Variable penetrance in edelfosine sensitivity represents a multifaceted biological phenomenon influenced by specific genetic lesions, compensatory pathways, and cellular context. The experimental frameworks and methodologies presented here provide researchers with robust tools for dissecting these complex relationships. By integrating genetic, biochemical, and cell biological approaches, investigators can systematically unravel the determinants of incomplete drug response and develop strategies to overcome heterogeneous treatment outcomes in cancer therapy.

In biomedical research, the genetic background of a model organism refers to its complete genetic makeup, excluding the specific gene or allele of experimental interest. The influence of this background is not merely a theoretical concern; it is a practical and critical factor that can dramatically alter phenotypic outcomes. As one analysis notes, "inattention to a mutant's genetic background can seriously confound research results" because each strain has unique background alleles that may interact with and modify the expression of a mutation or transgene [46]. This article explores how genetic background considerations specifically impact the study of ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to compounds like edelfosine, providing a framework for researchers in drug development to enhance the reliability and reproducibility of their findings.

The Fundamental Role of Genetic Background

The genetic background of a laboratory strain consists of all its alleles at all loci except the mutated gene of interest and a small amount of potentially introgressed genetic material from other strains [46]. These background genes can function as modifier genes, influencing gene expression through various mechanisms including suppression or enhancement of effects, alteration of transcription rates, or induction of epigenetic changes.

Historically, one of the first documented instances of this influence was observed with the diabetes (db) and obese (ob) mutations in mice. On a C57BL/6J background, these mutations caused obesity and transient diabetes, while on a C57BLKS/J background, they resulted in obesity and overt diabetes [46]. This dramatic difference in phenotypic expression underscored the powerful role of background-specific modifier genes.

In yeast research, similar principles apply. The ABC16-Monster strain of S. cerevisiae, which lacks 16 genes encoding ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters, provides a compelling example. This genetic background is significantly more susceptible to cytotoxic compounds like KAE609 (IC₅₀ = 6.09 ± 0.74 μM) compared to the wild-type strain (IC₅₀ = 89.4 ± 18.1 μM) [10]. This enhanced susceptibility makes it a valuable tool for drug target identification but also highlights how transporter expression in the genetic background can drastically alter compound sensitivity.

ScPMA1 as a Case Study: Genetic Background and Compound Sensitivity

ScPMA1 Function and Essential Role

ScPma1p is the essential plasma membrane proton pump in S. cerevisiae, belonging to the P-type ATPase family. It generates the electrochemical proton gradient necessary for nutrient transport via H+-symport and maintains pH homeostasis [10] [25]. A ScPMA1 null mutation is lethal in haploid cells, confirming its essential nature [25]. As a P-type ATPase, ScPma1p is structurally related to malarial PfATP4, which is inhibited by the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 [10].

Experimental Evidence of Background-Dependent Phenotypes

Research demonstrates that genetic background profoundly influences ScPma1p function and inhibitor sensitivity:

Table 1: Impact of Genetic Background on ScPMA1-Related Phenotypes

Genetic Background	Experimental Context	Observed Phenotype	Significance
ABC16-Monster (lacks 16 ABC transporters)	KAE609 exposure [10]	14.8-fold increase in sensitivity (IC₅₀ = 6.09 μM) vs. wild-type	Background efflux transporters dramatically alter compound potency
ScPMA1 L290S mutant (in ABC16-Monster background)	Edelfosine exposure [10]	7.5-fold increased sensitivity	Specific point mutation alters sensitivity to a known Pma1p-displacing agent
Heterologous CaPMA1 expression in S. cerevisiae [47]	Replacement of ScPMA1 with C. albicans PMA1	Poor growth at low pH, reduced expression & activity	Species-specific sequence differences impair function in heterologous background
Chimeric CaPMA1/ScPMA2 suppressors [47]	Spontaneous recombination in S. cerevisiae	Restored growth and H+-ATPase activity	Specific regions (aa 531-595) critical for functional compatibility

The ScPMA1 L290S mutation, when engineered into the ABC16-Monster background, not only confers resistance to KAE609 but also results in a 7.5-fold increased sensitivity to edelfosine, an alkyl-lysophospholipid known to displace ScPma1p from the plasma membrane [10]. This finding demonstrates that the genetic background (ABC16-Monster) enables the detection of this compound sensitivity, while the specific point mutation fine-tunes the phenotypic response.

Methodological Framework for Genetic Background Control

To minimize confounding effects from genetic background in ScPma1p studies, researchers should implement these practices adapted from mouse genetics [46]:

• Use Genetically Defined Backgrounds: Work with well-characterized, stable strains like the ABC16-Monster to ensure reproducibility.
• Employ Appropriate Controls: When studying mutations, compare against the wild-type version of the same strain in the same genetic background.
• Analyze on Multiple Backgrounds: When possible, examine mutations across different genetic backgrounds to distinguish allele-specific effects from background-dependent modifications.
• Report Background Completely: Use proper genetic nomenclature and fully describe the genetic background in all research communications.

Experimental Approaches for ScPMA1 Mutant Characterization

Directed Evolution and Resistance Selection

The discovery of ScPMA1 as the target of KAE609 involved directed evolution experiments in the ABC16-Monster background [10]:

• Protocol: ABC16-Monster cells were exposed to incrementally increasing concentrations of KAE609 in multiple clonal cultures. Resistance emerged after 2-5 selection rounds.
• Genomic Analysis: Whole-genome sequencing of resistant clones (>40-fold coverage) identified single nucleotide variants. ScPMA1 was the only gene mutated in all three evolved lineages, with specific mutations (Pro339Thr, Leu290Ser, Gly294Ser) clustered in the E1-E2 ATPase domain.
• Validation: CRISPR/Cas-mediated introduction of these ScPMA1 mutations into naive ABC16-Monster cells confirmed sufficiency for KAE609 resistance.

Cell-Free ATPase Activity Assay

Direct inhibition of ScPma1p by KAE609 was demonstrated using a vesicle-based assay [10] [25]:

• Vesicle Preparation: Use yeast strains engineered for secretory-vesicle accumulation, transformed with ScPMA1 overexpression plasmids to enrich vesicles with ScPma1p.
• Activity Measurement: Monitor ATP hydrolysis in the presence of vesicles and test compounds. ScPma1p inhibition reduces inorganic phosphate production.
• Application: This assay confirmed KAE609 directly inhibits ScPma1p ATPase activity, independent of cellular context.

Intracellular pH Measurement

Functional consequences of ScPma1p inhibition can be assessed through cytosolic pH monitoring [10]:

• Strain Engineering: Use S. cerevisiae expressing pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (pHluorin).
• Protocol: Treat cells with KAE609 (200 μM for 3 hours) and measure fluorescence changes.
• Expected Outcome: ScPma1p inhibition increases cytoplasmic hydrogen ion concentration (pH drops from 7.14±0.01 to 6.88±0.04 in KAE609-treated cells).

Experimental Workflow for ScPMA1 Mutant Characterization

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Research Reagents for ScPMA1 - Edelfosine Sensitivity Studies

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Example Use in ScPMA1 Research
ABC16-Monster S. cerevisiae	Engineered background lacking 16 ABC transporters	Enhances compound sensitivity by reducing efflux [10] [25]
ScPMA1 L290S Mutant	CRISPR-engineered point mutation	Controls for specific resistance-conferring amino acid change [10]
KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Spiroindolone P-type ATPase inhibitor	Positive control for ScPma1p inhibition [10]
Edelfosine	Alkyl-lysophospholipid displaces Pma1p	Compound for sensitivity profiling [10]
Vesicle-Based ATPase Assay	Cell-free ScPma1p activity measurement	Direct inhibitor evaluation independent of cellular context [10] [25]
pH-Sensitive GFP (pHluorin)	Live-cell intracellular pH monitoring	Functional assessment of Pma1p proton-pumping activity [10]

Signaling Pathway and Conceptual Framework

The relationship between ScPMA1 inhibition, genetic background, and phenotypic outcomes can be visualized through the following pathway:

Conceptual Framework of Genetic Background Impact

The investigation of ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine and related compounds exemplifies the critical importance of genetic context in phenotypic expression. The evidence clearly demonstrates that: (1) the ABC16-Monster background enables enhanced detection of compound effects through reduced efflux activity; (2) specific ScPMA1 point mutations directly alter resistance and sensitivity profiles; and (3) comprehensive characterization requires integration of multiple experimental approaches from directed evolution to cell-free biochemical assays. For researchers pursuing antifungal or antimalarial drug development targeting P-type ATPases, rigorous attention to genetic background considerations is not merely methodological refinement—it is fundamental to generating valid, interpretable, and reproducible results that can effectively guide therapeutic development.

The reproducibility of experimental research forms the cornerstone of scientific advancement, particularly in the transition from basic research to therapeutic applications. Within drug development, a "reproducibility crisis" has been identified, where a significant percentage of preclinical findings cannot be replicated, leading to a high failure rate for drugs entering clinical trials [48] [49]. This guide objectively compares experimental approaches and their outcomes within a specific research context: evaluating the sensitivity of yeast (S. cerevisiae) ScPMA1 mutant models to the alkylphospholipid compound edelfosine. ScPMA1, an essential plasma membrane P-type ATPase, is an emerging target for antifungal and antiparasitic drug development [10] [25]. We focus on standardizing the assay conditions and readouts that have been central to building a reproducible model for studying compound sensitivity and mechanism of action.

Core Experimental Findings at a Glance

Research into ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity reveals a complex interplay between different inhibitors. The table below summarizes key quantitative findings from resistance and sensitivity profiling experiments.

Table 1: Summary of Resistance and Sensitivity Profiles in ScPMA1 Mutants

Compound	Mechanism / Class	Effect in Wild-Type Yeast	Effect in ScPMA1 Mutant (L290S)	Experimental Support
KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Spiroindolone; P-type ATPase inhibitor [10]	Inhibits growth (IC₅₀ ~6.09 µM in ABC16-Monster strain) [10]	Resistance (2.5-fold increase in IC₅₀) [10]	Directed evolution & CRISPR validation [10]
Edelfosine	Alkylphospholipid; displaces ScPma1p from membrane [10]	Inhibits growth	Hypersensitivity (7.5-fold increase in sensitivity) [10]	Specific chemosensitivity profiling [10]
NSC11668	Putative ATPase inhibitor (distinct binding site) [25]	Inhibits growth (IC₅₀ ~14.8 µM) and ScPma1p ATPase activity (IC₅₀ ~4.4 µM) [25]	No significant change in potency [25]	Whole-cell and vesicular assays with mutant strains [25]
Hitachimycin	Putative ATPase inhibitor (distinct binding site) [25]	Inhibits growth (IC₅₀ ~0.87 µM) and ScPma1p ATPase activity (IC₅₀ ~7.8 µM) [25]	No significant change in potency [25]	Whole-cell and vesicular assays with mutant strains [25]

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Assays

Reproducibility hinges on the meticulous documentation of experimental methods. The following section details the core protocols used to generate the data discussed in this guide.

Protocol 1: Directed Evolution and Whole-Genome Sequencing for Resistance Mapping

This methodology identifies the genetic basis of drug resistance [10].

• Step 1: Strain Selection. Use the ABC16-Monster strain of S. cerevisiae, which lacks 16 ABC transporter genes, to enhance intrinsic compound sensitivity [10] [25].
• Step 2: In Vitro Evolution. Subject clonal cultures to increasing, sub-lethal concentrations of the compound of interest (e.g., KAE609). Perform multiple rounds of selection until a stable resistant population emerges [10].
• Step 3: Whole-Genome Sequencing. Prepare genomic DNA from clonal isolates of the terminal resistant population. Sequence with high coverage (>40-fold) and compare to the parental strain sequence to identify acquired single nucleotide variants (SNVs) or copy number variants (CNVs) [10].
• Step 4: Genetic Validation. Engineer identified mutations (e.g., in ScPMA1) into a naive background using a system like CRISPR/Cas. Confirm that the introduced mutation is sufficient to recapitulate the resistance phenotype [10].

Protocol 2: Vesicle-Based Cell-Free ScPma1p ATPase Activity Assay

This cell-free assay directly measures the inhibitory effect of a compound on the ScPma1p pump [25].

• Step 1: Vesicle Production. Use a yeast strain engineered to overexpress ScPMA1 and with a defect in secretory-vesicle and plasma-membrane fusion. This leads to the accumulation of intracellular vesicles highly enriched with ScPma1p [25].
• Step 2: Vesicle Harvesting. Isolate and purify these ScPma1p-bearing vesicles from the yeast culture [25].
• Step 3: ATP Hydrolysis Measurement. Incubate the vesicles with ATP in the presence or absence of the test compound. ScPma1p inhibition reduces ATP hydrolysis.
• Step 4: Inorganic Phosphate Detection. Quantify the amount of inorganic phosphate (Pi) released from ATP hydrolysis. A reduction in Pi concentration in the presence of a compound indicates direct inhibition of ScPma1p ATPase activity. Dose-response curves can be generated to calculate IC₅₀ values [25].

Protocol 3: Cytosolic pH Measurement Using pH-Sensitive GFP

This functional assay assesses the physiological consequence of ScPma1p inhibition in live cells [10].

