Abstract
A lengthy multidrug chemotherapy is required to achieve a durable cure in tuberculosis. Variation in Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug response is created by the differing microenvironments in lesions, which generate different bacterial drug susceptibilities. To better realize the potential of combination therapy to shorten treatment duration, multidrug therapy design should deliberately explore the vast combination space. We face a significant scaling challenge in making systematic drug combination measurements because it is not practical to use animal models for comprehensive drug combination studies, nor are there well-validated high-throughput in vitro models that predict animal outcomes. We hypothesized that we could both prioritize combination therapies and quantify the predictive power of various in vitro models for drug development using a dataset of drug combination dose responses measured in multiple in vitro models. We systematically measured M. tuberculosis response to all 2- and 3-drug combinations among ten antibiotics in eight conditions that reproduce lesion microenvironments. Applying machine learning to this comprehensive dataset, we developed classifiers predictive of multidrug treatment outcome in a mouse model of disease relapse. We trained classifiers on multiple mouse models and identified ensembles of in vitro models that best describe in vivo treatment outcomes. Furthermore, we found that combination synergies are less important for predicting outcome than metrics of potency. Here, we map a path forward to rationally prioritize combinations for animal and clinical studies using systematic drug combination measurements with validated in vitro models. Our pipeline is generalizable to other difficult-to-treat diseases requiring combination therapies.
One Sentence Summary Signatures of in vitro potency and drug interaction measurements predict combination therapy outcomes in mouse models of tuberculosis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Footnotes
A section of Fig. 4. was not converted correctly. Figure formatting/sizing adjustments. Typographical corrections. Minor text revisions.