Skip to main content
Parasites & Vectors logoLink to Parasites & Vectors
. 2025 Nov 11;18:457. doi: 10.1186/s13071-025-07098-y

Cyclophilins as key players in protozoan parasite infections

Reza Mansouri 1, Enrique Granado-Aparicio 2, Claudia Alcedo 2, Julio López-Abán 2, Reza Shafiei 3, Antonio Muro 2, Raúl Manzano-Román 2,✉, Sajad Rashidi 4,5,✉
PMCID: PMC12606809  PMID: 41219799

Abstract

Cyclophilins (Cyps), a highly conserved family of immunophilins with peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase (PPIase) activity, play pivotal roles in protein folding, cell signaling, immune modulation, and host–pathogen interactions. In protozoan infections, parasite-encoded Cyps are essential for immune evasion, oxidative stress regulation, and pathogen survival. This review highlights the multifaceted roles of Cyps in Plasmodium, Toxoplasma, Trypanosoma, and Leishmania, with particular emphasis on their involvement in host cell invasion, replication, and immunomodulation. Key Cyps—such as Plasmodium Cyp19B, Toxoplasma Cyp18, Leishmania major Cyp19, and Trypanosoma Cyp19—have been implicated in oxidative stress management, host cell entry, and immune suppression. Given these critical functions, Cyps represent promising therapeutic targets; cyclosporine A (CsA) and its analogs inhibit parasite proliferation by disrupting Cyp activity. Moreover, parasite-derived Cyps show potential as vaccine candidates, eliciting protective immunity in models of leishmaniasis, toxoplasmosis, and Chagas disease. Host Cyps further influence infection outcomes by modulating mitochondrial permeability, cytokine production, and macrophage polarization. For example, mitochondrial CypD regulates cell death pathways in Trypanosoma cruzi-induced cardiac pathology. Despite these advances, further research is required to validate the therapeutic and prophylactic potential of Cyps. Future studies should investigate stage-specific Cyp functions, host–pathogen interactions, and the development of nonimmunosuppressive Cyp inhibitors to advance targeted antiparasitic strategies.

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name 13071_2025_7098_Figa_HTML.jpg

Keywords: Cyclophilin, Protozoan parasite, Infection, Therapeutic target, Vaccine development

Background

Immunophilins, a highly conserved family of peptidyl-prolyl isomerases (PPIases), catalyze the cis–trans isomerization of proline peptide bonds, facilitating protein folding and regulating diverse cellular processes [1]. They are classified into two major subfamilies on the basis of their affinity for immunosuppressive drugs: cyclophilins (Cyps), which bind cyclosporine A (CsA), and FK506-binding proteins (FKBPs), which interact with tacrolimus (FK506) and rapamycin [1, 2]. Despite lacking sequence homology, both families perform analogous roles in protein folding and signal transduction [1, 3, 4]. A third, smaller group of parvulin-like PPIases further expands this functional repertoire, operating independently of CsA or FK506 binding and highlighting the structural and mechanistic diversity within the immunophilin family [1].

Structurally, Cyps are characterized by a cyclophilin-like domain (CLD) composed of eight antiparallel β-strands flanked by two α-helices, whereas FKBPs adopt distinct β-sheet–rich folds [5]. Despite these differences, both families are critical for protein trafficking, immune regulation, and stress responses [6]. Genome-wide studies have identified multiple Cyp genes in pathogens and infected host cells, revealing their dual roles in either exacerbating or mitigating disease [7]. For example, CypD acts as a prosurvival signaling molecule, suppressing apoptosis likely through interactions with the adenine nucleotide translocator (ANT), a key component of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore (mPTP) [8]. In contrast, CypA contributes to tissue injury during inflammation and oxidative stress [9, 10].

Emerging evidence also highlights the pathogenic and immunomodulatory roles of extracellular Cyps. In coronavirus-19 (COVID-19), they function as extracellular chemokines, triggering hyperinflammation by sensing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in innate immune cells, a mechanism that positions them as promising therapeutic targets [11, 12]. In addition, both host- and pathogen-derived Cyps are secreted in extracellular vesicles (EVs), where they modulate immune responses and may serve as biomarkers of infection [13].

Given their involvement in viral and bacterial virulence, inflammation, and cancer, Cyp inhibitors are considered compelling therapeutic candidates [4, 14–17]. Their interactions with host and pathogen biomolecules shape infection dynamics and immune regulation, making them essential for understanding disease mechanisms [18, 19]. Consequently, characterizing pathogen-derived Cyps and their signaling pathways could reveal novel treatment and vaccine strategies for infectious and parasitic diseases [9, 10]. This review explores the roles of Cyps in parasitic infections and their potential as therapeutic and prophylactic targets.

Parasite cyclophilins

Cyclophilins have emerged as critical regulators in diverse protozoan parasites, including intestinal species (Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia intestinalis, Eimeria tenella, Cryptosporidium parvum), vaginal species (Trichomonas vaginalis), tissue-dwelling species (Leishmania spp., Trypanosoma cruzi, Toxoplasma gondii, Neospora caninum), and blood-borne species (Plasmodium falciparum, Babesia bovis, Theileria annulata) (Table 1). These parasite-encoded Cyps orchestrate key cellular processes, including stress adaptation, RNA modulation (e.g., via MED21 and ap65-1), mitochondrial permeability regulation, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. Collectively, these mechanisms enhance protozoan replication, host cell invasion, and immune evasion, positioning Cyps as attractive therapeutic targets (Fig. 1).

Table 1.

Cyclophilins expressed in protozoan parasites

Parasites Cyps Biological functions Cyp ligands and plausible mechanism of action References
Entamoeba histolytica Cyp (uncharacterized) Elevated in abscess-derived trophozoites; likely supports replication CsA inhibits trophozoite replication [25–27]
Giardia intestinalis Involved in parasite replication [28]
Eimeria tenella Cyp89-kDa Promotes parasite replication and host cell invasion CsA (mechanism uncharacterized) [18, 29]
Cryptosporidium parvum Cyps (uncharacterized) CsA and analogs (SDZ 033-243, SDZ PSC-833) inhibit parasite growth [18, 30]
Trichomonas vaginalis TvCyp1 Binds Myb1, facilitating its nuclear translocation (regulates ap65-1 gene expression, linked to pathogenesis) CsA disrupts TvCyp1–Myb1 interaction [31]
TvCyp2 Regulates endomembrane trafficking (localizes TvCyp1 and Myb3 in membranes, hydrogenosomes, and plasma membranes) CsA (mechanism uncharacterized) [32, 33]
Leishmania donovani Cyp40 Maintains cellular homeostasis under stress; essential for proliferation and viability CsA (promastigotes: cell cycle arrest, loss of motility; amastigotes: highly toxic) [34, 35]
CypA Critical for parasite survival and persistence CsA reduces IL-12, TNF-α, IFN-γ and increases IL-10, IL-4, NO, H2O2; downregulates CypA expression [36, 37]
DHCsA-d: inhibits promastigote/amastigote replication, enhances TH1 response (↑IL-12, TNF-α, IFN-γ; ↓IL-10, IL-4, NO, H2O2); no effect on CypA expression
Leishmania major Cyp19 Function uncharacterized CsA binds Cyp19 but lacks calcineurin inhibition; in vivo, enhances IFN-γ and TH1 response [38]
Trypanozoma cruzi TcCyp19 Modulating ROS production and increasing parasite replication and pathogenesis (involved in drug resistance) CsA (mechanism uncharacterized) [39]
TcCyp21, 25, 28, 34, 40 Uncharacterized Non-immunosuppressive CsA analogs (H-7–94, F-7–62, MeVal-4) inhibit epimastigote proliferation, trypomastigote penetration, and amastigote development [40]
TcCyp22 Regulates parasite cell death CsA and derivatives (mechanism uncharacterized) [36]
Toxoplasma gondii TgCyp18 Enhances host cell proliferation and parasite migration CsA (mechanism uncharacterized) [41]
TgCyp23 Uncharacterized CsA derivatives (NIM811, Alisporivir) inhibit parasite growth [42]
TgCyp20, 82, CsA (mechanism uncharacterized) [43, 44]
Neospora caninum NcCyp (uncharacterized) Enhances IFN-γ production and CCR5-dependent cell migration; modulates host-parasite interaction and immune evasion CsA (mechanism uncharacterized) [20, 45]
Plasmodium falciparum PfCyp19A, 19B Mediates parasite invasion [46–48]
Theileria annulata TaCyp1 Binds host MED21, potentially regulating RNA polymerase II-dependent transcription and cell transformation Uncharacterized [49]