• Step 1: Engineer Reporter Strain. Use a strain of S. cerevisiae that expresses a cytosolic pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (pHluorin) [10].
• Step 2: Compound Treatment. Expose the reporter strain to the inhibitor (e.g., KAE609) for a defined period.
• Step 3: Fluorescence Measurement. Measure the fluorescence emission of pHluorin. The fluorescence properties of pHluorin shift in response to changes in the concentration of surrounding hydrogen ions [10].
• Step 4: Data Interpretation. A measurable drop in cytosolic pH (e.g., from 7.14 to 6.88) after drug exposure indicates a failure of ScPma1p to extrude protons, consistent with direct inhibition of its pump function [10].

Visualizing Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the logical relationship between ScPma1p inhibition and key experimental readouts.

Diagram 1: Mechanism of ScPma1p Inhibition and Edelfosine Action

Diagram 2: Workflow for Identifying Resistance Mutations

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

A standardized set of reagents and tools is critical for ensuring consistent results across laboratories. The following table details key resources used in this field of research.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for ScPma1p Studies

Reagent / Tool	Function in Research	Example Use Case
ABC16-Monster S. cerevisiae Strain	Engineered yeast strain lacking 16 drug efflux pumps; increases compound sensitivity for phenotypic screens.	Primary strain for whole-cell inhibitor screens and directed evolution experiments [10] [25].
ScPma1p-Bearing Vesicles	Cell-free system with ScPma1p overexpressed in purified vesicles.	Directly measure ATPase enzyme activity and screen for direct inhibitors in a biochemical assay [25].
pH-Sensitive GFP (pHluorin)	Genetically encoded biosensor for measuring intracellular pH in live cells.	Functional assay to confirm ScPma1p inhibition by detecting cytosolic acidification [10].
CRISPR/Cas System for Yeast	Genome editing tool for precise genetic manipulation.	Validate causality of identified mutations by introducing them into clean genetic backgrounds [10].
Alkylphospholipid Analog (Edelfosine)	Experimental therapeutic that targets the endoplasmic reticulum and displaces ScPma1p.	Probe for ScPma1p functional integrity and study synthetic lethal interactions with mutant alleles [10] [50].

The rigorous standardization of assay conditions—from the use of defined genetic strains like the ABC16-Monster to the application of orthogonal assays measuring ATPase activity, cytosolic pH, and chemosensitivity—is paramount for generating reproducible and translatable findings. The data consistently show that mutations in ScPMA1 confer a distinct hypersensitivity to edelfosine, a finding that bridges yeast models and human cancer research [10] [50]. This cross-species validation strengthens the evidence for a fundamental mechanism of action. As the field moves forward, adhering to detailed protocols, promoting transparency in data management, and utilizing standardized reagent toolkits will be essential for bridging the "valley of death" in drug development and converting promising preclinical targets into viable therapies [48] [49].

A foundational challenge in drug discovery, particularly in antimicrobial and anticancer research, is conclusively distinguishing a compound's direct molecular target from proteins involved in indirect resistance or stress response pathways. This distinction is critical for understanding mechanisms of action, predicting resistance, and optimizing lead compounds. Research on the Saccharomyces cerevisiae P-type ATPase ScPMA1 and its sensitivity to the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine provides a classic paradigm for this problem [10]. ScPMA1, an essential plasma membrane proton pump, is a homolog of the Plasmodium falciparum protein PfATP4, a target for novel antimalarial spiroindolones like KAE609 (cipargamin) [10]. The convergence of evidence from directed evolution, genetic validation, and biochemical assays in this system offers a robust framework for differentiating direct inhibition from indirect phenotypic effects.

Experimental Models & Key Findings: A Comparative Analysis

The following table summarizes the core experimental approaches and the critical findings that help distinguish direct from indirect effects in the ScPMA1-edelfosine interaction.

Table 1: Summary of Key Experiments and Findings on ScPMA1 and Edelfosine

Experimental Approach	Key Finding	Interpretation for Direct vs. Indirect Effects
In Vitro Evolution (Yeast) [10]	Mutations in ScPMA1 emerged in all yeast lineages under KAE609 selection.	Suggests ScPMA1 is the primary selective pressure target; mutations confer resistance directly.
Genetic Validation (CRISPR) [10]	Engineered ScPMA1 mutations (e.g., L290S) were sufficient for KAE609 resistance.	Confirms a direct causal link between ScPMA1 genotype and drug resistance phenotype.
Cross-Sensitivity Profiling [10]	ScPMA1 mutants showed 7.5-fold increased sensitivity to edelfosine.	Indicates a fitness cost and altered function of the direct target, not a general multidrug resistance mechanism.
In Vitro Biochemical Assay [10]	KAE609 directly inhibited ATPase activity of purified ScPma1p in a cell-free system.	Provides definitive evidence of a direct molecular interaction, excluding cellular confounding factors.
Functional Cellular Assay [10]	KAE609 treatment caused a significant drop in cytosolic pH (7.14 to 6.88).	Consistent with the direct inhibition of ScPma1p's known physiological function as a proton exporter.
Computational Docking [10]	KAE609 docked into a specific pocket in a ScPma1p homology model, aligning with resistance mutation sites.	A structural model that directly explains genetic resistance determinants.

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Assays

In Vitro Evolution and Whole-Genome Sequencing for Resistance Mapping

This protocol identifies the genetic basis of drug resistance without prior target hypotheses [10].

• Selection: Expose a genetically tractable model organism (e.g., the S. cerevisiae "ABC16-Monster" strain lacking 16 ABC transporters) to increasing concentrations of the compound (e.g., KAE609) over multiple rounds.
• Isolation: Obtain clonal isolates from the terminal selection rounds that show significantly increased half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values.
• Sequencing: Prepare genomic DNA from resistant clones and the parental strain. Sequence using next-generation sequencing (e.g., Illumina) with high coverage (>40-fold).
• Variant Analysis: Compare sequences of resistant clones to the parent to identify single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and copy number variants (CNVs). Genes mutated in multiple independent lineages represent high-confidence candidates for the direct target or key resistance mediators.

Cell-Free ATPase Activity Assay for Direct Target Engagement

This biochemical assay confirms a direct interaction by measuring the enzyme's activity in isolation [10].

• Membrane Preparation: Ishibit: Isolate plasma membrane fractions containing the P-type ATPase (e.g., ScPma1p) from the model organism.
• Reaction Setup: In a multi-well plate, combine the membrane preparation with ATP and a reaction buffer optimized for ATPase activity.
• Drug Incubation: Add the compound of interest (e.g., KAE609) at various concentrations to the wells. Include control wells with vehicle alone and a positive control inhibitor.
• Activity Measurement: Quantify the rate of ATP hydrolysis using a colorimetric or fluorometric method that detects inorganic phosphate release over time.
• Data Analysis: Calculate the percentage inhibition of ATPase activity at each drug concentration and determine the IC50 value. Direct inhibition is demonstrated by a dose-dependent decrease in activity in the purified system.

Intracellular pH Measurement to Assess Functional Consequence

This functional assay measures the physiological outcome of target inhibition in live cells [10].

• Strain Engineering: Use a strain of S. cerevisiae expressing a cytosolic pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (pHluorin).
• Treatment: Treat the cells with the compound (e.g., a high dosage of KAE609 for yeast) for a defined period (e.g., 3 hours).
• Detection and Quantification: Measure the fluorescence emission of pHluorin using a flow cytometer or fluorescence plate reader. The fluorescence ratio at specific excitation/emission wavelengths is calibrated to calculate the intracellular pH.
• Interpretation: A statistically significant drop in cytosolic pH following treatment is consistent with the direct inhibition of a proton-exporting pump like ScPma1p.

Visualization of Experimental Workflow and Mechanistic Insights

The following diagrams outline the logical flow of the key experiments and the proposed mechanism by which ScPMA1 mutations confer opposing sensitivity profiles to two different drugs.

Experimental Workflow for Distinguishing Direct Drug Targets

Diagram 1: A sequential workflow for distinguishing direct drug targets from indirect resistance mechanisms, integrating genetics, genomics, and biochemistry.

Mechanistic Model of ScPMA1 Mutations and Drug Sensitivity

Diagram 2: A model showing how mutations in ScPMA1 can directly cause resistance to KAE609 while simultaneously increasing sensitivity to edelfosine.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Reagent Solutions for ScPMA1 and Edelfosine Research

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Example from Context
ABC Transporter-Deficient Strain	Enhances compound potency by reducing efflux; enables in vitro evolution studies in yeast.	S. cerevisiae "ABC16-Monster" strain [10].
Defined Drug Compounds	Used for selection, resistance profiling, and biochemical assays.	KAE609 (Cipargamin, spiroindolone), Edelfosine (ET-18-OCH3, alkylphospholipid) [10].
pH-Sensing Fluorescent Protein	Reports real-time changes in intracellular pH as a functional readout of H+-ATPase activity.	S. cerevisiae strain expressing cytosolic pHluorin [10].
Homology Modeling & Docking Software	Generates testable structural hypotheses for drug binding and resistance mechanisms.	Homology model of ScPma1p for docking KAE609 [10].
Lipid-Based Nanoformulations	Improves drug solubility, bioavailability, and target delivery while reducing systemic toxicity.	Edelfosine nanoemulsions for in vivo studies [29].

The lipid microenvironment of the cell membrane is not merely a passive barrier but a dynamic, complex platform that actively influences protein function, drug interactions, and cellular signaling. Variations in membrane composition—including lipid species, sterol content, and physicochemical properties—can dramatically alter the efficacy and specificity of pharmacological agents. The study of ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine provides a powerful model system for understanding these critical membrane-drug interactions. The yeast Pma1p, a plasma membrane P-type H+-ATPase, and its homolog PfATP4 in malaria parasites, are established targets for compounds like the antimalarial spiroindolone KAE609. Research has revealed that mutations in ScPMA1 not only confer resistance to KAE609 but also lead to a marked cross-sensitivity to the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine [6] [45]. This phenomenon underscores a fundamental connection between membrane protein function, the lipid raft-targeting drug edelfosine, and the composition of the surrounding membrane. This guide objectively compares the experimental findings and methodologies used to dissect how membrane composition variables influence this specific biological and pharmacological response.

Core Comparative Analysis: ScPMA1 Mutant vs. Wild-Type Sensitivity

Quantitative Phenotypic Comparison

The following table summarizes the key experimental data comparing the response of ScPMA1 mutants and wild-type yeast to edelfosine and KAE609.

Table 1: Comparative Phenotypic Responses of Yeast Strains

Yeast Strain / Genotype	Response to KAE609 (IC₅₀)	Response to Edelfosine	Key Experimental Observations
Wild-Type (SY025)	89.4 ± 18.1 μM [6]	Not fully quantified (Baseline)	Baseline sensitivity; efflux pumps reduce drug potency [6].
ABC16-Monster (Efflux-Deficient)	6.09 ± 0.74 μM [6]	Not fully quantified (Baseline)	Increased KAE609 potency due to lack of ABC transporters [6].
ScPMA1 Mutants (e.g., L290S)	Resistant (IC₅₀ increased 2.5-fold) [6]	7.5-fold increased sensitivity [6]	Mutations are sufficient for resistance and cross-sensitivity [6].
ScPMA1 + ScYRR1 Mutants	Resistant (Multiplicative effect) [6]	Data not provided	Combined mutations have a multiplicative resistance effect [6].

Analysis of Comparative Data

The data reveals a clear and direct inverse phenotypic relationship between KAE609 and edelfosine sensitivity in ScPMA1 mutants. While these mutants become resistant to the primary drug KAE609, they simultaneously develop a significant hypersensitivity to edelfosine. This suggests that the ScPma1p protein and its integrity within the membrane are a common node for both compounds. The finding that ScYRR1 mutations also confer KAE609 resistance, but through a separate, indirect mechanism likely involving detoxification, highlights the importance of using genetic validation to distinguish direct targets from general resistance pathways [6].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and a clear understanding of the foundational data, this section outlines the key methodologies employed in the cited research.

Directed Evolution and Mutant Selection

This protocol was used to generate and identify ScPMA1 mutations that confer KAE609 resistance [6].

• Strain Selection: Use the ABC16-Monster S. cerevisiae strain, which lacks 16 ABC transporter genes, to enhance intracellular drug accumulation.
• Culture and Selection: Inoculate multiple clonal cultures in liquid medium. Expose cultures to progressively increasing concentrations of KAE609.
• Passaging and Isolation: Passage cells repeatedly over several rounds, allowing resistant populations to emerge.
• Genomic Analysis: Extract genomic DNA from resistant clones. Perform whole-genome sequencing with >40-fold coverage. Compare sequences to the parental strain to identify single nucleotide variants (SNVs).
• Validation: Confirm the causative role of identified mutations (e.g., in ScPMA1) by reintroducing them into a naive background using CRISPR/Cas9 and re-testing drug sensitivity.

Edelfosine Sensitivity and Haemolysis Assays

These assays measure the direct cytotoxic effect of edelfosine and its off-target haemolytic activity [6] [51].

• Cell-Based Sensitivity Assay (IC₅₀ Determination):

  • Grow yeast cells (wild-type and ScPMA1 mutants) or cancer cell lines (e.g., HL-60 leukemia cells) to mid-log phase.
  • Treat cells with a serial dilution of edelfosine for a defined period (e.g., 7 hours for apoptosis assays).
  • For yeast, measure proliferation inhibition (OD₆₀₀). For mammalian cells, quantify apoptosis via flow cytometry by measuring the percentage of cells with sub-G1 DNA content (hypodiploidy).

