Usage Information
Abstract
Tenofovir gel and dapivirine ring provided variable HIV protection in clinical trials, reflecting poor adherence and possibly biological factors. We hypothesized that vaginal microbiota modulates pharmacokinetics and tested the effects of pH, individual bacteria, and vaginal swabs from women on pharmacokinetics and antiviral activity. Tenofovir, but not dapivirine, uptake by human cells was reduced as pH increased. Lactobacillus crispatus actively transported tenofovir leading to a loss in drug bioavailability and culture supernatants from Gardnerella vaginalis, but not Atopobium vaginae, blocked tenofovir endocytosis. The inhibition of endocytosis mapped to adenine. Adenine increased from 65.5 μM in broth to 246 μM in Gardnerella, but decreased to 9.5 μM in Atopobium supernatants. This translated into a decrease in anti-HIV activity when Gardnerella supernatants or adenine were added to cultures. Dapivirine was also impacted by microbiota, as drug bound irreversibly to bacteria, resulting in decreased antiviral activity. When drugs were incubated with vaginal swabs, 30.7% ± 5.7% of dapivirine and 63.9% ± 8.8% of tenofovir were recovered in supernatants after centrifugation of the bacterial cell pellet. In contrast, no impact of microbiota on the pharmacokinetics of the prodrugs, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide, was observed. Together, these results demonstrate that microbiota may impact pharmacokinetics and contribute to inconsistent efficacy.
Authors
Ekaterina Taneva, Shada Sinclair, Pedro M.M. Mesquita, Brian Weinrick, Scott A. Cameron, Natalia Cheshenko, Kerry Reagle, Bruce Frank, Sujatha Srinivasan, David Fredricks, Marla J. Keller, Betsy C. Herold
Usage data is cumulative from August 2025 through August 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 1,796 | 64 |
| 360 | 12 | |
| Figure | 912 | 0 |
| Table | 254 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 163 | 1 |
| Citation downloads | 375 | 0 |
| Totals | 3,860 | 77 |
| Total Views | 3,937 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