IFN-γ interferon gamma, CCR5 CC-chemokine receptor 5, CsA cyclosporine A, DHCsA-d dihydrocyclosporine A, ROS reactive oxygen species, IL interleukin, TNF-α tumor necrosis factor-alpha, NO nitric oxide, H₂O₂ hydrogen peroxide, TH1 T-helper 1, MED21 mediator complex subunit 21, NIM811/Alisporivir non-immunosuppressive CsA analogs, SDZ 033-243/PSC-833 CsA derivatives, H-7-94/F-7-62/MeVal-4 experimental CsA analogs, Myb1/Myb3 Trichomonas vaginalis transcription factors

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Specific mechanisms of Cyp activity cyclophilins (Cyps) are multifunctional biomolecules involved in various stages of infection. Early infection: Cyps interact with host cell structures, facilitating parasite attachment and invasion. (1.a) Cyps hijack the host actin cytoskeleton [18, 81]. (1.b) Formation of Cyp-rich pedestal structures regulates parasite attachment and host cell invasion [18, 82]. Survival: Cyps enhance parasite survival by counteracting host defenses and modulating host signaling. (2.a) Neutralization of host lytic defense peptides [23, 83]. (2.b) Activation of parasite calcineurin [23] Pathogenesis: Cyps modulate host immune responses and exhibit anti-inflammatory functions. (3.a) Immune modulation: extracellular Cyps (CypA, CypB) chemoattract activated T lymphocytes via CD147 [18, 66, 84]. (3.b) Antiinflammatory activity: suppression of macrophage activation through reduced production of inflammatory biomarkers [85]

Beyond their intracellular roles, secreted Cyps contribute to immune modulation [20, 21]. For example, T. gondii and N. caninum release Cyps into the extracellular milieu, where they stimulate interferon-γ (IFN-γ) production, a critical component of host defense [20, 21]. Notably, recombinant N. caninum Cyp (NcCyp) has demonstrated efficacy as a vaccine candidate, conferring protection in murine models of neosporosis [21].

Similar immunomodulatory functions are observed in helminths, such as Schistosoma spp., where Cyps influence host–parasite interactions [22]. Interestingly, some parasite Cyps also counteract insect-derived antimicrobial peptides and activate calcineurin-dependent pathways, further facilitating infection [23]. Given their dual roles in parasite survival and host immune regulation, Cyps represent promising targets for both drug development and vaccine design.

Cyclophilins expressed in prominent protozoan parasites (Plasmodium, Toxoplasma, Trypanosoma, and Leishmania)

Protozoan parasites express a diverse array of peptidyl-prolyl cis/trans isomerases (Cyps), many of which share homology with human orthologs [24]. These enzymes play pivotal roles in protein folding, signal transduction, and virulence, making them valuable targets for understanding parasite biology and developing novel therapeutic or prophylactic interventions [24]. Despite advances in characterizing their genetic and biochemical properties, the stage-specific functions of Cyps throughout parasite life cycles and their contributions to host–pathogen interactions remain poorly understood. This knowledge gap underscores the need for further research to elucidate their mechanistic roles and exploit their potential in drug and vaccine development.

Recent studies have highlighted the utility of specific inhibitory ligands, such as CsA and its analogs (e.g., DHCsA-d, SDZ 033-243, and MeVal-4), in modulating parasite Cyp activity (Table 1). These tools not only facilitate functional studies but also provide a foundation for the development of targeted antiparasitic therapies. By integrating current insights into the biological roles of Cyps in parasites and infected host cells, this review aims to bridge critical gaps in understanding their pathogenicity and therapeutic potential.

Plasmodium spp.

Genomic studies have identified multiple Cyps in Plasmodium spp., including PfCyp14, PfCyp19A, PfCyp19B, PfCyp23, PfCyp25, PfCyp26, PfCyp32, PfCyp52, PfCyp72, PfCyp81, and PfCyp87 [50, 51]. These Cyps play critical roles in parasite biology, such as facilitating the export of P. falciparum virulence factors and mediating stress responses, including adaptation to heat shock during vector transmission [52, 53]. Notably, some Cyps (e.g., PfCyp72) exhibit host-restricted expression, with no detectable activity in mammalian hosts, highlighting their potential as selective therapeutic targets for malaria intervention [54].

Among these, PfCyp19B has emerged as a key regulator of intra-erythrocytic development. Its expression is significantly reduced in red blood cells (RBCs) containing sickle-trait hemoglobin (HbAS) from patients with malaria, likely owing to the pro-oxidant environment of HbAS-RBCs [55, 56]. Given that HbAS confers protection against severe malaria, this downregulation may impair parasite protein trafficking, particularly the surface display of cytoadherence ligands, potentially attenuating disease severity by limiting vascular adhesion [56].

Toxoplasma gondii

Toxoplasma gondii employs sophisticated strategies to ensure successful infection, exploiting both CCR5-dependent and independent pathways. Central to these mechanisms is the secretory protein TgCyp18, which exhibits dual roles in infection dynamics. On one hand, it enhances host defense by stimulating nitric oxide production, suppressing tachyzoite replication. Conversely, TgCyp18 promotes the transition to the chronic bradyzoite stage in a CCR5-dependent manner [57]. Beyond direct parasite regulation, TgCyp18 modulates host immunity by recruiting CD11b+ cells to infection sites, involving both CCR5-dependent and independent mechanisms. While TgCyp18 drives macrophage and splenic T lymphocyte proliferation independently of CCR5, it relies on CCR5 to orchestrate cellular migration, thereby expanding the pool of target cells for parasite dissemination [41, 58].

The immunomodulatory effects of TgCyp18 extend to dendritic cells, where it triggers MyD88- and CCR5-dependent signaling to amplify IL-12 production, a cytokine critical for host defense [59–61]. These findings highlight the chaperone-like activity of Cyps and suggest synergistic crosstalk between CCR5 and toll-like receptors to maximize IL-12 responses, skewing innate immunity toward pathways that favor parasite persistence.

Uniquely, TgCyp18 inhibits human immunodeficiency (HIV)-1 cell fusion by selectively targeting CCR5-dependent (R5) viral entry while sparing CXCR4-dependent (X4) strains, a specificity absent in human or P. falciparum Cyps [62]. TgCyp18 binds directly to CCR5, blocking syncytium formation between human T cells and effector cells expressing R5 envelopes, without inducing chemokine production or CCR5 downregulation [62]. Competition assays reveal that TgCyp18 interacts with CCR5 at a site overlapping with macrophage inflammatory protein 1 (MIP-1) and HIV-1 R5 gp120 [62], and it suppresses R5 HIV-1 replication in human lymphoid tissues, underscoring its therapeutic potential [63].

Beyond its antiviral role, TgCyp18 localizes to dense granules and the parasitophorous vacuole, where its PPIase activity post-translationally modifies proline-rich parasite proteins (e.g., GRA4, GRA6, GRA8) [44, 64]. These dual functions targeting host CCR5 and remodeling parasite proteins position TgCyp18 as a multifunctional scaffold for novel antiviral strategies.

Toxoplasma gondii further exploits Cyp activity through its mitochondrial homolog, TgCypD, which critically regulates tachyzoite invasion and proliferation. Toxoplasma gondii CypD depletion suppresses cytochrome c release, enhancing parasite resistance to oxidative stress-induced cell death, and identifies TgCypD as a component of the mPTP, modulating mitochondrial-mediated cell death pathways [65]. Its specialized role in stress adaptation suggests potential targets for intervention.

Trypanosoma spp.

African trypanosomiasis (caused by T. brucei gambiense and T. b. rhodesiense) and American trypanosomiasis (Chagas disease, caused by T. cruzi) are distinct infections with unique pathophysiology. In T. cruzi, the secreted PPIase TcCyp19 (19 kDa) plays multifaceted roles in host–parasite interactions [66]. This protein is expressed across all parasite life stages, epimastigotes, trypomastigotes, and amastigotes, and is secreted into the host cytosol during infection [36, 66]. Trypanosoma cruzi Cyp19 shares structural and functional homology with Cyps in other trypanosomatids, including L. major (LmCyp19) and T. brucei (TbCyp19), suggesting evolutionarily conserved roles [67].

A key function of TcCyp19 is activating calcineurin-mediated signaling, driving partial transformation into metacyclic trypomastigotes, a crucial step for host cell invasion [66]. Cyclophilin inhibitors (e.g., cyclosporine A) significantly reduce parasite proliferation, underscoring TcCyp19’s contribution to infectivity [68]. Within the insect vector, epimastigote-secreted TcCyp19 neutralizes antimicrobial peptides, enhancing parasite survival in both mammalian and insect hosts [23].