• Haemolysis Assay:

  • Isolate human erythrocytes from peripheral blood by centrifugation and wash with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS).
  • Prepare a 4% (v/v) erythrocyte suspension in PBS.
  • Incubate the erythrocyte suspension with the edelfosine formulation (e.g., free drug or liposomal preparation) at 37°C for 20 hours with gentle shaking.
  • Centrifuge the samples and measure the absorbance of the supernatant at 550 nm.
  • Calculate percentage haemolysis, with distilled water representing 100% lysis and buffer alone representing 0% [51].

Liposome and Nanoemulsion Preparation for Toxicity Reduction

This protocol details the formulation of edelfosine into liposomes or nanoemulsions to abrogate its haemolytic activity while retaining antitumor efficacy [51] [29].

• Lipid Dissolution: Co-dissolve edelfosine with a complementary lipid (e.g., cholesterol, phosphatidylcholine) or excipient (e.g., Miglyol 812) in an organic solvent mixture (e.g., chloroform/methanol 2:1 v/v).
• Solvent Evaporation: Evaporate the solvent exhaustively under a stream of nitrogen or using a rotary evaporator to form a thin, dry lipid film.
• Hydration: Hydrate the lipid film with an aqueous buffer (e.g., 10 mM HEPES, 150 mM NaCl, pH 7.4) with vigorous vortexing or stirring. This produces multilamellar vesicles (MLVs).
• Size Reduction: To produce homogenous, unilamellar vesicles (LUVs) or nanoemulsions, extrude the MLV suspension through polycarbonate membranes (e.g., 0.1 μm pore diameter) multiple times. Alternatively, use high-pressure homogenization or the ethanol injection method [29].
• Characterization: Use quasi-elastic light scattering (QELS) to determine the average particle size (e.g., 90-110 nm for LUVs, ~120 nm for nanoemulsions) and zeta potential [51] [29].

Visualizing Mechanisms and Workflows

ScPMA1-Mediated Signaling and Drug Sensitivity Pathway

The following diagram illustrates the logical and mechanistic relationships between ScPMA1 function, nutrient signaling, and the action of KAE609 and edelfosine, integrating findings from the research [6] [52].

Diagram 1: Mechanism of ScPMA1 Function and Drug Interaction. This diagram integrates the role of ScPma1p in nutrient-signaling (TORC1 activation) with the direct inhibitory effect of KAE609 and the disruptive membrane effect of edelfosine. ScPMA1 mutations that confer KAE609 resistance also destabilize the protein, making cells more vulnerable to edelfosine-induced displacement from the plasma membrane [6] [52].

Experimental Workflow for Mutant Sensitivity Profiling

The diagram below outlines the key steps in the experimental workflow used to generate and characterize ScPMA1 mutants.

Diagram 2: Workflow for ScPMA1 Mutant Characterization. This workflow from directed evolution to biochemical validation ensures that identified mutations are directly linked to the observed resistance and sensitivity phenotypes [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following table catalogs key reagents and their applications for studying membrane composition and edelfosine interactions in a model system like yeast.

Table 2: Key Reagent Solutions for Membrane-Drug Interaction Studies

Reagent / Material	Function and Application in Research
ABC16-Monster S. cerevisiae Strain	An engineered yeast strain lacking 16 ABC drug efflux pumps; used to enhance intracellular drug concentration and potency for compound screening [6].
Edelfosine (ET-OCH₃)	The prototype alkyl-lysophospholipid; used to study raft-targeting, apoptosis induction, and its selective cytotoxicity against tumor cells and membrane-protein mutants [6] [53] [51].
Sterols (Cholesterol, β-Sitosterol)	Used to form non-haemolytic binary liposomes with edelfosine; their complementary molecular geometry with edelfosine allows stable vesicle formation, acting as a drug reservoir [51].
Model Membrane Systems (e.g., LUVs, GUVs)	Lipid bilayers (Large/Unilamellar Vesicles) of defined composition; used in biophysical studies (e.g., SAXS, NMR, calcein leakage) to probe drug-membrane interactions without cellular complexity [54] [55].
ScPMA1 Mutant Alleles (e.g., L290S, G294S)	CRISPR-engineered yeast strains with specific point mutations in the P-type ATPase; essential for validating direct causality in resistance and cross-sensitivity phenotypes [6].
Edelfosine Nanoemulsions (ET-NEs)	Nanometric emulsions composed of edelfosine, Miglyol, and phosphatidylcholine; designed for improved drug delivery, reduced toxicity, and evaluation of in vivo efficacy in xenograft models [29].

The comparative analysis of ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine unequivocally demonstrates that membrane composition and integrity are critical variables in drug response. The inverse relationship between KAE609 resistance and edelfosine hypersensitivity in ScPMA1 mutants provides a compelling case study of how a single genetic alteration in a membrane protein can dramatically reshape pharmacological profiles. The experimental data and protocols outlined herein offer a robust framework for researchers to systematically account for lipid microenvironment influences. Furthermore, the successful mitigation of edelfosine's haemolytic activity through formulation with specific sterols [51] highlights the practical therapeutic implications of understanding these interactions. As drug discovery increasingly targets membrane-associated processes, integrating these membrane composition variables will be indispensable for developing more effective and specific therapeutics.

In the investigation of ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine, a synthetic alkyl-lysophospholipid, a primary obstacle researchers encounter is the misinterpretation of experimental outcomes due to false negatives. These false negatives often stem not from genuine biological insensitivity, but from inadequate drug exposure and suboptimal cellular uptake of the therapeutic agent. Edelfosine exerts its antitumor effects through unique mechanisms, primarily by accumulating in lipid rafts within the plasma membrane and inducing endoplasmic reticulum stress, leading to apoptosis in cancer cells [56] [57]. However, its physicochemical properties and biological interactions present significant delivery challenges that can compromise experimental validity if not properly addressed.

This guide systematically compares experimental platforms and methodologies for evaluating edelfosine efficacy, providing structured data and protocols to help researchers distinguish true biological resistance from experimental artifacts. By implementing robust exposure and uptake verification procedures, scientists can enhance the reliability of their findings in ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity studies and advance the development of lipid-based anticancer therapies.

Comparative Analysis of Edelfosine Delivery Platforms and Experimental Models

Table 1: Performance comparison of edelfosine formulations across experimental models

Formulation/Model	Size (nm)	Zeta Potential (mV)	Edelfosine Dose	Exposure Duration	Key Outcomes	Reported Limitations
Edelfosine Nanoemulsions (TNBC)	~120	Neutral	Not specified	24-72 hours	Effective tumor cell penetration; Significant decrease in aggressive TNBC cell proliferation	Requires optimization for specific cell lines [29]
Free Edelfosine (Prostate Cancer)	N/A	N/A	5-20 μM	24 hours	Decreased AKT activity; Inhibition of AR and ARv7 expression; Enhanced apoptosis with androgen deprivation	Dose-dependent response variability [56]
Photodynamic Therapy Combination	N/A	N/A	25 μg/mL (~48 μM)	Pre/post-PDT	Substantially improved tumor cure rates when administered after PDT	Ineffective when used before PDT; Timing critical [57]

Table 2: Cellular response markers for verifying edelfosine exposure

Response Marker	Measurement Technique	Expected Change with Adequate Exposure	Significance in ScPMA1 Context
AKT Phosphorylation	Western Blot	Dose-dependent decrease	Indicates successful membrane signaling disruption [56]
ATF3 Expression	Western Blot, PCR	Significant increase	Stress response confirmation; Links to AR transregulation [56]
HSP70 Surface Expression	Flow Cytometry with FITC-anti-HSP70	Substantial elevation	Biomarker for combined cellular stress [57]
AR/ARv7 Expression	Western Blot, Immunoassay	Marked inhibition	Confirms pathway engagement in prostate cancer models [56]
Caspase 3/7 Activity	Fluorescent assay (Apo-ONE)	Dose-dependent increase	Verification of apoptosis induction [56]

Experimental Protocols for Verification of Drug Exposure and Uptake

Protocol 1: Nanoemulsion Preparation and Characterization for Enhanced Delivery

Edelfosine nanoemulsions (ET-NEs) provide superior delivery compared to free compound, particularly for challenging cell models. Prepare ET-NEs using the ethanol injection method with the following optimized workflow [29]:

Materials:

• Edelfosine (ET)
• Miglyol 812 (oil phase)
• Phosphatidylcholine (PC)
• Absolute ethanol
• Saline or phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)

Procedure:

• Dissolve edelfosine, Miglyol 812, and phosphatidylcholine in ethanol at 85:10.7:4.3% ratio
• Rapidly inject the ethanol solution into pre-warmed PBS (37°C) under continuous magnetic stirring
• Maintain stirring for 15 minutes to allow complete ethanol evaporation and nanoemulsion formation
• Characterize the resulting ET-NEs for size (target ~120 nm) and zeta potential (neutral) using dynamic light scattering
• Validate stability in biorelevant media by monitoring size distribution over 24 hours

Validation Points:

• Confirm monodisperse population with PDI <0.2
• Verify neutral zeta potential for reduced opsonization
• Assess encapsulation efficiency through HPLC analysis of free vs. encapsulated edelfosine

Protocol 2: Cellular Uptake and Stress Response Verification

Confirm successful intracellular delivery by monitoring early stress response markers using the following protocol [56] [57]:

Materials:

• Target cells (appropriate for ScPMA1 study)
• Edelfosine or ET-NEs
• Lysis buffer (RIPA with protease/phosphatase inhibitors)
• Antibodies: anti-p-AKT (Ser473), anti-ATF3, anti-HSP70, β-actin
• Annexin V staining kit
• Apo-ONE Homogeneous Caspase-3/7 Assay kit

Procedure:

• Seed cells in complete medium and allow to adhere for 24 hours
• Treat with edelfosine concentrations ranging from 1-20 μM or equivalent ET-NEs
• For androgen deprivation studies, pre-incubate cells in charcoal-stripped serum medium for 72 hours before edelfosine treatment
• At 6, 12, and 24 hours post-treatment, harvest cells for analysis
• For apoptosis assessment: Use annexin V staining at 24 hours analyzed by flow cytometry
• For caspase activity: Incubate 2×10^4 cells with Apo-ONE reagent for 24 hours, measure fluorescence (excitation 499nm/emission 521nm)
• For protein expression: Perform Western blotting on whole-cell lysates using standard protocols

Critical Controls:

• Include vehicle-only treated cells (PBS)
• Implement positive control for apoptosis (e.g., staurosporine)
• Use ATF3 siRNA transfection to confirm pathway specificity

Visualization of Edelfosine Mechanisms and Experimental Workflows

Diagram 1: Edelfosine mechanism of action from cellular uptake to apoptosis.

Diagram 2: Experimental workflow with critical false negative assessment points.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key research reagent solutions for edelfosine exposure studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Considerations for ScPMA1 Studies
Edelfosine Formulations	Free edelfosine (PBS solution), ET-Nanoemulsions	Primary therapeutic agent; Different formulations affect bioavailability	Nanoemulsions preferred for challenging cell lines; validate stability [29]
Cell Stress Assays	Apo-ONE Caspase-3/7, Annexin V, MTT proliferation	Quantify apoptotic response and cell viability	Implement multiple assays to confirm apoptosis; include proliferation measures [56]
Pathway Antibodies	anti-p-AKT (Ser473), anti-ATF3, anti-AR, anti-ARv7, anti-HSP70	Verify target engagement and stress pathway activation	Confirm antibody specificity for model system; optimize dilution [56] [57]
Nanoparticle Components	Miglyol 812, Phosphatidylcholine, Ethanol (injection grade)	Nanoemulsion preparation for enhanced delivery	Use high-purity components; characterize size/zeta potential for each batch [29]
Cell Culture Supplements	Charcoal-stripped serum, Androgen analogs	Simulate androgen deprivation in prostate models	Maintain consistent serum batches; validate deprivation efficiency [56]

Troubleshooting false negatives in ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine requires methodical attention to drug exposure parameters. Researchers should prioritize the following approaches: (1) utilize nanoformulations to enhance bioavailability rather than relying solely on free compound; (2) implement multiple verification methods for cellular uptake, particularly monitoring ATF3 induction and AKT phosphorylation status; and (3) carefully optimize exposure timing, as studies consistently demonstrate that edelfosine administered after primary stress (e.g., PDT) shows significantly greater efficacy than pre-treatment administration [57]. By adopting these rigorous experimental standards and validation methodologies, the field can advance with greater confidence in distinguishing truly resistant mutants from experimental artifacts, thereby accelerating the development of effective lipid-based cancer therapeutics.

Broader Implications: Cross-System Validation and Therapeutic Connections

The discovery of functional homologs across divergent species represents a cornerstone of molecular biology, enabling researchers to leverage genetically tractable models for studying complex pathogens. In antimalarial research, the P-type ATPase PfATP4 in Plasmodium falciparum and ScPMA1 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae exemplify this powerful paradigm. PfATP4, a sodium efflux pump critical for parasite survival, has emerged as a leading target for novel antimalarial compounds [58] [59]. Meanwhile, ScPMA1 functions as the essential proton pump in yeast, maintaining cytosolic pH homeostasis [44]. Despite their differing cation specificities (Na+ versus H+), these pumps share remarkable structural and functional similarities that extend to their susceptibility to pharmacological inhibition.

The investigation into these homologous pumps is particularly relevant within the broader context of evaluating ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine, an alkyl-lysophospholipid known to displace ScPma1p from the plasma membrane [44]. Understanding the parallel responses of these transporters to chemical stress provides invaluable insights for antimicrobial development. This guide objectively compares the performance characteristics of PfATP4 and ScPMA1 by synthesizing experimental data from genetic, biochemical, and structural studies, providing researchers with a framework for leveraging yeast models in antimalarial discovery pipelines.

Structural and Functional Comparison of PfATP4 and ScPMA1

Molecular Architecture and Mechanism

PfATP4 and ScPMA1 belong to the P-type ATPase superfamily, characterized by their formation of a phosphorylated intermediate during the catalytic cycle [60]. Both pumps exhibit the five canonical domains of P2-type ATPases: the transmembrane domain (TMD) responsible for ion translocation, the nucleotide-binding (N) domain, the phosphorylation (P) domain, the actuator (A) domain, and an extracellular loop (ECL) domain [58]. Recent cryo-EM analysis of PfATP4 at 3.7 Å resolution reveals a structure with root-mean-square deviations of 10.3–22.9 Å from previous homology models, highlighting significant structural differences despite conserved domain architecture [58].

Table 1: Core Structural and Functional Characteristics of PfATP4 and ScPMA1

Characteristic	PfATP4	ScPMA1
Primary Ion Substrate	Sodium (Na+)	Hydrogen (H+)
Biological Function	Maintains low intracellular [Na+], crucial for parasite osmotic stability [58]	Maintains cytosolic pH by extruding protons [44]
Cellular Localization	Parasite plasma membrane [58]	Yeast plasma membrane [44]
Domain Organization	TMD, N-domain, P-domain, A-domain, ECL [58]	TMD, N-domain, P-domain, A-domain [44]
Inhibition Phenotype	Na+ influx, parasite swelling, cell death [60]	Cytosolic acidification, growth arrest [44]
Essential Gene	Yes (in P. falciparum) [60]	Yes (in S. cerevisiae) [44]

The ion-binding site within PfATP4's TMD is located between TM4, TM5, TM6, and TM8, similar to the cation-binding site in SERCA (sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase) [58]. Although PfATP4 transports Na+ while ScPMA1 transports H+, their structural conservation is sufficient to yield similar responses to inhibitory compounds, as demonstrated by cross-sensitivity studies with spiroindolones [44] [8].

Inhibitor Sensitivity and Resistance Profiles

Comparative chemical genomics reveal that both PfATP4 and ScPMA1 are primary targets of the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 (cipargamin) [44] [8]. Directed evolution experiments in both P. falciparum and S. cerevisiae demonstrate that mutations in the genes encoding these pumps confer resistance to this compound class. In yeast, ScPMA1 mutations (L290S, G294S, N291K, P339T) were sufficient to confer a 2.5-fold increase in KAE609 resistance [44]. Similarly, PfATP4 mutations (G358S/A) identified in recrudescent parasites from cipargamin clinical trials confer high-level resistance [58].

Table 2: Experimentally Determined Inhibitor Responses and Resistance Mutations

Parameter	PfATP4	ScPMA1
KAE609 (Cipargamin) IC50	~0.5 nM (against blood-stage P. falciparum) [59]	6.09 ± 0.74 μM (against ABC16-Monster yeast strain) [44]
Primary Resistance Mutations	G358S, G358A, A211V [58]	L290S, G294S, N291K, P339T [44]
Mutation Location	Cluster around Na+ binding site in TMD [58]	Cluster in E1-E2 ATPase domain [44]
Edelfosine Sensitivity	Not determined	7.5-fold increased sensitivity in L290S mutant [44]
Resistance to Unrelated Antimicrobials	No (compound-specific) [58]	No (compound-specific) [44]

Notably, ScPMA1 mutations conferring spiroindolone resistance do not provide resistance to unrelated antimicrobials but do yield cross-sensitivity to edelfosine [44]. This specific sensitivity profile suggests that the resistance mutations impair pump stability or trafficking rather than general membrane integrity, as edelfosine selectively displaces ScPma1p from the plasma membrane [44]. This finding is particularly relevant for the thesis research on ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine, as it suggests a conformational vulnerability in mutant pumps that could be exploited therapeutically.

Experimental Approaches for Functional Analysis

Directed Evolution and Resistance Selection

Protocol: In Vitro Evolution of Inhibitor Resistance

• Culture Setup: Expose S. cerevisiae ABC16-Monster strain (lacking 16 ABC transporters) or P. falciparum cultures to sublethal KAE609 concentrations [44]
• Selection Pressure: Apply increasing compound concentrations over multiple generations (3-5 selection rounds)
• Clone Isolation: Select individual clones from terminal selection populations
• Genomic Analysis: Prepare genomic DNA from resistant clones; sequence with >40-fold coverage using Illumina platforms
• Variant Identification: Compare sequences to parental clone to identify single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and copy number variants (CNVs)
• Genetic Validation: Engineer identified mutations into naive strains using CRISPR/Cas9 to confirm resistance causation [44]

This approach identified ScPMA1 as the only gene mutated in all three yeast lineages selected for KAE609 resistance, establishing its status as the primary drug target [44].

Functional Characterization of Mutant Pumps

Protocol: Intracellular pH Measurement in Yeast

• Strain Engineering: Express pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (pHluorin) in S. cerevisiae strains [44]
• Compound Exposure: Treat cells with 200 μM KAE609 for 3 hours
• Fluorescence Measurement: Monitor fluorescence intensity using plate readers or flow cytometry
• pH Calculation: Calculate cytoplasmic pH from fluorescence ratios; control untreated cells maintain pH ~7.14 [44]
• Ion Concentration Calculation: Convert pH values to hydrogen ion concentration ([H+])

Application of this protocol demonstrated that KAE609 treatment decreases cytoplasmic pH from 7.14 ± 0.01 to 6.88 ± 0.04, representing an 80.6% increase in cytoplasmic [H+] (p = 0.0024) [44]. This acidification confirms ScPMA1 inhibition, directly paralleling the Na+ dysregulation observed in PfATP4-inhibited parasites [60].

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for directed evolution and resistance mutation identification

Structural Analysis and Homology Modeling

Protocol: Homology Modeling of PfATP4

• Template Selection: Use SERCA crystal structures (P2A-type ATPase) as templates for PfATP4 modeling [60]
• Model Generation: Create initial homology models for four conformational states in the Na+ transport cycle
• Molecular Dynamics Refinement: Simulate each state for >100 ns in explicit membrane environment
• Trajectory Analysis: Calculate root mean square fluctuations (RMSF) to identify domains with major conformational changes
• Ion Binding Site Prediction: Identify Na+ coordination residues (E409, E934, D963, E1176) through comparison with SERCA Ca2+ binding sites [60]
• Mutational Analysis: Model resistance mutations to understand structural basis of resistance and potential fitness costs

This protocol revealed that PfATP4 resistance mutations (e.g., G358S) localize around the proposed Na+ binding site within the TMD, potentially blocking cipargamin binding by introducing bulkier side chains into the inhibitor binding pocket [58].

Pathway Analysis and Research Applications

Comparative Inhibition Pathways

The inhibition mechanisms for PfATP4 and ScPMA1 follow parallel pathways despite their different physiological roles. Spiroindolone compounds like cipargamin directly bind to these P-type ATPases, disrupting cation homeostasis and triggering downstream cellular consequences.

Figure 2: Parallel inhibition pathways of PfATP4 and ScPMA1 by spiroindolones

Research Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Assays

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for PfATP4/ScPMA1 Investigation

Reagent/Assay	Function/Application	Experimental Context
KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Spiroindolone inhibitor; directly inhibits ATPase activity	Target validation; resistance studies [44] [59]
Edelfosine	Alkyl-lysophospholipid; displaces ScPMA1 from membrane	Fitness cost assessment in mutant pumps [44]
ABC16-Monster Yeast Strain	Lacks 16 ABC transporters; enhanced compound sensitivity	Yeast-based inhibitor screening [44]
CRISPR/Cas9 System	Precision genome editing	Introduction of resistance mutations [58] [44]
pHluorin	pH-sensitive GFP variant	Measure cytoplasmic acidification in yeast [44]
3×FLAG Epitope Tag	Affinity tag for protein purification	Endogenous purification of PfATP4 for structural studies [58]
SERCA-based Homology Models	Structural templates for PfATP4	Molecular dynamics simulations; mutation mapping [60]

Discussion and Research Implications

The functional homology between PfATP4 and ScPMA1 establishes S. cerevisiae as a powerful surrogate system for investigating antimalarial compounds targeting parasite ion homeostasis. Several key insights emerge from this comparative analysis:

First, the parallel resistance mechanisms observed in both pumps, with mutations clustering in corresponding structural domains, strongly supports direct inhibition as the primary mechanism of action for spiroindolones [44]. The identification of ScPMA1 mutations in yeast that confer cross-sensitivity to edelfosine further reveals inherent vulnerabilities in mutant pumps that could inform combination therapies.

Second, the functional conservation between these pumps, despite their differing cation specificities, highlights essential structural features required for P-type ATPase function. The recent discovery of PfABP, an apicomplexan-specific binding partner of PfATP4, presents potential parasite-specific regulatory mechanisms absent in yeast [58]. This distinction underscores the importance of ultimately validating findings in parasite systems.

For researchers investigating ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine, these parallels suggest that similar conformational changes in mutant PfATP4 might create analogous vulnerabilities that could be exploited with combination therapies. The experimental approaches detailed here—particularly directed evolution followed by comprehensive fitness cost assessment—provide a robust methodology for identifying and characterizing such secondary susceptibilities.

The structural and functional parallels between PfATP4 and ScPMA1 continue to provide valuable insights for antimalarial development while offering a compelling model for leveraging comparative biology in drug discovery.

P-type ATPases constitute a large superfamily of primary active transporters found in all domains of life—bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. These biological pumps utilize energy from ATP hydrolysis to transport diverse substrates, including cations and phospholipids, across cellular membranes. Their fundamental role in establishing electrochemical gradients makes them essential for numerous physiological processes, from nerve impulse conduction to nutrient absorption. This guide provides a comparative analysis of the functional domains within P-type ATPases, highlighting their structural conservation and variations across species, with particular emphasis on implications for drug discovery research, including studies on ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to compounds like edelfosine.

Structural Organization and Domain Architecture

The catalytic subunit of P-type ATPases, typically ranging from 70 to 140 kDa, is organized into a characteristic modular structure consisting of cytoplasmic and transmembrane sections.

Core Cytoplasmic Domains

The cytoplasmic portion comprises three fundamental domains responsible for the enzyme's catalytic cycle:

• Phosphorylation (P) Domain: This domain contains a conserved aspartate residue within the signature sequence DKTGT, which becomes phosphorylated during the catalytic cycle, forming a high-energy aspartyl-phosphoanhydride intermediate. The P domain exhibits a Rossmann fold, characteristic of the haloacid dehalogenase (HAD) superfamily, and facilitates catalysis via an SN2 reaction mechanism [2].

• Nucleotide Binding (N) Domain: Serving as a built-in protein kinase, this domain contains the ATP-binding pocket and is responsible for phosphorylating the P domain. It consists of a seven-strand antiparallel β-sheet flanked by two helix bundles [2].

• Actuator (A) Domain: Functioning as a built-in protein phosphatase, the A domain dephosphorylates the phosphorylated P domain using a highly conserved TGES motif. This domain plays a pivotal role in transducing energy from ATP hydrolysis in the cytoplasmic domains to the vectorial transport of substrates across the membrane [2].

Transmembrane Organization

The transmembrane section typically consists of six core helices (M1-M6) forming the transport domain, which harbors the substrate-binding sites near the midpoint of the lipid bilayer. This core is supplemented with additional transmembrane-spanning segments (ranging from two to six helices depending on the subfamily) that provide structural support and may have specialized functions. Notably, significant variations exist in transmembrane helix numbers among different P-type ATPase subfamilies [2].

Table 1: Comparison of Transmembrane Helix Organization Across P-type ATPase Subfamilies

Subfamily	Total Transmembrane Helices	Representative Members	Key Features
P1A	7	KdpB (bacteria)	Forms heterotetrameric complex with KdpA, KdpC, KdpF [61]
P1B	8	Heavy metal pumps (CopA, ZntA)	Transport Cu+, Zn2+, Co2+; possess N-terminal metal-binding domains [2]
P2	10	Na+/K+-ATPase, SERCA Ca2+-ATPase	Classic P-type ATPase topology; major group in eukaryotes [2]
P3A	10	Plasma membrane H+-ATPase	C-terminal regulatory domain [2]
P5	12	Unknown substrate specificity	Predicted topology [2]

Evolutionary Conservation of Functional Domains

Phylogenetic Distribution

Phylogenetic analyses reveal that P-type ATPases diverged prior to the separation of eubacteria, archaea, and eukaryota, underscoring their fundamental role in cellular survival under stress conditions. The superfamily is divided into five major families (P1-P5) based on conserved sequence motifs, with an additional P6 family identified more recently [61]. Each family exhibits distinct substrate specificity and structural features, yet all share the core catalytic machinery centered around the phosphorylatable aspartate residue.

Comparative studies of P-ATPase 13A1 and 13A3 proteins in insects have demonstrated high sequence identity despite belonging to separate phylogenetic groups, suggesting derivation from a common ancestor. These analyses revealed nine conserved motifs in the 13A1 family and eight in the 13A3 family, indicating subtle functional diversification within the conserved structural framework [62].