Trypanosoma cruzi Cyp19 induces ROS production in host cells via NADPH oxidase (NOX2), creating an environment favorable for intracellular amastigote replication [23, 66, 69]. CRISPR/Cas9 studies show that TcCyp19-deficient parasites have impaired growth due to diminished ROS, a phenotype reversible upon re-expression [66]. Notably, TcCyp19 is overexpressed in benznidazole-resistant strains, implicating it in drug resistance [67]. Its secretion also triggers host antibody responses, making it a potential biomarker for therapeutic efficacy [68].

Despite progress, key knowledge gaps remain. The extent to which TcCyp19 mimics mammalian CypA, such as binding to CD147 to activate ERK1/2 signaling, warrants further investigation [66]. Its role in chronic Chagas disease manifestations, particularly cardiac inflammation, remains to be fully elucidated, although parallels with CypA-driven autoimmune pathways are emerging [70–72]. Addressing these gaps may reveal novel therapeutic targets for the management of Chagas disease.

Cyclophilins have been extensively studied in Leishmania spp. In particular, L. donovani CypA (LdCypA) has been characterized in terms of thermal stability, crystal structure, and aggregation behavior, while L. infantum isolates from canine hosts express LiCyp2 and LiCyp40, implicating Cyps in stress response and intracellular survival [35, 73–75]. Functional studies suggest that LdCyp40 contributes to stress homeostasis, potentially supporting parasite persistence during infection [75].

The interplay between Leishmania Cyps and host immune mechanisms reveals evolutionary adaptations that facilitate parasite survival. In L. major, the predominant isoform LmCyp19 retains enzymatic activity but diverges functionally from human cyclophilin A (hCypA) [76]. Structural analyses show that while LmCyp19 preserves the CsA-binding site, it lacks heparan-binding motifs required for interaction with CD147, a host receptor critical for inflammatory signaling [76–78]. This divergence has key immunological consequences: whereas hCypA–CD147 interactions trigger the activation of immune cells (e.g., neutrophils and macrophages), L. major exploits LmCyp19’s inability to bind CD147 to evade early immune detection [76, 78]. Experimental evidence confirms that restoring heparan-binding motifs in LmCyp19 reinstates CD147-dependent signaling, highlighting Leishmania’s adaptation to silence this pathway [76]. Supporting this, CsA, a CypA inhibitor, fails to impair Leishmania infectivity in macrophages, underscoring the parasite’s exploitation of Cyp functional differences to circumvent host defenses [77]. Critical gaps remain in understanding species-specific variations in Cyp-mediated immune modulation. For instance, LdCyp shares structural conservation with hCypA but exhibits resistance to CsA, suggesting species-specific adaptations. Future studies should investigate whether Cyp polymorphisms correlate with disease severity or therapeutic outcomes, particularly in the context of emerging drug resistance. [77, 79].

Beyond immune evasion, Cyps play a crucial role in parasite metabolism. The interaction between LdCyp and adenosine kinase (AdK) is essential for metabolic homeostasis, particularly in modulating purine salvage pathways critical for parasite proliferation [80]. Structural and mutational analyses have identified key residues in LdCyp’s catalytic and binding domains that mediate this interaction. Disrupting these residues impairs binding efficiency and reduces parasite viability in vitro, positioning the LdCyp–AdK axis as a potential therapeutic target [80]. Further exploration of the structural dynamics of this interaction could inform the development of novel antileishmanial drugs. A summary of key targets and functions of parasite Cyps is provided in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Targets and functions of parasite Cyps. PfCyp19B and PfCyp19A in P. falciparum. (1.a) Facilitate merozoite invasion. (1.b) Exhibit PPIase activity, ensuring proper folding of parasite proteins [51]. (1.c) Participate in the Plasmodium reactive oxidative stress complex [86]. TgCyp18 and TgCypD in T. gondii. (2.a) TgCyp18 inhibits tachyzoite growth and promotes tachyzoite-to-bradyzoite transition, whereas TgCypD enhances tachyzoite growth [57]. (2.b) TgCypD regulates cytochrome c release from parasite mitochondria. (2.c) TgCyp18 interacts with the CCR5 receptor, attracting immune cells and blocking HIV-1 entry [62]. (2.d) PPIase activity facilitates proper protein folding. LmCyp19 in Leishmania spp. (3.a) Activates the TACI receptor, polarizing macrophages toward an M1 phenotype and amplifying inflammatory responses [87]. (3.b) Exhibits PPIase activity to aid protein folding [77]. (3.c) Unlike other Cyps, it does not interact with CD147 [76]. (4) TcCyp19 in T. cruzi. (4.a) Promotes the epimastigote-to-trypomastigote transition in the insect vector [66]. (4.b) Generates an oxidative environment conducive to amastigote growth and replication in the host [66]

Cyclophilins expressed in host cells

Emerging evidence underscores the critical role of host cyclophilins (hCyps) in modulating immune responses and cellular pathways during parasitic infections. For instance, upregulation of CypA in coccidia-infected host cells suggests its involvement in host defense mechanisms [88], while Haemaphysalis longicornis-derived CypA has been implicated in immune regulation during Babesia infections [89].

A striking example is mitochondrial CypD, encoded by the Ppif gene, which plays a pivotal role in T. cruzi infection. Ppif-/- mice exhibit significantly reduced parasite loads in cardiac and skeletal tissues, along with diminished infection rates in cardiomyocytes and macrophages [90]. These findings indicate that CypD inhibition stabilizes mitochondrial membrane potential, thereby attenuating T. cruzi pathogenicity and dissemination [90], highlighting CypD as a promising therapeutic target to mitigate cardiac damage in Chagas disease.

While conventional antiparasitic drugs primarily target pathogen-encoded proteins, recent therapeutic strategies have shifted toward host cell pathways essential for parasite survival. For example, CsA-mediated inhibition of host CypA impairs L. major replication in macrophages, emphasizing the potential of host-directed therapies [91, 92]. Although the precise mechanism remains unclear, it may parallel CsA’s ability to block HIV-1 replication by interfering with host Cyp interactions [89, 93]. Supporting this concept, antisense oligonucleotides targeting host CypA in infected macrophages reduce amastigote replication, reinforcing Cyps as critical facilitators of parasitic survival [91].

Beyond parasite-induced modulation, several human Cyps, including hCypA, hCypB, hCypD, and hCyp40, exhibit structural homology with parasite Cyps, implicating them in infection dynamics (Table 2). Notably, hCypA facilitates L. major infection and shares homology with protozoan Cyps such as PfCyp19 (P. falciparum), TgCyp18 (T. gondii), and TcCyp19 (T. cruzi) [36]. Similarly, hCypB participates in P. falciparum merozoite invasion [94], while hCypD regulates mitochondrial membrane permeability, inhibiting apoptosis and promoting T. cruzi infection [90]. Although hCyp40 has not been directly linked to protozoan infections, its structural resemblance to TcCyp40 (T. cruzi) and LdCyp40 (L. donovani) suggests potential involvement [35]. Given these interactions, hCyps represent plausible targets for immunosuppressive drugs such as CsA (Table 2).

Table 2.

Human cyclophilins (hCyps): biological functions and roles in parasite infections

hCyps Biological function Interaction in parasite infections References
hCypA

Upregulates cytokines/chemokines (CXCL2, CXCL3, CXCL8, IL-1α, IL-1β)

Binds CD147 for chemotaxis

Modulates RIG-I-mediated antiviral response

Activates MMP-2/MMP-9 and promotes VSMC migration

Induces endothelial cell apoptosis

Enhances VCAM-1/ICAM-1 expression

Activates inflammatory pathways

Enhances L. major infection

Structural analogue of PfCyp19, TgCyp18, LmCyp19, and TcCyp19

Sensitive to CsA

[36, 94, 97]
hCypB

Chaperone for collagen folding

Triggers DNA degradation in TCR-stimulated thymocytes

Mediates chemotaxis and integrin-dependent adhesion in memory CD4+ T cells

Receptor for PfRhopH3 during P. falciparum invasion

Sensitive to CsA

[94, 98]
hCypC

Associated with macrophage activation

Elevated in ischemia and CAD

No known parasite interactions [99]
hCypD

Regulates mPTP formation and apoptosis

Modulates mitochondrial energy metabolism via CypD-OSCP interaction

Promotes tumor progression

Inhibits mitochondrial membrane collapse, facilitating T. cruzi infection

TgCypD functions as a homologue

Sensitive to CsA

[90–101]
hCypE Regulates osteoblast differentiation No known parasite interactions [102]
hCyp40 Component of inactive steroid receptor complexes

-TcCyp40 and LdCyp40 act as homologues

Sensitive to CsA

[35, 100]

CAD Coronary artery disease, CD147 Cluster of Differentiation 147 (extracellular matrix metalloproteinase inducer), CsA Cyclosporine A, CXCL CXC motif chemokine ligand (e.g., CXCL2, CXCL3, CXCL8), hCyp Human cyclophilin, ICAM-1 Intercellular Adhesion Molecule 1, IL-1α/β Interleukin-1 alpha/beta, MMP-2/MMP-9 Matrix metalloproteinase-2/-9, mPTP Mitochondrial permeability transition pore, OSCP Oligomycin sensitivity conferring protein, PfRhopH3 Plasmodium falciparum rhoptry protein H3, RIG-I Retinoic acid-inducible gene I (innate immune sensor), TCR T-cell receptor, VSMC Vascular smooth muscle cell, VCAM-1 Vascular cell adhesion protein 1

Collectively, these findings highlight the therapeutic potential of targeting host Cyps to combat intracellular parasites while mitigating drug resistance and host toxicity [95, 96]. Beyond parasite-encoded Cyps, identifying host Cyps modulated during infection could yield novel insights into parasite–host interactions, pathogenesis, and therapeutic strategies.