Mechanism Conservation Across Species

All P-type ATPases operate through a Post-Albers reaction cycle, alternating between at least two principal conformations designated E1 and E2 [61]. This fundamental mechanism is conserved from bacterial to human P-type ATPases:

• The E1 conformation exhibits high affinity for exported substrates and low affinity for imported substrates
• The E2 conformation displays low affinity for exported substrates and high affinity for imported substrates
• Four major enzyme states (E1, E1~P, E2P, E2) form the cornerstones of the reaction cycle, with several intermediate states

This alternating access mechanism ensures vectorial transport by switching the accessibility of substrate-binding sites from one side of the membrane to the other [2].

Experimental Analysis of Domain Function

Research Reagent Solutions for P-type ATPase Studies

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for P-type ATPase Functional Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research	Application Context
ATPase Activity Assays	Baginski assay	Measures inorganic phosphate release to quantify ATP hydrolysis	Determining specific activity of purified P-type ATPases [63]
Inhibitors	Ouabain, Edelfosine	Specific inhibitors of particular P-type ATPases	Functional characterization; resistance studies [6]
Directed Evolution Systems	S. cerevisiae ABC16-Monster strain	Generates resistant mutants for target identification	Identifying resistance mutations in ScPMA1 [6]
Gene Editing Tools	CRISPR/Cas9	Precise introduction of point mutations	Validation of resistance mutations (e.g., ScPMA1 L290S) [6]
Structural Biology	Cryo-EM, X-ray crystallography	High-resolution structure determination	Elucidating conformational states (e.g., SERCA1a) [2]
Biophysical Assays	Biolayer interferometry (BLI)	Direct monitoring of protein-protein interactions	Studying ParA-ParB interactions in DNA segregation [64]

Experimental Protocol: Assessing Inhibitor Sensitivity in P-type ATPase Mutants

The following methodology outlines a standardized approach for evaluating compound sensitivity in P-type ATPase mutants, with specific application to ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine:

• Strain Construction:

  • Generate isogenic yeast strains with specific ScPMA1 mutations using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing
  • Include vector controls and wild-type ScPMA1 strains as comparators [6]

• Growth Inhibition Assays:

  • Culture strains in appropriate medium to mid-logarithmic phase
  • Dilute cultures to standardized density and expose to serial dilutions of edelfosine or other compounds of interest
  • Incubate for 16-24 hours at optimal growth conditions
  • Measure growth inhibition using optical density (OD600) or viability assays [6]

• ATPase Activity Measurements:

  • Prepare membrane fractions from wild-type and mutant strains
  • Assess ATP hydrolysis using Baginski assay or coupled enzymatic assays
  • Determine IC50 values for inhibitors in cell-free systems [6] [63]

• Membrane Localization Studies:

  • Employ immunofluorescence or GFP-tagged protein constructs
  • Quantify plasma membrane displacement following edelfosine treatment [6]

• Data Analysis:

  • Calculate fold-change in sensitivity relative to wild-type controls
  • Perform statistical analyses to determine significance of observed differences

Domain-Specific Variations and Functional Implications

Subfamily-Specific Adaptations

While the core catalytic domains remain conserved across the P-type ATPase superfamily, significant subfamily-specific adaptations have evolved to accommodate diverse substrate specificities and regulatory mechanisms:

• P1A ATPases: Represented by the KdpFABC complex in bacteria, these ATPases have the simplest catalytic subunit (KdpB) with only seven transmembrane helices, yet form the most complicated quaternary structure among P-type ATPases. They exhibit exceptionally high ligand affinity and specificity for potassium ions [61].

• P1B ATPases: Heavy metal transporters feature additional N-terminal metal-binding domains that regulate their activity. These domains receive metal ions from chaperone proteins like CopZ and transfer them to the transmembrane transport sites [2].

• P3A ATPases: Plant and fungal plasma membrane proton pumps possess a C-terminal autoinhibitory domain that regulates pump activity. Phosphorylation of this domain relieves inhibition, allowing pump activation in response to cellular signals [2].

• P4 ATPases: These lipid flippases, unique to eukaryotes, are involved in establishing and maintaining membrane lipid asymmetry by translocating phospholipids between membrane leaflets [2].

Conservation in Drug Binding Sites

Studies on the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 (cipargamin) have revealed remarkable conservation of inhibitor binding sites between phylogenetically distant P-type ATPases. Resistance mutations in both Plasmodium falciparum PfATP4 and Saccharomyces cerevisiae ScPMA1 cluster in homologous regions of the E1-E2 ATPase domain, indicating functional conservation of these regions across evolutionary boundaries [6] [8]. Computer docking studies suggest a shared binding site with dihydroisoquinolone antimalarials, highlighting the potential for targeted drug development based on conserved structural features [8].

Research Applications and Future Directions

Experimental Workflow for Conservation Analysis

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for analyzing functional domain conservation in P-type ATPases across species:

Domain Organization of P-type ATPases

The fundamental domain architecture of P-type ATPases is depicted below, highlighting the conserved cytoplasmic domains and variable transmembrane regions:

The conservation analysis of P-type ATPase functional domains across species reveals a remarkable evolutionary balance between structural preservation and functional diversification. The catalytic core domains—P, N, and A—maintain strong conservation from prokaryotes to humans, reflecting their fundamental role in the enzyme's reaction mechanism. Conversely, the transmembrane domains and regulatory regions exhibit substantial variation, enabling adaptation to diverse substrate specificities and cellular contexts. This understanding of domain conservation provides valuable insights for drug discovery efforts, as exemplified by research on ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine, where conserved structural elements inform the development of broad-spectrum therapeutics targeting essential cellular pumps in pathogens.

Therapeutic vulnerability assessment represents a paradigm in precision medicine, focusing on identifying and exploiting specific molecular weaknesses in diseased cells for drug development. A cornerstone of this approach is the principle that genetic mutations, while often conferring resistance to certain therapies, can simultaneously induce new, targetable sensitivities. This concept is powerfully exemplified in the research surrounding S. cerevisiae Plasma Membrane ATPase 1 (ScPMA1), a P-type ATPase proton pump, and its altered sensitivity to the alkyl-lysophospholipid drug edelfosine.

Mutations in ScPMA1, an essential gene for maintaining cellular pH homeostasis, were initially discovered to confer resistance to the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 (cipargamin). Intriguingly, these same mutations were found to dramatically increase sensitivity to edelfosine, revealing a classic therapeutic vulnerability [10]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of experimental approaches, quantitative data, and methodological protocols central to this research, offering a framework for exploiting similar mutant sensitivities in other drug development contexts.

Comparative Analysis of ScPMA1 Mutant Drug Responses

Quantitative Profiling of Mutant Sensitivities

The core of vulnerability assessment lies in quantitatively comparing drug responses between wild-type and mutant phenotypes. Research on ScPMA1 mutants reveals a distinct pattern of cross-resistance and collateral sensitivity.

Table 1: Comparative Drug Sensitivity Profiles of ScPMA1 Mutants

Genotype	KAE609 IC₅₀ (μM)	Fold Change vs. WT	Edelfosine IC₅₀	Fold Change vs. WT	Key Phenotypic Observations
Wild-Type (SY025)	89.4 ± 18.1 [10]	(Baseline)	Not Available	(Baseline)	Normal cytosolic pH maintenance [10]
ABC16-Monster (WT, No Efflux Pumps)	6.09 ± 0.74 [10]	~15x Increase in Potency	Not Available	Not Available	Increased susceptibility to KAE609 due to lack of export [10]
L290S CRISPR Mutant	~15.2* [10]	~2.5x Increase (Resistance)	7.5x Lower than WT [10]	7.5x Increase in Sensitivity	Cytosolic acidification upon KAE609 exposure [10]
Lineage 1 (Pro339Thr)	40.5 ± 4.7 [10]	~6.7x Increase (Resistance)	Not Available	Increased Sensitivity* [10]	Associated with KAE609 resistance in directed evolution
Lineage 2 (Leu290Ser)	61.5 ± 7.1 [10]	~10x Increase (Resistance)	Not Available	Increased Sensitivity* [10]	Associated with KAE609 resistance in directed evolution

*Estimated based on reported 2.5-fold increase from CRISPR validation. *General increased sensitivity to edelfosine confirmed for mutants, though specific fold-change not provided for all lineages.

Mechanistic Insights and Broaching Therapeutic Relevance

The inverse relationship between KAE609 resistance and edelfosine sensitivity points to a fundamental functional impairment in the mutant pumps. The ScPMA1 mutations (Leu290Ser, Gly294Ser, Asn291Lys, Pro339Thr) are clustered in the E1-E2 ATPase domain, affecting a cytoplasm-accessible pocket critical for pump function [10]. This compromises the pump's ability to maintain ion homeostasis, making the cell more reliant on proper membrane composition and integrity, which is directly disrupted by edelfosine's mechanism of action.

Furthermore, the relevance of this yeast model for human health is bolstered by edelfosine's documented antitumor efficacy. Edelfosine nanoemulsions have demonstrated significant tumor growth inhibition in a triple-negative breast cancer zebrafish xenograft model, highlighting the drug's potential as a therapeutic agent [29]. This underscores the value of understanding the fundamental cellular vulnerabilities that edelfosine exploits.

Experimental Protocols for Vulnerability Assessment

Directed Evolution and Resistance Selection

This protocol is used to identify potential drug targets and resistance-conferring mutations.

• Strain Preparation: Begin with a sensitized yeast strain (e.g., ABC16-Monster) lacking 16 ABC drug efflux pumps to enhance compound susceptibility [10].
• Compound Exposure: Inoculate multiple parallel clonal cultures in media containing a sub-inhibitory concentration of the compound of interest (e.g., KAE609).
• Stepwise Selection: As growth recovers, periodically passage cells into fresh media with incrementally increasing compound concentrations. A typical experiment may involve 3-5 selection rounds [10].
• Clone Isolation: After significant resistance emerges, isolate single clones from the final selection populations for genomic analysis.

Whole-Genome Sequencing for Mutation Identification

This protocol identifies the genetic basis of the acquired resistance.

• DNA Extraction: Prepare high-quality genomic DNA from the resistant clones and the ancestral, sensitive parent strain.
• Library Preparation & Sequencing: Fragment the DNA, prepare sequencing libraries, and sequence on an appropriate platform to achieve sufficient coverage (>40-fold recommended) [10].
• Variant Calling: Align sequences to the reference genome and use bioinformatic tools to call single nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions/deletions (indels), and copy number variants (CNVs).
• Variant Filtering: Filter variants present in the resistant clones but absent in the parent strain. Prioritize non-synonymous mutations in coding regions, particularly those occurring in multiple independent lineages.

Genetic Validation via CRISPR/Cas9

This protocol confirms that identified mutations are sufficient to confer the observed phenotype.

• CRISPR System Design: Design a guide RNA (gRNA) to target the wild-type locus of the gene of interest (e.g., ScPMA1).
• Donor Template Construction: Create a donor DNA template containing the desired point mutation (e.g., Leu290Ser) flanked by homology arms.
• Transformation: Co-transform the sensitive parent strain with plasmids expressing Cas9, the gRNA, and the donor repair template.
• Phenotypic Confirmation: Isolate transformants and confirm the introduction of the mutation via Sanger sequencing. Re-evaluate the drug sensitivity profile (IC₅₀) of the engineered mutant to validate the causal role of the mutation [10].

Intracellular pH Measurement

This protocol assesses the functional consequence of drug action or mutation on the primary target.

• Strain Engineering: Use a strain expressing a cytosolic pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (pHluorin) [10].
• Drug Treatment & Measurement: Treat cells with the compound (e.g., 200 μM KAE609) for a set period (e.g., 3 hours). Harvest cells and measure fluorescence.
• Data Analysis: Calculate the cytoplasmic pH based on the fluorescence ratio. A significant drop in pH (e.g., from 7.14 to 6.88), indicating hydrogen ion accumulation, is consistent with the inhibition of the proton pump ScPma1p [10].

Visualizing the Vulnerability Workflow and Mechanism

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual and experimental pathway from discovering a resistance mutation to exploiting the resultant therapeutic vulnerability.

Figure 1: From Resistance Mutation to Therapeutic Vulnerability. This workflow outlines the key experimental steps for identifying and validating a target mutation and its associated collateral sensitivity.

The molecular mechanism by which ScPMA1 mutations confer resistance to one drug while creating sensitivity to another is detailed below.

Figure 2: Mechanism of Mutant-Driven Vulnerability. Mutations in ScPMA1 alter the drug-binding site, conferring KAE609 resistance but destabilizing the pump, making it vulnerable to edelfosine.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Reagents and Resources for ScPMA1 and Vulnerability Research

Reagent/Resource	Function/Description	Example Use in Context
Sensitized Yeast Strain (ABC16-Monster)	Engineered S. cerevisiae lacking 16 ABC transporters, reducing drug efflux and increasing compound susceptibility [10].	Initial compound screening and in vitro evolution experiments to identify resistance mutations with greater efficiency.
Alkyl-Lysophospholipid (Edelfosine)	A synthetic lipid that accumulates in plasma membranes and disrupts lipid raft function, leading to apoptosis [65] [29].	The exploitative agent used to target cells with ScPMA1 mutations; tested in free form or in nanoemulsions.
Spiroindolone (KAE609/Cipargamin)	A potent antimalarial compound identified as a P-type ATPase inhibitor [10] [66].	The selective agent used in directed evolution to drive resistance mutations in ScPMA1.
CRISPR/Cas9 System	A genome editing system allowing for precise introduction of point mutations into the yeast genome [10].	Validation that specific ScPMA1 mutations (e.g., L290S) are sufficient to cause the KAE609-resistant, edelfosine-sensitive phenotype.
pH-Sensitive Fluorophore (pHluorin)	A genetically encoded green fluorescent protein whose fluorescence intensity is dependent on the surrounding pH [10].	Measurement of cytosolic acidification as a functional readout of ScPma1p inhibition by KAE609.
Nanoemulsion Delivery System	A lipid-based nanocarrier composed of excipients like Miglyol and phosphatidylcholine, used to improve drug solubility and bioavailability [29].	Delivery vehicle for edelfosine in in vivo models (e.g., zebrafish xenografts) to assess antitumor efficacy and reduce potential toxicity.