Therapeutic strategies with Cyp-relevant compounds

The ability to simultaneously target multiple pathophysiological pathways underscores the therapeutic potential of cyclophilin inhibitors (CypIs) [103]. Among these, cyclosporine A (CsA) and its derivatives exhibit high-affinity, selective inhibition of Cyps, with nanomolar binding and potent immunosuppressive effects [104]. Mechanistically, CsA forms a stable complex with Cyp, suppressing its PPIase activity and inhibiting the calcium-dependent phosphatase calcineurin. This prevents nuclear translocation and T-cell activation, a critical step in adaptive immunity [105, 106]. While CsA effectively inhibits Cyp-dependent PPIase activity, its immunosuppressive effects via the Cyp–CsA–calcineurin axis may limit broader applicability, motivating the development of CypIs with improved target specificity and reduced side effects [107].

Cyclosporine A shows broad-spectrum antiparasitic activity by targeting both parasite-encoded and host-derived Cyps [34]. It interferes with critical pathways in Plasmodium spp. (P. berghei, P. chabaudi, P. falciparum), T. cruzi, T. gondii, Eimeria spp. (E. tenella, E. mitis, E. vermiformis), and C. parvum (Table 1) [54, 108]. Adjunctive therapy combining CsA or related compounds with conventional antiparasitic drugs could enhance efficacy through synergistic mechanisms.

Nonimmunosuppressive CypIs such as alisporivir, SCY-635, NIM811, and CRV431 have shown promising antimalarial activity by selectively inhibiting P. falciparum intraerythrocytic proliferation [109]. Plasmodium falciparum Cyp19A and PfCyp19B are the principal CsA-binding proteins in P. falciparum, with PfCyp19B upregulated during the schizont phase [110]. Plasmodium falciparum Cyp19B is overexpressed in artemisinin and piperaquine-resistant strains, contributing to partial drug resistance via modulation of the integrated stress response (ISR) through eIF2α phosphorylation [55, 111]. Alisporivir, with potent inhibitory effects on ring-stage P. falciparum and a favorable safety profile, represents a promising monotherapy or combination therapy [112].

Host-derived Cyps also contribute to parasite invasion. Cyclophilin B (CypB) interacts with the merozoite surface protein PfRhopH3 in P. falciparum, facilitating erythrocyte invasion. Pharmacological inhibition using CsA or CDP3 peptide impairs invasion, highlighting CypB’s functional relevance, although some studies suggest the PfRhopH3-CypB interaction may be dispensable [113, 114]. Polymorphisms or expression changes in Pfmdr1 (encoding Pgh1) influence P. falciparum susceptibility to CsA, potentially by disrupting metabolite transport or chemical gradients in the digestive vacuole [115, 116].

In T. cruzi, 15 paralogous Cyps have been identified, with TcCyp19, TcCyp22, TcCyp28, and TcCyp40 experimentally validated as CsA-binding proteins [36, 108, 117]. In L. major, CsA resistance correlates with an arginine-to-asparagine substitution in LmCyp19, disrupting complex formation with calcineurin [38]. In addition, phosphorylation of Cyp40 during promastigote-to-amastigote differentiation may regulate virulence and downstream signaling [118–120].

Cyclophilin-based vaccines in protozoan parasites

Parasitic Cyps play pivotal roles in host immune modulation, influencing T-cell responses, cytokine profiles, and parasite adaptation, making them attractive vaccine candidates [84].

  • Leishmania: Leishmania infantum Cyp1 (LiCyp1) is expressed in both amastigotes and promastigotes. Immunization of BALB/c mice with recombinant LiCyp1 induced long-lasting, partially protective immunity, reducing parasite burden in the liver and spleen. Protection correlated with expansion of antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ memory T cells [121], highlighting LiCyp1 as a promising vaccine candidate.

  • Toxoplasma: recombinant BCG expressing TgCyp (rBCG-TgCyp) elicited robust humoral and cellular immunity in BALB/c mice following challenge with the virulent T. gondii RH strain, with expansion of CD4+/CD8+ T cells and increased Th1 cytokines (IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-12) [122]. Similarly, a DNA vaccine encoding TgCyp (pVAX1-TgCyp) induced antigen-specific cellular immunity and nitric oxide-mediated tachyzoite suppression, though it only moderately extended survival and did not significantly reduce cerebral parasite burden [123].

  • Trypanosoma: Trypanosoma cruzi Cyp19, secreted throughout the T. cruzi life cycle, facilitates intracellular proliferation via ROS generation and suppresses insect antiparasitic peptides [66, 124]. Mice immunized with TcCyp19-deficient parasites developed robust Th1 responses and parasite-specific trypanolytic antibodies, achieving complete protection against acute infection [39, 70], supporting TcCyp19 as a candidate for subunit or live-attenuated vaccines.

  • Neospora: recombinant NcCyp (19.4 kDa, 86% homologous to TgCyp18) elicits Th1-polarized immunity, with strong IFN-γ secretion and activation of CD4+ T cells in bovine peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Vaccination with NcCyp and NcProfilin partially protected sheep against abortion and transplacental transmission [125]. Neospora caninum Cyp combined with oligomannose-coated liposomes (OML) activated NF-κB and IL-12p40 secretion in macrophages, inducing robust antibody and cellular immunity in BALB/c mice, providing protection against lethal challenge [126]. These studies underscore TLR2 signaling as critical for NcCyp-OML-induced immunity, highlighting its potential as a neosporosis vaccine candidate.

Discussion

Cyclophilins play multifaceted roles in protozoan parasite infections, serving as critical mediators of host–pathogen interactions, immune evasion, and parasite survival (Table 1). Despite their functional importance, the precise mechanisms underlying these roles remain partially elucidated. The data reviewed here indicate that: (1) Cyps are evolutionarily conserved across Plasmodium, Toxoplasma, Trypanosoma, and Leishmania, exhibiting versatile, genus-specific functions; (2) their roles are often stage-dependent, influencing pathogenesis at distinct life-cycle stages; and (3) their dual potential as targets for drug development and vaccine candidates warrants further exploration.

The structural and functional conservation of Cyps across protozoan parasites underscores their evolutionary significance. For instance, Plasmodium PfCyp19B facilitates export of surface proteins such as PfEMP1, critical for erythrocyte invasion [56], while T. gondii TgCyp18 modulates host CCR5-dependent signaling to promote bradyzoite differentiation [57, 62]. Cyclophilins often exhibit dual roles: T. cruzi TcCyp19 enhances oxidative stress to support amastigote replication [39], whereas Leishmania LmCyp19 evades CD147-mediated immune detection [76]. Such functional divergence suggests that Cyps are finely tuned to niche-specific adaptations, making them attractive targets for intervention.

Cyclosporine A and its analogs (e.g., alisporivir, NIM811) inhibit parasite Cyps, though immunosuppressive effects limit clinical applicability [105, 109]. Stage-specific efficacy, for example, PfCyp19B in schizonts [110] and synergy with antimalarials [127], suggests opportunities for optimized dosing or combination therapies. However, Cyp isoform diversity complicates drug design: Plasmodium encodes 12 Cyps, with PfCyp19A/B CsA-sensitive, while PfCyp23 is resistant [42, 50]. Similarly, in T. cruzi, TcCyp19 and TcCyp22 bind CsA, whereas TcCyp18.4 shows low affinity [40]. Nonimmunosuppressive, selective Cyp inhibitors remain a priority, including elucidating mechanisms such as PfCyp19B-mediated artemisinin resistance via redox regulation or protein folding [111].

Host Cyps contribute to pathogenesis, offering avenues for host-directed therapies (HDT) [128]. T. cruzi induces cardiac damage via mitochondrial CypD [90], while Leishmania exploits host CypA to sustain M2 macrophage polarization [91]. Targeting these pathways with tissue-specific strategies, such as nanocarrier-delivered siRNA against CypA or the CypD inhibitor sanglifehrin A, may mitigate pathology without systemic immunosuppression [90, 91]. Supporting evidence includes antisense oligonucleotides against macrophage CypA reducing Leishmania replication [91] and Ppif − / − mice (lacking CypD) exhibiting reduced cardiomyocyte damage during T. cruzi infection [90]. Repurposing nonimmunosuppressive Cyp modulators could thus offer therapeutic potential for Chagas cardiomyopathy.

Challenges remain, including stage-specific Cyp functions, host–pathogen interactions, and resistance mechanisms. Cyp isoform expression is dynamically regulated during parasite differentiation, and pharmacological agents may alter transcription [25, 129, 130]. The stage-specific efficacy of Cyp inhibitors, such as CsA, reflects divergent roles across the parasite life cycle [34]. Resistance-associated changes, such as Pfmdr1 overexpression in P. falciparum or reduced CypA in antimony-resistant Leishmania [131], highlight the need for stage-specific, resistance-aware approaches.

Protozoan Cyps elicit protective immune responses in animal models, although efficacy depends on the parasite strain, adjuvant, and delivery system. Recombinant L. infantum LiCyp1 induces memory T-cell responses [121], while DNA vaccines (pVAX1-TgCyp) skew immunity toward Th1 [123]. Neospora caninum Cyp combined with oligomannose liposomes activates TLR2-dependent IFN-γ production [126], demonstrating adjuvant-enhanced immunogenicity. Challenges remain as transiently expressed Cyps (e.g., PfCyp19B in schizonts) [126] necessitate multivalent vaccine designs, while immunosuppressive Cyps (e.g., LmCyp19) may require epitope modification or truncation [76]. Translational gaps exist, as most studies rely on murine models; large-animal trials (e.g., sheep for Neospora) [125] are needed to evaluate clinical potential.

Emerging evidence implicates Cyps in helminth infections, including Echinococcus granulosus, with its allergenic properties [132, 133], and Schistosoma spp. immunomodulatory roles [84, 85], positioning Cyps as pan-parasitic targets for novel interventions.

Conclusions

Cyclophilins serve as a critical interface between parasite survival and host defense, making them attractive targets for therapeutic intervention and vaccine development. Their structural diversity and multifunctional roles, from immune modulation to pathogenesis, underscore their translational potential [134]. While challenges remain, including CsA-associated immunosuppression and variable vaccine efficacy, advances in structural biology and adjuvant systems offer promising pathways for translation.

Key priorities for future research include: (i) elucidating stage-specific Cyp functions, including intracellular/extracellular localization and release mechanisms, to understand dual roles in inflammation and pathology, (ii) developing selective inhibitors targeting parasite-specific Cyps, (iii) exploiting host-directed immunomodulation strategies, (iv) modulating host Cyp PPIase activity via signaling pathways such as PI3K–Akt–mTOR [135, 136]; (v) designing dual-target inhibitors (e.g., hybrid molecules disrupting both parasite Cyps and host inflammatory pathways), and (vi) evaluating Cyp expression dynamics following antiparasitic treatment to uncover molecular mechanisms [137, 138].

A deeper understanding of parasite Cyp–host interactions is essential. Structural biology and gene-editing tools (e.g., CRISPR-Cas9) can elucidate how parasite Cyps manipulate host pathways such as epigenetic regulation, autophagy, or nuclear factor (NF)-κB signaling [59, 126]. High-resolution techniques (Cryo-EM, x-ray crystallography) and omics approaches (single-cell transcriptomics, proteomic mapping of host Cyp networks) may identify stage-specific targets and host–pathogen interfaces.

Nonimmunosuppressive Cyp analogs and peptide mimetics are promising alternatives to CsA [34, 54]. Unique parasite features, such as TgCyp18’s CCR5-binding motif or LmCyp19’s avoidance of CD147, enable selective inhibition [5, 57, 62, 76]. Combination therapies with immunomodulators (e.g., checkpoint inhibitors) could enhance efficacy.

Secretory Cyps remain compelling vaccine candidates. Multi-epitope vaccines, combining Cyps with antigens such as Leishmania HASPB, may improve immunogenicity [139, 140]. Prime-boost strategies (e.g., DNA vaccine + protein-adjuvant boost) and identification of protective peptide loops could refine vaccine design and diagnostic applications [123, 141].

Author contributions

SR and RMR conceptualized and supervised the review and wrote the first draft. AM, CA, JLA, and EGA reviewed and critically revised the paper and improved the paper. SR, RM, and RSH provided the information. All authors finally approved this final version. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

No funding.

Data availability

Data supporting the main conclusions of this study are included in the manuscript.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Raúl Manzano-Román, Email: rmanzano@usal.es.

Sajad Rashidi, Email: sajad.rashidi@khomeinums.ac.ir.