The study of drug resistance mechanisms is fundamental to developing robust therapeutic agents. This guide objectively compares the resistance profiles of two bioactive compounds—the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 (Cipargamin) and the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine—in the model organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The central focus is on mutations in ScPMA1, a gene encoding a essential P-type ATPase that maintains proton homeostasis. Research demonstrates that mutations conferring resistance to KAE609 simultaneously induce hypersensitivity to edelfosine, revealing a functionally important inverse relationship [10]. This comparison is critical for researchers and drug development professionals investigating ATPase function, membrane biology, and evolutionary resistance in antimicrobial therapies.

Comparative Resistance and Sensitivity Profiles

The contrasting phenotypes of ScPMA1 mutants form the core of this analysis. The following table summarizes the key experimental findings regarding their response to KAE609 and edelfosine.

Table 1: Contrasting Drug Response Profiles of ScPMA1 Mutants

Parameter	KAE609 (Spiroindolone)	Edelfosine (Alkyl-lysophospholipid)
Wild-Type Response	Inhibition of growth (IC₅₀ ~6 µM in ABC16-Monster strain) [10]	Cytotoxic effect [67]
Mutant Response	Resistance (2.5-fold increase in IC₅₀ in engineered L290S mutant) [10]	Hypersensitivity (7.5-fold increase in sensitivity in engineered L290S mutant) [10]
Primary Genetic Determinant	Missense mutations in ScPMA1 (e.g., L290S, G294S, N291K, P339T) [10]	Not primarily mutations in ScPMA1; resistance linked to defective drug uptake (e.g., lem3 mutation) [67]
Inferred Functional Consequence	Direct inhibition of ScPma1p ATPase activity is circumvented [10]	Altered ScPma1p protein is more susceptible to membrane displacement or degradation [10]

Detailed Experimental Data and Protocols

To enable replication and critical evaluation, this section outlines the core methodologies and quantitative data from the key experiments underlying the profiles in Table 1.

In Vitro Evolution and Resistance Selection

The initial discovery of ScPMA1's role in KAE609 resistance was made through directed evolution experiments [10].

• Protocol: The drug-sensitive ABC16-Monster yeast strain (lacking 16 ABC transporters) was subjected to serial passages in liquid culture with increasing concentrations of KAE609 [10]. Clonal isolates from resistant populations were whole-genome sequenced to identify causative mutations.
• Key Findings: All three independently evolved resistant lineages contained missense mutations in the essential gene ScPMA1 [10]. A separate, large-scale evolution study of 80 compounds confirmed the specificity of ScPMA1 mutations to the spiroindolone class [68]. Mutations in transcription factors like YRR1 were also found but were less specific and provided only moderate resistance [10].

Genetic Validation via CRISPR/Cas9 Engineering

The sufficiency of ScPMA1 mutations for the resistance phenotype was confirmed through genetic engineering [10].

• Protocol: The specific L290S mutation identified in the evolution experiments was introduced into the genome of the naive ABC16-Monster strain using CRISPR/Cas9. The resulting isogenic mutant strain was then tested for its drug sensitivity profile [10].
• Quantitative Data: The engineered L290S mutant showed a 2.5-fold increase in resistance to KAE609 and a 7.5-fold increase in sensitivity to edelfosine, perfectly recapitulating the evolved phenotype [10]. This confirms that the ScPMA1 mutation alone is sufficient to cause both traits.

Functional Assays: Intracellular pH and ATPase Activity

The mechanistic link between KAE609 and ScPma1p function was established through functional assays.

• Intracellular pH Measurement: A yeast strain expressing the pH-sensitive fluorescent protein pHluorin was treated with 200 µM KAE609. After 3 hours, the cytoplasmic pH dropped from 7.14 to 6.88, representing an 80.6% increase in hydrogen ion concentration (p=0.0024) [10]. This is consistent with the inhibition of ScPma1p's proton-pumping activity.
• In Vitro ATPase Assay: A cell-free assay demonstrated that KAE609 directly inhibits the ATPase activity of purified ScPma1p, providing conclusive evidence that it is a direct inhibitor and not merely an indirect effector [10].

Mechanistic Pathways and Logical Workflow

The following diagrams illustrate the established mechanisms of action for both compounds and the experimental workflow used to identify the resistance patterns.

Contrasted Mechanisms of Action

Diagram 1: Drug Mechanisms in Wild-Type vs. Mutant Cells

Experimental Identification Workflow

Diagram 2: Resistance Mechanism Discovery Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following table catalogues key reagents and their applications for researching these resistance phenomena.

Table 2: Key Reagents for ScPMA1 and Drug Resistance Research

Reagent / Tool	Function/Description	Experimental Application
ABC16-Monster Yeast Strain	Engineered S. cerevisiae with 16 ABC transporter genes deleted [10].	Enhances compound sensitivity by preventing efflux; essential for in vitro evolution and potency testing [10] [68].
KAE609 (Cipargamin)	Spiroindolone antimalarial compound, a P-type ATPase inhibitor [10].	The selective agent for evolution experiments; used in ATPase and pH functional assays [10].
Edelfosine	Alkyl-lysophospholipid, an antitumor ether lipid [69].	Tool compound used to probe membrane integrity and ScPma1p stability; induces hypersensitivity in ScPMA1 mutants [10] [67].
pHluorin	pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (GFP) variant [10].	Expressed in yeast to measure real-time changes in cytosolic pH upon drug treatment [10].
SCRISPR/Cas9 System	Genome editing technology for S. cerevisiae.	Validates the sufficiency of specific point mutations (e.g., L290S in ScPMA1) by creating isogenic mutant strains [10].
lem3Δ Mutant Strain	Yeast strain defective in the Lem3 subunit of phospholipid flippase [67].	Used to study edelfosine uptake; resistant to edelfosine due to impaired drug internalization [67].

P-type ATPases constitute a major family of ion and lipid pumps that are critical for maintaining cellular homeostasis. Among these, the P4-ATPase subfamily functions as lipid flippases, establishing and maintaining phospholipid asymmetry in cell membranes—a feature vital for cell signaling, survival, and identity [70]. Dysfunction of these pumps is increasingly implicated in oncogenesis, as the loss of membrane lipid asymmetry can enable cancer cells to evade immune detection and promote survival [70]. A growing body of evidence suggests that sensitivity to the alkyl-lysophospholipid edelfosine may serve as a functional indicator of underlying P-type ATPase dysfunction. Edelfosine, a synthetic ether lipid, exhibits selective antitumor activity and accumulates in both the endoplasmic reticulum and plasma membrane lipid rafts of cancer cells, triggering apoptosis through multiple pathways [41] [53]. This review synthesizes experimental data supporting the hypothesis that cellular sensitivity to edelfosine can reveal functional deficiencies in P-type ATPases, positioning it as a valuable biomarker for identifying specific molecular lesions in cancer and guiding targeted therapeutic strategies.

Mechanistic Links Between P-type ATPases and Edelfosine

The P-type ATPase Family and Their Cellular Roles

P-type ATPases are a ubiquitous family of membrane pumps that utilize ATP hydrolysis to transport ions and lipids across biological membranes. They are characterized by the formation of an aspartyl-phosphate intermediate during their catalytic cycle [71]. The family is divided into five major types (P1-P5), with P2-type ATPases including the well-characterized Na+/K+ ATPase (NKA) and Ca2+ ATPase (SERCA), and P4-type ATPases (P4-ATPases) acting as phospholipid translocators [70] [71]. These pumps are fundamental to numerous physiological processes, from neuronal action potential generation to the establishment of membrane phospholipid asymmetry.

P4-ATPases as Lipid Flippases: The P4-ATPases, in particular, function as lipid flippases that catalyze the translocation of phospholipids—primarily phosphatidylserine (PS) and phosphatidylethanolamine (PE)—from the outer to the inner leaflet of the plasma membrane. This activity creates an asymmetric lipid distribution that is critical for cellular functions such as membrane trafficking, cell signaling, and the externalization of "eat-me" signals during apoptosis [70]. Table 1 summarizes the major classes of mammalian P4-ATPases and their known lipid substrates.

Table 1: Mammalian P4-ATPases and Their Lipid Substrates

Class	Name	Lipid Substrate	Sub-Cellular Localization
1a	ATP8A1	PS, PE	Plasma Membrane, TGN, Endosome
1a	ATP8A2	PS, PE	Plasma Membrane, TGN, Endosome
1b	ATP8B1	PS, PC, Cardiolipin?	Plasma Membrane
1b	ATP8B2	PC	Plasma Membrane
1b	ATP8B3	PS?	ER, TNG
5	ATP10A	PC, GlcCer	Plasma Membrane
6	ATP11A	PS, PE	Plasma Membrane
6	ATP11B	PS, PE	Endosome
6	ATP11C	PS, PE	Plasma Membrane

Edelfosine: A Multi-Target Antitumor Ether Lipid

Edelfosine (ET-18-O-CH3) is the prototype of a family of synthetic antitumor alkyl-lysophospholipids. Its structure consists of a long alkyl chain linked by an ether bond to a glycerol backbone with a methoxy group and a phosphocholine headgroup [16]. Unlike conventional chemotherapeutics, edelfosine does not target DNA but incorporates into cellular membranes, exerting its effects primarily through the modulation of lipid-dependent signaling pathways.

The compound's mechanism of action is multi-faceted. It accumulates selectively in tumor cells, localizing to both lipid rafts in the plasma membrane and the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) [41] [53]. In lipid rafts, it can disrupt survival signaling by inhibiting the PI3K/Akt pathway and can induce apoptosis by clustering and activating the Fas/CD95 death receptor [16]. Simultaneously, its accumulation in the ER induces persistent ER stress, leading to the unfolded protein response and apoptosis [41]. This dual targeting underlies its selective toxicity toward cancer cells while sparing normal cells.

Experimental Evidence Connecting Edelfosine Sensitivity and P-type ATPase Function

The foundational evidence linking edelfosine sensitivity directly to P-type ATPase status comes from a comparative chemical genomics study in S. cerevisiae. Researchers found that yeast acquiring mutations in the P-type ATPase gene ScPMA1 following exposure to the spiroindolone antimalarial KAE609 (Cipargamin) also displayed cross-sensitivity to edelfosine [8]. This finding indicated a functional relationship between a specific P-type ATPase and cellular response to edelfosine. Furthermore, the study demonstrated that KAE609 directly inhibits ScPma1p ATPase activity in a cell-free assay, establishing a paradigm where a chemical agent (KAE609) and edelfosine share a common functional relationship with a P-type ATPase [8].

This connection is further supported by the role of P4-ATPases in maintaining membrane phosphatidylserine (PS) asymmetry. Cancer cells often display reduced flippase activity, leading to increased external PS, which helps them evade immune surveillance [70]. Edelfosine has been shown to target and downregulate membrane raft-associated proteins like CD44, and its antimetastatic activity is linked to its ability to remodel the plasma membrane [53]. The convergence of edelfosine's action and P4-ATPase function on plasma membrane organization provides a mechanistic basis for why edelfosine sensitivity could report on P-type ATPase dysfunction.

The diagram below illustrates the core hypothesis and the experimental observation that connects P-type ATPase dysfunction to increased cellular sensitivity to edelfosine.

Figure 1: Core Hypothesis: P-type ATPase dysfunction alters membrane asymmetry, promoting cancer hallmarks and creating a target for edelfosine, whose sensitivity serves as a biomarker.

Comparative Experimental Data: Edelfosine Sensitivity Across Biological Systems

The utility of edelfosine sensitivity as a biomarker is demonstrated by its correlated effects across diverse experimental models, from yeast to human cancer cells. The quantitative data from these studies provides a basis for comparative analysis.

Yeast Model: Linking ScPMA1 Mutations to Edelfosine Sensitivity

The yeast S. cerevisiae provides a genetically tractable model that first established the functional link between P-type ATPases and edelfosine. The key experiment showed that mutations in ScPMA1, which confers resistance to the P-type ATPase inhibitor KAE609, simultaneously cause hypersensitivity to edelfosine [8]. This inverse relationship suggests that compromising the function of one P-type ATPase (Pma1p) can alter the cell's physiological state in a way that makes it more vulnerable to the membrane-targeting action of edelfosine.

Table 2: Edelfosine Sensitivity and P-type ATPase Cross-Talk in Yeast

Genotype/Phenotype	Response to KAE609	Response to Edelfosine	Inferred P-type ATPase Function
Wild-Type S. cerevisiae	Sensitive	Baseline Sensitivity	Normal
ScPMA1 Mutant	Resistant	Hypersensitive	Disrupted/Loss-of-function

Human Cancer Models: Correlating Edelfosine Response with Cellular Phenotypes

In human cancer cell lines, edelfosine sensitivity varies considerably and correlates with specific cellular and molecular phenotypes. The data below summarize findings from several cancer types.

Table 3: Edelfosine Sensitivity Profiles in Human Cancer Cell Lines

Cancer Type	Cell Line / Model	Key Experimental Finding	Proposed Mechanism Linked to P-type ATPase Dysfunction
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)	NCI-H157, H520, H522	Significant cytotoxicity, G2/M arrest, apoptosis [72]	High constitutive PS exposure suggests low flippase activity [70].
Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC)	Various SCLC lines	Resistant to significant apoptosis [72]	Potentially maintained flippase activity and membrane homeostasis.
Metastatic Breast Cancer	435-Lung, MDA-MB-231	Inhibition of adhesion, migration, invasion; in vivo suppression of lung/brain colonization [53]	Edelfosine accumulation in lipid rafts and ER; downregulation of raft-associated CD44.
Pancreatic Cancer	PDAC models	Selective uptake and apoptosis via persistent ER stress [41]	Highly developed ER in pancreatic cells increases vulnerability to ER-targeting.
Prostate Cancer	LNCaP, VCaP	Synergistic apoptosis with androgen deprivation; inhibition of AKT/AR signaling [56]	Modulation of survival pathways downstream of membrane lipid signaling.

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Assessing the Biomarker

To empirically establish edelfosine sensitivity as a biomarker for P-type ATPase dysfunction, a set of key experiments can be employed. The following protocols detail the methodologies cited in the supporting literature.

Protocol 1: Cell Viability and Apoptosis Assay

This protocol is used to quantify the cytotoxic and pro-apoptotic effects of edelfosine on cancer cells, as performed in studies on lung and prostate cancer cells [56] [72].

Methodology:

• Cell Seeding and Treatment: Seed target cells (e.g., NSCLC, SCLC, prostate cancer lines) in 96-well plates or other appropriate tissue culture vessels. After cell attachment, treat with a dose range of edelfosine (e.g., 0-20 μM) for 24-72 hours. Include vehicle control (PBS).
• Viability Measurement: Assess cell viability using methods like the MTT assay or real-time cell analysis (e.g., xCELLigence System) which measures electrical impedance as a Cell Index [56].
• Apoptosis Quantification:
  • Annexin V Staining: Harvest cells after edelfosine treatment, stain with Annexin V-FITC and a viability dye like propidium iodide (PI). Analyze by flow cytometry to distinguish early apoptotic (Annexin V+/PI-), late apoptotic (Annexin V+/PI+), and necrotic (Annexin V-/PI+) cells [56].
  • Caspase 3/7 Activity Assay: Lyse treated cells and incubate with a pro-fluorescent caspase-3/7 substrate. Measure the resulting fluorescence with a plate reader, which is directly proportional to caspase activity [56].

Protocol 2: In Vivo Assessment of Metastatic Colonization

This protocol evaluates the anti-metastatic efficacy of edelfosine, as demonstrated in models of breast cancer metastasis [53].

Methodology:

• Cell Preparation: Use luciferase-expressing metastatic cells (e.g., 435-Lung-eGFP-CMV/Luc).
• Animal Modeling: Inject cancer cells into immunocompromised mice (e.g., nude mice) via the tail vein (for lung colonization) or intracardially (for brain colonization).
• Drug Administration: Administer edelfosine orally (e.g., in drinking water or by gavage) at a predetermined, well-tolerated dose.
• Monitoring and Analysis:
  • Bioluminescence Imaging (BLI): At regular intervals, inject mice with D-luciferin substrate and image using an in vivo imaging system to non-invasively monitor and quantify tumor burden.
  • Histological Examination: At endpoint, harvest organs (lungs, brain), section and stain with Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) to count metastatic foci.
  • Survival Analysis: Monitor and record survival times of control versus edelfosine-treated groups.

Protocol 3: Membrane Lipid Asymmetry and Flippase Activity Analysis

This protocol is critical for directly correlating edelfosine sensitivity with the functional status of P4-ATPases.

Methodology:

• PS/PE Externalization Assay: Label live cells with fluorescent Annexin V (binds externalized PS) or specific antibodies against surface PE. Analyze by flow cytometry. Higher fluorescence indicates loss of membrane asymmetry and potential flippase deficiency [70].
• Flippase Activity Measurement:
  • Fluorescent Lipid Analogue Incorporation: Incubate cells with fluorescently tagged PS or PE analogues (e.g., NBD-labeled).
  • Back-exchange or Quenching: After incorporation, use a back-extraction procedure with bovine serum albumin (BSA) or an impermanent quenching agent to remove or quench fluorescence from lipids in the outer leaflet. The remaining internalized fluorescence, measured by flow cytometry or fluorometry, corresponds to flippase activity.
• Genetic/Knockdown Validation: Correlate the above functional assays with the genetic or protein expression status of specific P4-ATPases (e.g., ATP8A1, ATP11C) via siRNA knockdown or CRISPR-Cas9 knockout. Successful knockdown should increase surface PS/PE and, hypothetically, increase edelfosine sensitivity.

The workflow for a comprehensive assessment that connects these experimental protocols is outlined below.

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Biomarker Validation. This workflow integrates membrane phenotyping with functional drug response assays to establish a correlative link.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

To implement the experimental protocols outlined above, researchers will require a specific set of reagents and tools. The following table details these essential materials.

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Investigating the Edelfosine-P-type ATPase Axis

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Example or Source
Edelfosine (ET-18-O-CH3)	The core investigative compound used for cytotoxicity, apoptosis, and anti-metastasis assays.	Sigma-Aldrich (Cat# E1027); Prepared in PBS [56].
Annexin V Conjugates (FITC, PE)	Flow cytometry-based detection of phosphatidylserine (PS) externalization on the plasma membrane outer leaflet.	Commercial apoptosis detection kits (e.g., Guava Nexin kit, BioLegend) [56].
NBD-labeled Phospholipids (NBD-PS, NBD-PE)	Fluorescent lipid analogues used in direct assays to measure flippase activity in cells.	Avanti Polar Lipids.
xCELLigence Real-Time Cell Analyzer	Label-free, real-time monitoring of cell proliferation, viability, and cytotoxic response to edelfosine.	ACEA Biosciences [56].
Caspase-3/7 Homogeneous Assay Kit	Fluorometric quantification of caspase-3/7 activation as a key marker of apoptosis induction.	Promega (Apo-ONE) [56].
Luciferase-Expressing Cancer Cell Lines	Essential for in vivo tracking of metastatic colonization and response to therapy using bioluminescence imaging.	Engineered lines like 435-Lung-eGFP-CMV/Luc [53].
P4-ATPase Specific Antibodies	Immunodetection (Western Blot, Immunofluorescence) of P4-ATPase protein expression and subcellular localization.	Various commercial suppliers (e.g., Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Cell Signaling Technology) [70].
P4-ATPase siRNA/shRNA Libraries	Genetic knockdown tools to directly manipulate P4-ATPase expression and study functional consequences.	Dharmacon, Sigma-Aldrich, MISSION shRNA.

The accumulated evidence from yeast genetics to human cancer models strongly supports the potential of edelfosine sensitivity as a functional biomarker for P-type ATPase dysfunction. The inverse relationship between resistance to a direct P-type ATPase inhibitor and hypersensitivity to edelfosine provides a compelling genetic argument [8]. Furthermore, the consistent efficacy of edelfosine in cancers with inherent membrane remodeling—such as those with high constitutive PS exposure—suggests it is targeting a vulnerability created by flippase deficiency [70] [53].

Future research should focus on definitively validating this biomarker by systematically correlating edelfosine sensitivity with the mutational status, expression levels, and functional activity of specific P4-ATPases across a wide panel of cancer cell lines and primary patient samples. The integration of this biomarker into clinical drug development could help identify patient populations most likely to respond to edelfosine or related alkylphospholipids. Moreover, exploring combination therapies that exploit P-type ATPase dysfunction—for instance, by combining edelfosine with PS-targeting immunotherapies—represents a promising avenue for achieving synergistic antitumor activity. The journey of edelfosine from a laboratory tool to a biomarker-guided therapeutic exemplifies the power of leveraging fundamental cell biology for innovative cancer treatment strategies.

The study of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Plasma Membrane ATPase 1 (ScPMA1) has emerged as a critical model system for advancing our understanding of antimalarial drug mechanisms and resistance management. As an essential proton pump that maintains cellular pH homeostasis and nutrient transport in yeast, ScPMA1 serves as a homolog for similar P-type ATPases in pathogenic organisms, including the Plasmodium falciparum ATPase (PfATP4) targeted by next-generation antimalarial compounds [6] [25]. The alkyl-lysophospholipid analog edelfosine has gained significant research interest due to its distinctive mechanism of action that exhibits heightened potency against ScPMA1 mutants, providing valuable insights for overcoming drug resistance in antimicrobial therapies [6] [73]. This comparative analysis examines the experimental evidence, methodological approaches, and translational applications of ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine, offering a framework for developing novel therapeutic strategies against drug-resistant pathogens.

Comparative Efficacy of Alkyl-Lysophospholipid Analogs

Relative Potency Across Biological Systems

Table 1: Comparative Efficacy of Alkyl-Lysophospholipid Analogs (ALPs)

Compound	Antileishmanial Activity Ranking	Relative Apoptotic Induction	ScPMA1 Mutant Sensitivity	Research Applications
Edelfosine	1 (Most potent)	Highest apoptosis-like cell death	7.5-fold increased sensitivity [6]	Prototype molecule, gold standard for ALP studies
Miltefosine	3	Moderate	Not documented	First oral leishmaniasis treatment, resistance proneness model
Perifosine	2	Intermediate	Not documented	Oncology clinical trials, intermediate efficacy model
Erucylphosphocholine	4 (Least potent)	Lowest	Not documented	Reference for structure-activity relationships

Edelfosine demonstrates superior potency both in parasitic models and yeast systems. In Leishmania studies, edelfosine ranked highest in antileishmanial activity and capacity to promote apoptosis-like cell death in both promastigote and amastigote forms across distinct species [74]. This heightened efficacy extends to yeast models, where ScPMA1 mutants show a 7.5-fold increase in sensitivity to edelfosine compared to wild-type strains [6]. The consistency of this potency profile across biological systems underscores its value as a research tool and therapeutic lead.

Advantages Over Clinical Comparators

Table 2: Edelfosine Versus Approved Antimicrobial Agents

Parameter	Edelfosine	Miltefosine	Cipargamin (KAE609)
Primary Target	Mitochondria, FOF1-ATP synthase, lipid rafts [73]	Not fully elucidated (likely membrane disruption)	PfATP4/ScPMA1 P-type ATPase [6]
Resistance Proneness	Lower proneness in Leishmania [74]	Rapid in vitro resistance generation [74]	Resistance via point mutations [6]
Therapeutic Scope	Antileishmanial, antitumor, antifungal research	Approved for VL & CL, antileishmanial	Phase II antimalarial [66]
Key Advantage	Oral efficacy, targets multiple pathogens, lower resistance	Oral administration available	Novel spiroindolone class, rapid parasite clearance

Edelfosine exhibits distinct advantages in resistance management compared to currently deployed therapeutics. Whereas miltefosine shows rapid in vitro resistance generation in Leishmania models and varying clinical efficacy depending on species (e.g., 94% cure rates for L. donovani versus 53% for some L. braziliensis infections) [74], edelfosine demonstrates lower proneness to resistance development in laboratory studies [74]. Similarly, while cipargamin represents a promising antimalarial in clinical trials, resistance emerges readily through point mutations in its PfATP4 target [6]. Edelfosine's multi-target mechanism involving mitochondrial disruption and FOF1-ATP synthase recruitment to lipid rafts may present a higher barrier to resistance compared to single-target agents [73].

Experimental Workflows and Methodologies

Yeast-Based Directed Evolution and Resistance Screening

The yeast-directed evolution workflow represents a powerful approach for identifying resistance mechanisms and cross-sensitivities. Researchers utilize the ABC16-Monster yeast strain, which lacks 16 ABC transporter genes, to enhance compound susceptibility and reduce efflux-mediated resistance [6] [25]. Following exposure to increasing drug concentrations (e.g., KAE609), resistant clones undergo whole-genome sequencing to identify mutations, with ScPMA1 emerging as the primary resistance determinant [6]. CRISPR-mediated introduction of specific ScPMA1 mutations (L290S, G294S, P339T) confirms their sufficiency for resistance, while subsequent cross-sensitivity profiling reveals heightened susceptibility to edelfosine [6].

Vesicular ATPase Inhibition Assay

The vesicular ATPase inhibition assay provides a cell-free system for direct target validation. This methodology involves:

• Vesicle Preparation: Harvesting vesicles from yeast strains engineered for high ScPma1p expression due to defective secretory-vesicle/plasma-membrane fusion [25]
• ATP Hydrolysis Measurement: Quantifying inorganic phosphate release as a measure of ATPase activity [25]
• Dose-Response Profiling: Testing compound inhibition across concentration gradients to determine IC50 values [25]

This assay confirmed direct ScPma1p inhibition by KAE609 with IC50 values of 6.09 ± 0.74 μM in whole-cell ABC16-Monster assays [6], establishing a foundational protocol for evaluating novel ScPMA1 inhibitors.

Intracellular pH Measurement

Mechanistic studies employ pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (pHluorin) to monitor drug effects on proton homeostasis:

• Strain Engineering: S. cerevisiae expressing cytosolic pHluorin [6]
• Drug Exposure: Treatment with ScPma1p inhibitors (e.g., 200 μM KAE609 for 3 hours) [6]
• Fluorescence Monitoring: Measuring cytoplasmic acidification via ratiometric imaging [6]
• Data Analysis: Calculating hydrogen ion concentration changes (80.6% increase reported for KAE609) [6]

This approach directly demonstrates the functional consequence of ScPma1p inhibition, connecting molecular targeting to physiological disruption.