References

  • 1.Barik S. Immunophilins: for the love of proteins. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2006;63:2889–900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Wang P, Heitman J. The cyclophilins. Genome Biol. 2005;6:226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Galat A. Peptidylprolyl cis/trans isomerases (immunophilins): biological diversity-targets-functions. Curr Top Med Chem. 2003;3:1315–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tuccinardi T, Rizzolio F. Peptidyl-prolyl isomerases in human pathologies. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Favretto F, Jiménez-Faraco E, Conter C, Dominici P, Hermoso JA, Astegno A. Structural basis for cyclosporin isoform-specific inhibition of cyclophilins from Toxoplasma gondii. ACS Infect Dis. 2023;9:365–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wu Y, Ma Z, Zhang Y, Zhang M, Shi X, Zhang M, et al. The role of cyclophilins in viral infection and the immune response. J Infect. 2022;85:365–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kalinina A, Grigorieva E, Smirnova A, Kazansky D, Khromykh L. Pharmacokinetic parameters of recombinant human cyclophilin A in mice. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2024;49:57–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lin D-T, Lechleiter JD. Mitochondrial targeted cyclophilin D protects cells from cell death by peptidyl prolyl isomerization. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:31134–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Harding MW. Immunophilins, mTOR, and pharmacodynamic strategies for a targeted cancer therapy: commentary re: JM Peralba et al., pharmacodynamic evaluation of CCI-779, an inhibitor of mTOR, in cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res., 9:2887–2892, 2003. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:2882–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Liang L, Lin R, Xie Y, Lin H, Shao F, Rui W, et al. The role of cyclophilins in inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal cancer. Int J Biol Sci. 2021;17:2548–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tajti G, Gebetsberger L, Pamlitschka G, Aigner-Radakovics K, Leitner J, Steinberger P, et al. Cyclophilin–CD147 interaction enables SARS-CoV-2 infection of human monocytes and their activation via Toll-like receptors 7 and 8. Front Immunol. 2025;16:1460089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wang J-j, Chen C, Xie P-f, Pan Y, Tan Y-h, Tang L-j. Proteomic analysis and immune properties of exosomes released by macrophages infected with Mycobacterium avium. Microbes Infect. 2014;16:283–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Szempruch AJ, Dennison L, Kieft R, Harrington JM, Hajduk SL. Sending a message: extracellular vesicles of pathogenic protozoan parasites. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14:669–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sharma AK, Mal S, Sahu SK, Bagchi S, Majumder D, Chakravorty D, et al. Mycobacterial peptidyl prolyl isomerase A activates STING-TBK1-IRF3 signaling to promote IFNβ release in macrophages. FEBS J. 2025;292:94–114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhao X, Zhao X, Di W, Wang C. Inhibitors of cyclophilin A: current and anticipated pharmaceutical agents for inflammatory diseases and cancers. Molecules. 2024;29:1235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wang T, Becker D, Twizerimana AP, Luedde T, Gohlke H, Münk C. Cyclophilin a regulates tripartite motif 5 alpha restriction of HIV-1. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26:495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Molle J, Duponchel S, Rieusset J, Ovize M, Ivanov AV, Zoulim F, et al. Exploration of the role of cyclophilins in established hepatitis B and C infections. Viruses. 2024;17:11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Liao Y, Luo D, Peng K, Zeng Y. Cyclophilin A: a key player for etiological agent infection. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2021;105:1365–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Xu M, Zhang X, Yu Q, Zhao Q, Li J, Gong P, et al. Characterization of cyclophilin 23 as a novel factor for development and pathogenicity of Cryptosporidium parvum. Vet Parasitol. 2025. 10.1016/j.vetpar.2025.110539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kameyama K, Nishimura M, Punsantsogvoo M, Ibrahim HM, Xuan X, Furuoka H, et al. Immunological characterization of Neospora caninum cyclophilin. Parasitology. 2012;139:294–301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tuo W, Fetterer R, Jenkins M, Dubey J. Identification and characterization of Neospora caninum cyclophilin that elicits gamma interferon production. Infect Immun. 2005;73:5093–100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Acharya S, Da’dara AA, Skelly PJ. Schistosome immunomodulators. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17:e1010064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kulkarni MM, Karafova A, Kamysz W, Schenkman S, Pelle R, McGwire BS. Secreted trypanosome cyclophilin inactivates lytic insect defense peptides and induces parasite calcineurin activation and infectivity. J Biol Chem. 2013;288:8772–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Aranda-Chan V, Cárdenas-Guerra RE, Otero-Pedraza A, Pacindo-Cabrales EE, Flores-Pucheta CI, Montes-Flores O, et al. Insights into peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerases from clinically important protozoans: from structure to potential biotechnological applications. Pathogens. 2024;13:644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bruchhaus I, Roeder T, Lotter H, Schwerdtfeger M, Tannich E. Differential gene expression in Entamoeba histolytica isolated from amoebic liver abscess. Mol Microbiol. 2002;44:1063–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Carrero JC, Petrossian P, Olivos A, Sánchez-Zerpa Ma, Ostoa-Soloma P, Laclette JP. Effect of cyclosporine A on Entamoeba histolytica. Arch Med Res. 2000;31:S8-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Naiyer S, Bhattacharya A, Bhattacharya S. Advances in Entamoeba histolytica biology through transcriptomic analysis. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yu H-S, Kong H-H, Chung D-I. Cloning and characterization of Giardia intestinalis cyclophilin. Korean J Parasitol. 2002;40:131–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hosse RJ, Krücken J, Bierbaum S, Greif G, Wunderlich F. Eimeria tenella: genomic organization and expression of an 89 kDa cyclophilin. Exp Parasitol. 2008;118:275–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Perkins ME, Wu TW, Le Blancq SM. Cyclosporin analogs inhibit in vitro growth of Cryptosporidium parvum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;42:843–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Martin T, Lou Y-C, Chou C-C, Wei S-Y, Sadotra S, Cho C-C, et al. Structural basis of interaction between dimeric cyclophilin 1 and Myb1 transcription factor in Trichomonas vaginalis. Sci Rep. 2018;8:5410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chu CH, Huang YH, Liu HW, Hsu HM, Tai JH. Membrane localization of a Myb3 transcription factor regulated by a TvCyP1 cyclophilin in the parasitic protozoan Trichomonas vaginalis. FEBS J. 2018;285:929–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hsu H-M, Huang Y-H, Aryal S, Liu H-W, Chen C, Chen S-H, et al. Endomembrane protein trafficking regulated by a Tv CyP2 cyclophilin in the protozoan parasite, Trichomonas vaginalis. Sci Rep. 2020;10:1275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yau W-L, Blisnick T, Taly J-F, Helmer-Citterich M, Schiene-Fischer C, Leclercq O, et al. Cyclosporin A treatment of Leishmania donovani reveals stage-specific functions of cyclophilins in parasite proliferation and viability. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4:e729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yau WL, Lambertz U, Colineau L, Pescher P, MacDonald A, Zander D, et al. Phenotypic characterization of a Leishmania donovani cyclophilin 40 null mutant. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2016;63:823–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Perrone AE, Milduberger N, Fuchs AG, Bustos PL, Bua J. A functional analysis of the cyclophilin repertoire in the protozoan parasite Trypanosoma cruzi. Biomolecules. 2018;8:132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zheng Z-W, Li J, Chen H, He J-L, Chen Q-W, Zhang J-H, et al. Evaluation of in vitro antileishmanial efficacy of cyclosporin A and its non-immunosuppressive derivative, dihydrocyclosporin A. Parasit Vectors. 2020;13:132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rascher C, Pahl A, Pecht A, Brune K, Solbach W, Bang H. Leishmania major parasites express cyclophilin isoforms with an unusual interaction with calcineurin. Biochem J. 1998;334:659–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jha B, Varikuti S, Bishop N, dos Santos G, McDonald J, Sur A, et al. An effective live vaccine strain of trypanosoma cruzi prevents chagas disease in the mouse model. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346274839_An_Effective_Live_Vaccine_Strain_Of_Trypanosoma_Cruzi_Prevents_Chagas_Disease_In_The_Mouse_Model. 2020. Accessed Oct 2020.
  • 40.Bua J, Fichera L, Fuchs A, Potenza M, Dubin M, Wenger R, et al. Anti-Trypanosoma cruzi effects of cyclosporin A derivatives: possible role of a P-glycoprotein and parasite cyclophilins. Parasitology. 2008;135:217–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ibrahim HM, Nishimura M, Tanaka S, Awadin W, Furuoka H, Xuan X, et al. Overproduction of Toxoplasma gondii cyclophilin-18 regulates host cell migration and enhances parasite dissemination in a CCR5-independent manner. BMC Microbiol. 2014;14:76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Favretto F, Jiménez-Faraco E, Catucci G, Di Matteo A, Travaglini-Allocatelli C, Sadeghi SJ, et al. Evaluating the potential of non-immunosuppressive cyclosporin analogs for targeting Toxoplasma gondii cyclophilin: insights from structural studies. Protein Sci. 2024;33:e5157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Adams B, Musiyenko A, Kumar R, Barik S. A novel class of dual-family immunophilins. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:24308–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.High K, Joiner K, Handschumacher R. Isolation, cDNA sequences, and biochemical characterization of the major cyclosporin-binding proteins of Toxoplasma gondii. J Biol Chem. 1994;269:9105–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mineo TWP, Oliveira CJF, Silva DAO, Oliveira LL, Abatepaulo AR, Ribeiro DP, et al. Neospora caninum excreted/secreted antigens trigger CC-chemokine receptor 5-dependent cell migration. Int J Parasitol. 2010;40:797–805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Berriman M, Fairlamb AH. Detailed characterization of a cyclophilin from the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Biochem J. 1998;334:437–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bianchin A, Chubb AJ, Bell A. Immunophilins as possible drug targets in apicomplexan parasites. Compr Anal Parasite Biol: Metab Drug Discov: Metab Drug Discov. 2016. 10.1002/9783527694082.ch8. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Leneghan D, Bell A. Immunophilin–protein interactions in Plasmodium falciparum. Parasitology. 2015;142:1404–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zhao S, Liu J, Guan G, Liu A, Li Y, Yin H, et al. Theileria annulata Cyclophilin1 (TaCyp1) interacts with host cell MED21. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Marín-Menéndez A, Bell A. Overexpression, purification and assessment of cyclosporin binding of a family of cyclophilins and cyclophilin-like proteins of the human malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Protein Expr Purif. 2011;78:225–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Marín-Menéndez A, Monaghan P, Bell A. A family of cyclophilin-like molecular chaperones in Plasmodium falciparum. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2012;184:44–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bell A, Monaghan P, Page AP. Peptidyl-prolyl cis–trans isomerases (immunophilins) and their roles in parasite biochemistry, host–parasite interaction and antiparasitic drug action. Int J Parasitol. 2006;36:261–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Acharya P, Kumar R, Tatu U. Chaperoning a cellular upheaval in malaria: heat shock proteins in Plasmodium falciparum. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2007;153:85–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Krücken J, Greif G, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G. In silico analysis of the cyclophilin repertoire of apicomplexan parasites. Parasit Vectors. 2009;2:27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mok S, Ashley EA, Ferreira PE, Zhu L, Lin Z, Yeo T, et al. Population transcriptomics of human malaria parasites reveals the mechanism of artemisinin resistance. Science. 2015;347:431–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Vance N. Quantification of Plasmodium falciparum Cyclophilin 19B transcripts via qPCR in normal and sickle-trait hemoglobin genotypes. Durham: Duke University; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ibrahim HM, Bannai H, Xuan X, Nishikawa Y. Toxoplasma gondii cyclophilin 18-mediated production of nitric oxide induces bradyzoite conversion in a CCR5-dependent manner. Infect Immun. 2009;77:3686–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ibrahim HM, Xuan X, Nishikawa Y. Toxoplasma gondii cyclophilin 18 regulates the proliferation and migration of murine macrophages and spleen cells. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2010;17:1322–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Aliberti J, Valenzuela JG, Carruthers VB, Hieny S, Andersen J, Charest H, et al. Molecular mimicry of a CCR5 binding-domain in the microbial activation of dendritic cells. Nat Immunol. 2003;4:485–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Del Rio L, Butcher BA, Bennouna S, Hieny S, Sher A, Denkers EY. Toxoplasma gondii triggers myeloid differentiation factor 88-dependent IL-12 and chemokine ligand 2 (monocyte chemoattractant protein 1) responses using distinct parasite molecules and host receptors. J Immunol. 2004;172:6954–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Denkers EY. From cells to signaling cascades: manipulation of innate immunity by Toxoplasma gondii. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2003;39:193–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Golding H, Aliberti J, King LR, Manischewitz J, Andersen J, Valenzuela J, et al. Inhibition of HIV-1 infection by a CCR5-binding cyclophilin from Toxoplasma gondii. Blood. 2003;102:3280–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Sassi A, Brichacek B, Hieny S, Yarovinsky F, Golding H, Grivel J-C, et al. Toxoplasma gondii inhibits R5 HIV-1 replication in human lymphoid tissues ex vivo. Microbes Infect. 2009;11:1106–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Carey KL, Donahue CG, Ward GE. Identification and molecular characterization of GRA8, a novel, proline-rich, dense granule protein of Toxoplasma gondii. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2000;105:25–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ying Z, Wu Y, Sun Z, Liu J, Liu Q. The cyclophilin D (CypD) of Toxoplasma gondii is involved in the parasite’s response to oxidative stress damage. Parasitol Res. 2024;123:1–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Dos Santos GP, Abukawa FM, Souza-Melo N, Alcântara LM, Bittencourt-Cunha P, Moraes CB, et al. Cyclophilin 19 secreted in the host cell cytosol by Trypanosoma cruzi promotes ROS production required for parasite growth. Cell Microbiol. 2021;23:e13295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Rêgo JV, Duarte AP, Liarte DB, de Carvalho SF, Barreto HM, Bua J, et al. Molecular characterization of cyclophilin (TcCyP19) in Trypanosoma cruzi populations susceptible and resistant to benznidazole. Exp Parasitol. 2015;148:73–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Perrone AE, Pinillo M, Rial MS, Fernández M, Milduberger N, González C, et al. Trypanosoma cruzi secreted cyclophilin Tc CyP19 as an early marker for trypanocidal treatment efficiency. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:11875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Estrada D, Specker G, Martínez A, Dias PP, Hissa B, Andrade LO, et al. Cardiomyocyte diffusible redox mediators control Trypanosoma cruzi infection: role of parasite mitochondrial iron superoxide dismutase. Biochem J. 2018;475:1235–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Jha BK, Varikuti S, Verma C, Shivahare R, Bishop N, Dos Santos GP, et al. Immunization with a Trypanosoma cruzi cyclophilin-19 deletion mutant protects against acute Chagas disease in mice. NPJ Vaccines. 2023;8:63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Rassi JA, Marin JA, Rassi A. Chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy: a review of the main pathogenic mechanisms and the efficacy of aetiological treatment following the BENznidazole Evaluation for Interrupting Trypanosomiasis (BENEFIT) trial. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2017;112:224–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Bakhtiyari M, Haji Aghasi A, Banihashemi S, Abbassioun A, Tavakol C, Zalpoor H. CD147 and cyclophilin a: a promising potential targeted therapy for COVID-19 and associated cancer progression and chemo-resistance. Infect Agents Cancer. 2023;18:20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Roy S, Basu S, Datta AK, Bhattacharyya D, Banerjee R, Dasgupta D. Equilibrium unfolding of cyclophilin from Leishmania donovani: characterization of intermediate states. Int J Biol Macromol. 2014;69:353–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Venugopal V, Datta AK, Bhattacharyya D, Dasgupta D, Banerjee R. Structure of cyclophilin from Leishmania donovani bound to cyclosporin at 2.6 Å resolution: correlation between structure and thermodynamic data. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2009;65:1187–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Agallou M, Athanasiou E, Samiotaki M, Panayotou G, Karagouni E. Identification of immunoreactive Leishmania infantum protein antigens to asymptomatic dog sera through combined immunoproteomics and bioinformatics analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0149894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Yurchenko V, Xue Z, Sherry B, Bukrinsky M. Functional analysis of Leishmania major cyclophilin. Int J Parasitol. 2008;38:633–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Venugopal V, Sen B, Datta AK, Banerjee R. Structure of cyclophilin from Leishmania donovani at 1.97 Å resolution. Acta Crystallogr Sect F Struct Biol Cryst Commun. 2007;63:60–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Yurchenko V, Constant S, Eisenmesser E, Bukrinsky M. Cyclophilin–CD147 interactions: a new target for anti-inflammatory therapeutics. Clin Exp Immunol. 2010;160:305–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Afrin F, Khan I, Hemeg HA. Leishmania-host interactions—An epigenetic paradigm. Front Immunol. 2019;10:492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Sen B, Venugopal V, Chakraborty A, Datta R, Dolai S, Banerjee R, et al. Amino acid residues of Leishmania donovani cyclophilin key to interaction with its adenosine kinase: biological implications. Biochemistry. 2007;46:7832–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Dhanda AS, Lulic KT, Vogl AW, Mc Gee MM, Chiu RH, Guttman JA. Listeria membrane protrusion collapse: requirement of cyclophilin A for Listeria cell-to-cell spreading. J Infect Dis. 2019;219:145–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Dhanda AS, Warren KE, Chiu RH, Guttman JA. Cyclophilin A controls Salmonella internalization levels and is present at E. coli actin-rich pedestals. Anat Rec. 2018;301:2086–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Dimou M, Venieraki A, Katinakis P. Microbial cyclophilins: specialized functions in virulence and beyond. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;33:164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Floudas A, Cluxton CD, Fahel J, Khan AR, Saunders SP, Amu S, et al. Composition of the Schistosoma mansoni worm secretome: identification of immune modulatory cyclophilin A. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11:e0006012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Li J, Zhuang W, Cong L, Shi W, Cai X, Huang F, et al. Cyclophilin A from Schistosoma japonicum promotes a Th2 response in mice. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Marin-Menendez A, Bell A. Identification and characterization of novel Plasmodium falciparum cyclophilins and their roles in the antimalarial actions of cyclosporin A and derivatives. Malar J. 2010;9:O3. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Allman WR, Dey R, Liu L, Siddiqui S, Coleman AS, Bhattacharya P, et al. TACI deficiency leads to alternatively activated macrophage phenotype and susceptibility to Leishmania infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:E4094–103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Yun C, Lillehoj H, Lillehoj E. Intestinal immune responses to coccidiosis. Dev Comp Immunol. 2000;24:303–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Maeda H, Boldbaatar D, Kusakisako K, Galay RL, Aung KM, Umemiya-Shirafuji R, et al. Inhibitory effect of cyclophilin A from the hard tick Haemaphysalis longicornis on the growth of Babesia bovis and Babesia bigemina. Parasitol Res. 2013;112:2207–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Milduberger N, Bustos PL, González C, Perrone AE, Postan M, Bua J. Trypanosoma cruzi infection in cyclophilin D deficient mice. Exp Parasitol. 2021;220:108044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Hoerauf A, Rascher C, Bang R, Pahl A, Solbach W, Brune K, et al. Host-cell cyclophilin is important for the intracellular replication of Leishmania major. Mol Microbiol. 1997;24:421–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Nigro P, Pompilio G, Capogrossi M. Cyclophilin A: a key player for human disease. Cell Death Dis. 2013;4:e888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Luban J, Bossolt KL, Franke EK, Kalpana GV, Goff SP. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Gag protein binds to cyclophilins A and B. Cell. 1993;73:1067–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Bukrinsky MI. Cyclophilins: unexpected messengers in intercellular communications. Trends Immunol. 2002;23:323–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Thakur A, Mikkelsen H, Jungersen G. Intracellular pathogens: host immunity and microbial persistence strategies. J Immunol Res. 2019;2019:1356540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Schor S, Einav S. Combating intracellular pathogens with repurposed host-targeted drugs. ACS Infect Dis. 2018;4:88–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Jin S, Zhang M, Qiao X. Cyclophilin A: promising target in cancer therapy. Cancer Biol Ther. 2024;25:2425127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Williams PD, Owens CR, Dziegielewski J, Moskaluk CA, Read PW, Larner JM, et al. Cyclophilin B expression is associated with in vitro radioresistance and clinical outcome after radiotherapy. Neoplasia. 