Mechanistic Insights and Signaling Pathways

Edelfosine's Multi-Target Mechanism of Action

Edelfosine exhibits a multi-mechanistic action that distinguishes it from more target-specific antimicrobials. In both tumor cells and Leishmania parasites, edelfosine accumulates in cholesterol-rich lipid rafts and triggers the recruitment of FOF1-ATP synthase into these membrane microdomains [73]. Concurrently, it targets mitochondrial structures (kinetoplast in parasites), disrupting transmembrane potential and initiating an apoptosis-like death cascade [73]. Genetic evidence confirms the critical nature of these targets, as Bcl-XL overexpression inhibits edelfosine-induced death, and FOF1-ATP synthase deletion confers resistance in yeast [73]. This multi-target mechanism may explain the reduced resistance proneness observed in comparative studies.

ScPMA1 Binding Pocket Architecture and Resistance Mutations

Computational and genetic analyses reveal a cytoplasm-accessible pocket within ScPma1p's membrane-spanning domain that accommodates small-molecule inhibitors. Homology modeling of wild-type ScPma1p in the E2 (cation-free) state maps resistance mutations (Leu290Ser, Gly294Ser, Pro339Thr) to a well-defined pocket large enough to accommodate inhibitory compounds [6]. These mutations line a putative binding site that may be shared by structurally diverse inhibitors, including spiroindolones and dihydroisoquinolones [6]. The spatial clustering of these resistance mutations informs rational drug design to overcome resistance through compounds targeting adjacent regions or employing alternative binding modes.

Research Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Assay Systems

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for ScPMA1-Edelfosine Studies

Reagent/System	Function/Application	Key Features & Research Utility
ABC16-Monster Yeast Strain	Enhanced compound susceptibility	Deletion of 16 ABC transporter genes reduces efflux, increases sensitivity [6]
ScPMA1 Point Mutants	Resistance mechanism studies	L290S, G294S, P339T mutations for binding pocket analysis [6]
Vesicular ScPma1p Assay	Cell-free target validation	Direct ATPase activity measurement, eliminates permeability confounders [25]
pH-Sensitive pHluorin	Intracellular pH monitoring	Ratiometric measurement of cytoplasmic acidification after treatment [6]
FOF1-ATP Synthase Inhibitors	Mechanism elucidation	Oligomycin, azide; confirm target engagement in lipid rafts [73]
Bcl-XL Expressing Cells	Apoptosis pathway analysis	Inhibits edelfosine-induced death, confirms mitochondrial involvement [73]

This research toolkit enables comprehensive investigation of ScPMA1-targeting compounds and their mechanisms. The ABC16-Monster yeast strain provides a sensitive background for initial compound screening by minimizing efflux-based resistance [6] [25]. Isogenic strains carrying specific ScPMA1 mutations allow direct assessment of target-specific resistance, while the vesicular ATPase assay uncovers direct inhibitors versus those acting through indirect mechanisms [25]. Functional reporters like pHluorin connect molecular targeting to physiological consequences, creating a multi-level validation pipeline from target to phenotype.

Translational Applications and Resistance Management

The study of ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine provides critical insights for antimicrobial development and resistance management. Several translational applications emerge from this research:

Companion Targeting Strategies

The increased sensitivity of ScPMA1 mutants to edelfosine (7.5-fold) suggests a potential therapeutic strategy for targeting resistant pathogens [6]. This phenomenon may arise from fitness costs associated with resistance mutations that create new vulnerabilities, a concept termed "collateral sensitivity." In clinical translation, this could inform drug cycling or combination approaches where resistance to first-line therapeutics (e.g., spiroindolones) enhances susceptibility to edelfosine-based salvage therapies.

Combination Therapy Development

Edelfosine's multi-mechanistic action supports its use in combination therapies targeting distinct pathways. Its efficacy against SbV-resistant Leishmania in both in vitro and in vivo assays demonstrates potential for overcoming established resistance mechanisms [74]. Similarly, its effect on both fungal ScPma1p and mitochondrial function suggests utility in combination with ergosterol-targeting antifungals to prevent resistance emergence through target redundancy [73] [25].

Predictive Resistance Modeling

Yeast-based ScPMA1 studies provide a rapid screening platform for predicting resistance development in parasitic systems. The conservation between ScPma1p and PfATP4 enables researchers to anticipate resistance mutations and develop countermeasures before clinical emergence [6] [66]. This preemptive approach could significantly extend the therapeutic lifespan of novel antimalarials by having resistance management strategies prepared at drug launch.

Research on ScPMA1 mutant sensitivity to edelfosine exemplifies the power of model systems in advancing antimicrobial development. The consistent finding of heightened edelfosine potency across biological systems—from yeast to Leishmania parasites—underscores the conservation of its cellular targets and mechanisms. The experimental workflows established in yeast systems provide robust, high-throughput methods for evaluating compound efficacy, resistance potential, and mechanistic pathways.

Future research directions should focus on structural characterization of edelfosine binding to its various targets, development of analogs with improved therapeutic indices, and clinical evaluation of edelfosine-containing combination regimens for resistant infections. The translatable insights from ScPMA1-edelfosine research create a foundation for a new class of antimicrobials that leverage the evolutionary constraints of resistance mechanisms for more durable disease control.

Conclusion

The pronounced sensitivity of ScPMA1 mutants to edelfosine provides a critical window into P-type ATPase function and vulnerability. This phenomenon, characterized by a 7.5-fold increase in susceptibility compared to wild-type strains, establishes edelfosine sensitivity as a reliable phenotypic marker for ScPMA1 functional compromise. The mechanistic basis—edelfosine's ability to displace Pma1p from plasma membranes—reveals a fundamental vulnerability that extends beyond yeast biology to include therapeutic targets like PfATP4 in malaria parasites. Future research should focus on leveraging this sensitivity for high-throughput screening of P-type ATPase inhibitors, developing combination therapies that exploit similar vulnerabilities in pathogenic systems, and extending these findings to mammalian P-type ATPases with clinical relevance. The ScPMA1-edelfosine interaction model represents a powerful tool for both basic research into essential cation transporters and applied drug discovery efforts targeting this crucial protein family.

References

• 1. Biology, structure and mechanism of P-type ATPases [https://www.nature.com/articles/nrm1354]
• 2. P-type ATPase [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-type_ATPase]
• 3. P-type ATPases: Many more enigmas left to solve [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021925823023803]
• 4. P-Type ATPase - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/p-type-atpase]
• 5. P-Type ATPase Apt1 of the Fungal Pathogen Cryptococcus ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/7/10/843]
• 6. Comparative chemical genomics reveal that the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4904242/]
• 7. Mitochondrial Targeting Involving Cholesterol-Rich Lipid Rafts ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8161315/]
• 8. Comparative chemical genomics reveal that the spiroindolone ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27291296/]
• 9. Chemical genetics in drug discovery - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7371212/]
• 10. Comparative chemical genomics reveal that the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27806]
• 11. Drug Uptake, Lipid Rafts, and Vesicle Trafficking Modulate ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3605657/]
• 12. In Vitro and In Vivo Efficacy of Ether Lipid Edelfosine against ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0001612]
• 13. Adaptive laboratory evolution in S. cerevisiae highlights ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03076-7]
• 14. Comparative chemical genomics reveal that the spiroindolone... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27806?error=cookies_not_supported&code=c2a3a1b7-7035-46d6-87e0-f85946a64c94]
• 15. Two inhibitors of yeast plasma membrane ATPase... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-018-0261-3]
• 16. - Wikipedia Edelfosine [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edelfosine]
• 17. Alteration of Plasma Membrane Organization by an ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021925819334891]
• 18. Mitochondrial Targeting Involving Cholesterol-Rich Lipid ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4923/13/5/763]
• 19. Ca2+-ATPase structure in the E1 and E2 conformations [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005273602005734]
• 20. The structure of the Na+,K+-ATPase and mapping ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2674101/]
• 21. location of the ATP-binding site, domain dynamics and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1133942/]
• 22. ATPase: a comparative protein modeling study [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15178408/]
• 23. Edelfosine—A new antineoplastic drug based on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927775707002683]
• 24. Evolution of Fitness Cost-Neutral Mutant PfCRT Conferring P. falciparum 4-Aminoquinoline Drug Resistance Is Accompanied by Altered Parasite Metabolism and Digestive Vacuole Physiology | PLOS Pathogens [https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1005976]
• 25. Two inhibitors of yeast plasma membrane ATPase 1 (ScPma1p) [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5820243/]
• 26. A new parameter of growth inhibition for cell proliferation ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29023715/]
• 27. CyQUANT Cell Proliferation Assays [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/cell-analysis/fluorescence-microplate-assays/cyquant-cell-proliferation-assays.html]
• 28. Cell Proliferation Assays for Live-Cell Analysis [https://www.sartorius.com/en/applications/life-science-research/live-cell-assays/proliferation]
• 29. Edelfosine nanoemulsions inhibit tumor growth of triple ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87968-4]
• 30. Lipid raft involvement in yeast cell growth and death [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2012.00140/full]
• 31. Alteration of Plasma Membrane Organization by an Anticancer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3605658/]
• 32. Noninvasive High-Throughput Single-Cell Analysis of the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3837762/]
• 33. A superfolder variant of pH-sensitive pHluorin for in vivo ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30367-z]
• 34. Live-cell Microscopy and Fluorescence-based ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2017.00071/full]
• 35. The Orally Available, Synthetic Ether Lipid Edelfosine Inhibits ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3965404/]
• 36. of K562 and HL-60 cells to Sensitivity , an ether lipid drug... edelfosine [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9661895/]
• 37. Induction of Apoptosis in Human Pancreatic Cancer Stem ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/13/23/6124]
• 38. SIR telomere silencing depends on nuclear envelope lipids ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10103788/]
• 39. Structural and biochemical analysis of ligand binding in ... [https://www.life-science-alliance.org/content/8/1/e202402990]
• 40. Biological activities, mechanisms of action and biomedical prospect of... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12369895/]
• 41. Direct Endoplasmic Reticulum Targeting by the Selective ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8394177/]
• 42. Incomplete Penetrance and Variable Expressivity [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9380816/]
• 43. Exploring penetrance of clinically relevant variants in over ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61698-x]
• 44. Comparative chemical genomics reveal that the spiroindolone... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27806?error=cookies_not_supported&code=db69a08b-5b50-4e6f-b469-0c9106be00fc]
• 45. Comparative chemical genomics reveal that the spiroindolone... [https://www.jcvi.org/publications/comparative-chemical-genomics-reveal-spiroindolone-antimalarial-kae609-cipargamin-p]
• 46. The importance of genetic background in mouse-based ... [https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/2006/june/the-importance-of-genetic-background-in-mouse-based-biomedical-research]
• 47. Heterologous expression of Candida albicans Pma1p in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4428687/]
• 48. A Guide to Reproducibility in Preclinical Research - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6314499/]
• 49. Enhancing Reproducibility in Drug Development Research [https://www.cos.io/blog/enhancing-reproducibility-in-drug-development-research]
• 50. Antitumor activity of alkylphospholipid edelfosine in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332223012349]
• 51. Combination of the anti-tumour cell ether lipid edelfosine ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2698323/]
• 52. The yeast H+-ATPase Pma1 promotes Rag/Gtr-dependent ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5915174/]
• 53. Suppression of metastatic organ colonization and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332224000301]
• 54. Membrane–drug interactions studied using model ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4625119/]
• 55. Membrane interactions in drug delivery: Model cell ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001868619303598]
• 56. Edelfosine Promotes Apoptosis in Androgen Deprived ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4933508/]
• 57. Photodynamic Therapy Supported by Antitumor Lipids - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10747669/]
• 58. Endogenous structure of antimalarial target PfATP4 reveals ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12537908/]
• 59. The early preclinical and clinical development of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302532]
• 60. Mutational analysis of an antimalarial drug target, PfATP4 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11745376/]
• 61. P-type ATPases: Many more enigmas left to solve - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10654040/]
• 62. Comprehensive Comparison of Two Protein Family of P ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28475980/]
• 63. Structure and ion-release mechanism of PIB-4-type ATPases [https://elifesciences.org/articles/73124]
• 64. Molecular basis of ParA ATPase activation by the CTPase ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63976-0]
• 65. Edelfosine: An Antitumor Drug Prototype [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29308743/]
• 66. Cipargamin - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/cipargamin]
• 67. Disruption of lipid domain organization in monolayers ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009308415300530]
• 68. Adaptive laboratory evolution in S. cerevisiae highlights ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8837787/]
• 69. Surface-active properties of the antitumour ether lipid 1-O ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17543274/]
• 70. Type IV P-Type ATPases: Recent Updates in Cancer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10486736/]
• 71. Clinical significance of P‑class pumps in cancer (Review) [https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ol.2021.12919]
• 72. Non-small and small cell lung carcinoma cell lines exhibit cell type-specific sensitivity to edelfosine-induced cell death and different cell line-specific responses to edelfosine treatment - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12851688/]
• 73. Mitochondria and lipid raft-located FOF1-ATP synthase as ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5568728/]
• 74. In Vitro and In Vivo Efficacy of Ether Lipid Edelfosine ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3323514/]