2011;13:1122–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Motawea KR, Elhalag RH, Rouzan SS, Talat NE, Reyad SM, Chébl P, et al. Cyclophilin c as a novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarker of coronary artery diseases. a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2023;48:101812. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Yao Q, Li M, Yang H, Chai H, Fisher W, Chen C. Roles of cyclophilins in cancers and other organ systems. World J Surg. 2005;29:276–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Zhang L, Liu Y, Zhou R, He B, Wang W, Zhang B. Cyclophilin d: guardian or executioner for tumor cells? Front Oncol. 2022;12:939588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Piao M, Lee SH, Li Y, Choi J-K, Yeo C-Y, Lee KY. Cyclophilin E (CypE) functions as a positive regulator in osteoblast differentiation by regulating the transcriptional activity of Runx2. Cells. 2023;12:2549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Ure DR, Trepanier DJ, Mayo PR, Foster RT. Cyclophilin inhibition as a potential treatment for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2020;29:163–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Rajan S, Yoon HS. Structural insights into plasmodium PPIases. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:931635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Clipstone NA, Crabtree GR. Identification of calcineurin as a key signalling enzyme in T-lymphocyte activation. Nature. 1992;357:695–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Jin L, Harrison SC. Crystal structure of human calcineurin complexed with cyclosporin A and human cyclophilin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:13522–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Stauffer WT, Goodman AZ, Gallay PA. Cyclophilin inhibition as a strategy for the treatment of human disease. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15:1417945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Potenza M, Galat A, Minning T, Ruiz A, Duran R, Tarleton R, et al. Analysis of the Trypanosoma cruzi cyclophilin gene family and identification of Cyclosporin A binding proteins. Parasitology. 2006;132:867–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Liu C, von Brunn A, Zhu D. Cyclophilin A and CD147: novel therapeutic targets for the treatment of COVID-19. Med Drug Discov. 2020;7:100056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Gavigan CS, Kiely SP, Hirtzlin J, Bell A. Cyclosporin-binding proteins of Plasmodium falciparum. Int J Parasitol. 2003;33:987–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Kucharski M, Wirjanata G, Nayak S, Boentoro J, Dziekan JM, Assisi C, et al. Short tandem repeat polymorphism in the promoter region of cyclophilin 19B drives its transcriptional upregulation and contributes to drug resistance in the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. PLoS Pathog. 2023;19:e1011118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Chaurasiya A, Kumari G, Garg S, Shoaib R, Anam Z, Joshi N, et al. Targeting artemisinin-resistant malaria by repurposing the anti-hepatitis C virus drug alisporivir. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2022;66:e00392–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Prakash P, Zeeshan M, Saini E, Muneer A, Khurana S, Kumar Chourasia B, et al. Human cyclophilin B forms part of a multi-protein complex during erythrocyte invasion by Plasmodium falciparum. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1548. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Satchwell TJ, Wright KE, Haydn-Smith KL, Sanchez-Roman Teran F, Moura PL, Hawksworth J, et al. Genetic manipulation of cell line derived reticulocytes enables dissection of host malaria invasion requirements. Nat Commun. 2019;10:3806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Gavigan C, Shen M, Machado S, Bell A. Influence of the Plasmodium falciparum P-glycoprotein homologue 1 (pfmdr1 gene product) on the antimalarial action of cyclosporin. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;59:197–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Reed MB, Saliba KJ, Caruana SR, Kirk K, Cowman AF. Pgh1 modulates sensitivity and resistance to multiple antimalarials in Plasmodium falciparum. Nature. 2000;403:906–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Carraro R, Búa J, Ruiz A, Paulino M. Modelling and study of cyclosporin A and related compounds in complexes with a Trypanosoma cruzi cyclophilin. J Mol Graph Model. 2007;26:48–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Morales MA, Watanabe R, Dacher M, Chafey P, Osorio y Fortéa J, Scott DA, et al. Phosphoproteome dynamics reveal heat-shock protein complexes specific to the Leishmania donovani infectious stage. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:8381–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Morales MA, Watanabe R, Laurent C, Lenormand P, Rousselle JC, Namane A, et al. Phosphoproteomic analysis of Leishmania donovani pro-and amastigote stages. Proteomics. 2008;8:350–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Yau WaiLok YW, Pescher P, MacDonald A, Hem S, Zander D, Retzlaff S, et al. The Leishmania donovani chaperone cyclophilin 40 is essential for intracellular infection independent of its stage-specific phosphorylation status. Mol Microbiol. 2014;93:80–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Santos-Gomes G, Rodrigues A, Teixeira F, Carreira J, Alexandre-Pires G, Carvalho S, et al. Immunization with the Leishmania infantum recombinant cyclophilin protein 1 confers partial protection to subsequent parasite infection and generates specific memory T cells. Vaccine. 2014;32:1247–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Yu Q, Huang X, Gong P, Zhang Q, Li J, Zhang G, et al. Protective immunity induced by a recombinant BCG vaccine encoding the cyclophilin gene of Toxoplasma gondii. Vaccine. 2013;31:6065–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Gong P, Huang X, Yu Q, Li Y, Huang J, Li J, et al. The protective effect of a DNA vaccine encoding the Toxoplasma gondii cyclophilin gene in BALB/c mice. Parasite Immunol. 2013;35:140–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Watanabe Costa R, da Silveira JF, Bahia D. Interactions between Trypanosoma cruzi secreted proteins and host cell signaling pathways. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Tuo W, Feng X, Cao L, Vinyard B, Dubey J, Fetterer R, et al. Vaccination with Neospora caninum-cyclophilin and-profilin confers partial protection against experimental neosporosis-induced abortion in sheep. Vaccine. 2021;39:4534–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Fereig RM, Abdelbaky HH, Kuroda Y, Nishikawa Y. Critical role of TLR2 in triggering protective immunity with cyclophilin entrapped in oligomannose-coated liposomes against Neospora caninum infection in mice. Vaccine. 2019;37:937–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Liu J, Farmer JD, Lane WS, Friedman J, Weissman I, Schreiber SL. Calcineurin is a common target of cyclophilin-cyclosporin A and FKBP-FK506 complexes. Cell. 1991;66:807–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Singh B, Varikuti S, Halsey G, Volpedo G, Hamza OM, Satoskar AR. Host-directed therapies for parasitic diseases. Future Med Chem. 2019;11:1999–2018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Su L-H, Lee GA, Huang Y-C, Chen Y-H, Sun C-H. Neomycin and puromycin affect gene expression in Giardia lamblia stable transfection. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2007;156:124–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Chatellard-Gruaz D, Saurat J-H, Siegenthaler G. Differential expression of cyclophilin isoforms during keratinocyte differentiation. Biochem J. 1994;303:863–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Matrangolo FS, Liarte DB, Andrade LC, de Melo MF, Andrade JM, Ferreira RF, et al. Comparative proteomic analysis of antimony-resistant and-susceptible Leishmania braziliensis and Leishmania infantum chagasi lines. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2013;190:63–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Colebrook A, Jenkins D, Lightowlers M. Anti-parasitic effect of cyclosporin A on Echinococcus granulosus and characterization of the associated cyclophilin protein. Parasitology. 2002;125:485–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Ortona E, Vaccari S, Margutti P, Delunardo F, Rigano R, Profumo E, et al. Immunological characterization of Echinococcus granulosus cyclophilin, an allergen reactive with IgE and IgG4 from patients with cystic echinococcosis. Clin Exp Immunol. 2002;128:124–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Rakshit R, Bahl A, Arunima A, Pandey S, Tripathi D. Beyond protein folding: the pleiotropic functions of PPIases in cellular processes and microbial virulence. Biochem Biophys Acta. 2025;1869:130754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Ma Z, Zhang W, Wu Y, Zhang M, Wang L, Wang Y, et al. Cyclophilin A inhibits A549 cell oxidative stress and apoptosis by modulating the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway. 2021. Biosci Rep. 10.1042/BSR20203219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 136.Guo Y, Jiang M, Zhao X, Gu M, Wang Z, Xu S, et al. Cyclophilin A promotes non-small cell lung cancer metastasis via p38 MAPK. Thorac Cancer. 2018;9:120–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Prieto JH, Fischer E, Koncarevic S, Yates J, Becker K. Large-scale differential proteome analysis in Plasmodium falciparum under drug treatment. In: Parasite Genomics Protocols. New York: Springer; 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Dousti M, Manzano-Román R, Rashidi S, Barzegar G, Ahmadpour NB, Mohammadi A, et al. A proteomic glimpse into the effect of antimalarial drugs on Plasmodium falciparum proteome towards highlighting possible therapeutic targets. Pathog Dis. 2021;79:ftaa071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Lopes KF, Freire ML, Murta SMF, Oliveira E. Efficacy of vaccines based on chimeric or multiepitope antigens for protection against visceral leishmaniasis: a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2024;18:e0012757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Mortazavidehkordi N, Fallah A, Abdollahi A, Kia V, Khanahmad H, Najafabadi ZG, et al. A lentiviral vaccine expressing KMP11-HASPB fusion protein increases immune response to Leishmania major in BALB/C. Parasitol Res. 2018;117:2265–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Muruaga EJ, Briones G, Roset MS. Biochemical and functional characterization of Brucella abortus cyclophilins: so similar, yet so different. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:1046640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Citations

  1. Ma Z, Zhang W, Wu Y, Zhang M, Wang L, Wang Y, et al. Cyclophilin A inhibits A549 cell oxidative stress and apoptosis by modulating the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway. 2021. Biosci Rep. 10.1042/BSR20203219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting the main conclusions of this study are included in the manuscript.


Articles from Parasites & Vectors are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES