Control of Nematode Parasites with Agents Acting on Neuro-Musculature Systems: Lessons for Neuropeptide Ligand Discovery

  • Richard J. Martin
  • Alan P. Robertson
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (volume 692)

Abstract

There are a number of reasons why the development of novel anthelmintics is very necessary. In domestic animals, parasites cause serious loss of production and are a welfare concern. The control of these parasites requires changes in management practices to reduce the spread of infection and the use of therapeutic agents to treat affected animals. The development of vaccines against parasites is desirable but their development so far has been very limited. One notable exception is the vaccination of calves against infection by Dictyocaulus viviparous (lungworm) which has proved to be very effective.2 In domestic animals, the total market for anti-parasitic agents (both ecto- and endo-parasites) is in excess of a billion US dollars. In humans there are serious problems of morbidity and mortality associated with parasite infections. 1.6 billion People throughout the world are infected with ascariasis (Fig. 1A) and/or hookworm. Approximately one-third of the world’s population is suffering from the effects of intestinal nematode parasites, causing low growth-rates in infants, ill-thrift, diarrhea and in 2% of cases, loss of life. Despite the huge number of affected individuals, the market for anti-parasitic drugs for humans is not big enough to foster the development of anthelmintics because most infestations that occur are in undeveloped countries that lack the ability to pay for the development of these drugs. The major economic motivator then, is for the development of animal anthelmintics.

In both domestic animals and now in humans, there is now a level of resistance to the available anthelmintic compounds.2 The resistance is either: constitutive, where a given species of parasite has never been sensitive to the compound; or acquired, where the resistance has developed through Darwinian selection fostered by the continued exposure to the anti-parasitic drugs. The continued use of all anthelmintics has and will, continue to increase the level of resistance. Cure rates are now often less than 100% and resistance of parasites to agents acting on the neuromuscular systems is present in a wide range of parasites of animals and humans hosts.3,4

In the face of this resistance the development of novel and effective agents is an urgent and imperative need. New drugs which act on the neuromuscular system have an advantage for medication for animals and humans because they have a rapid therapeutic effect within 3 hours of administration. The effects on the neuromuscular system include: spastic paralysis with drugs like levamisole and pyrantel; flaccid paralysis as with piperazine; or disruption of other vital muscular activity as with ivermectin. Figure 1 B and C, illustrates an example of a spastic effect of levamisole on infectious L3 larvae of Ostertagia ostertagiae, a parasite of pigs. The effect was produced within minutes of the in vitro application of levamisole.
Figure 1. A)

Adult Ascaris suum. These large intestinal nematode parasites of the pig are nearly identical to Ascaris lumbricoides found in the human intestine. B) L3 larvae of Ostertagia ostertagiae swimming freely in tap water. C) L3 larvae of Ostertagia ostertagiae showing tight coiling or spastic paralysis following treatment with 10 μM levamisole.

Keywords

Toxicity Nicotine Acetylcholine Trop Cholinesterase 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Geary TG, Sangster NC and Thompson DP. Frontiers in anthelmintic pharmacology. Vet Parasitol 1999; 84:275–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bain RK. Irradiated vaccines for helminth control in livestock. Int J Parasitol 1999; 29:185–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albonico M, Bickle Q, Haji HJ et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of pyrantel-oxantel for the treatment of soil-transmitted nematode infections. Trans: Roy Soc Trop Med 2002; 685–690.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reynoldson JA, Behnke JM, Pallant LJ et al. Failure of pyrantel in treatment of human hookworm infections (Ancylostoma duodenale) in the Kimberley region of north west Australia. Acta Trop 1997; 68:301–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin RJ. Modes of action of anthelmintic drugs. Vet J 1997; 154:11–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kohler P. The biochemical basis of anthelmintic action and resistance. Int J Parasitol 2001; 31:336–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robertson AP, Clark CL, Burns TA et al. Paraherquamide and 2-deoxy-paraherquamide distinguish cholinergic receptor subtypes in Ascaris muscle. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2002l; 302:853–860.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martin RJ, Bai G, Clark CL et al. Methyridine (2-[2-methoxyethyl]-pyridine]) and levamisole activate different ACh receptor subtypes in nematode parasites: a new lead for levamisole-resistance. Br J Pharmacol 2003; 140:1068–1076.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edwards G, Breckenridge AM. Clinical pharmacokinetics of anthelmintic drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet 1988; 15:67–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baggot JD, Mckellar QA. The absorption, distribution and elimination of anthelmintic drugs: the role of pharmacokinetics. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1994; 17:409–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hennessy DR. Physiology, pharmacology and parasitology. Int J Parasitol 1997; 27:145–152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin RJ. Electrophysiological effects of piperazine and diethylcarbamazine on Ascaris suum somatic muscle. Br J Pharmacol 1982; 77:255–265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin RJ. gamma-Aminobutyric acid-and piperazine-activated single-channel currents from Ascaris suum body muscle. Br J Pharmacol 1985; 84:445–461.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Piper PJ, Temple DM. The effect of lipoxygenase inhibitors and diethylcarbamazine on the immunological release of slow reacting substance of anaphylaxis (SRS-A) from guinea-pig chopped lung. J Pharm Pharmacol 1981; 33:384–386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roy TK, Sharma S, Srivastava VM. Comparative tissue distribution and urinary excretion of diethylcarbamazine and centperazine. Indian J Med Res 1981; 74:565–571.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee S, Casteel DA, Fleckenstein L. Specific gas chromatographic analysis of diethylcarbamazine in human plasma using solid-phase extraction. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl 1997; 704:181–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holden-Dye L, Brownlee DJ, Walker RJ. The effects of the peptide KPNFIRFamide (PF4) on the somatic muscle cells of the parasitic nematode Ascaris suum. Br J Pharmacol 1997; 120:379–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fellowes RA, Maule AG, Marks NJ et al. Nematode neuropeptide modulation of the vagina vera of Ascaris suum: in vitro effects of PF1, PF2, PF4, AF3 and AF4. Parasitology 2000; 120 (Pt 1):79–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Purcell J, Robertson AP, Thompson DP et al. PF4, a FMRFamide-related peptide, gates low-conductance Cl(-) channels in Ascaris suum. Eur J Pharmacol 2002; 456:11–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qian H, Martin RJ, Robertson AP. Pharmacology of N-, L-and B-subtypes of nematode nAChR resolved and the single channel level. FASEB Journal 2006; 20:E1–E9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sangster NC, Davis CW, Collins GH et al. Effects of cholinergic drugs on longitudinal contraction in levamisole-susceptible and-resistant Haemonchus contortus Int J Parasitol 1991; 21:689–695.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee EL, Iyngkaran N, Grieve AW et al. Therapeutic evaluation of oxantel pamoate (1, 4, 5, 6-tetrahydro-1-methyl-2-[trans-3-hydroxystyryl] pyrimidine pamoate) in severe Trichuris trichiura infection. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1976; 25:563–567.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mitchell SC. The toxicity of phenothiazine. Drug Metabol Drug Interact 1994; 11:201–235.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boddie GF. Veterinary Therapeutics Oliver and Boyd 1952; London.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arena JP, Liu KK, Paress PS et al. The mechanism of action of avermectins in Caenorhabditis elegans: correlation between activation of glutamate-sensitive chloride current, membrane binding and biological activity. J Parasitol 1995; 81:286–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cully DF, Paress PS, Liu KK et al. Identification of a Drosophila melanogaster glutamate-gated chloride channel sensitive to the antiparasitic agent avermectin. J Biol Chem 1996; 271:20187–20191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martin RJ, Robertson AP, Wolstenholme AJ. Mode of action of the macrocyclic lactones. ed. Vercruysse J, Rew RS 2002; 125–140. Wallingford: CABI.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Steel JW, Waring RH. Ecological Impact of Macrocyclic lactones on Dung Fauna. In Macrocyclic lactones in antiparasitic therapy ed. Vercruysse J, Rew RS 2002; 141–162. Wallingford: CABI.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raymond V, Mongan NP, Sattelle DB. Anthelmintic actions on homomer-forming nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunits: chicken alpha7 and ACR-16 from the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Neuroscience 2000; 101:785–791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Geary TG, Sims SM, Thomas EM et al. Haemonchus contortus: ivermectin-induced paralysis of the pharynx. Exp Parasitol 1993; 77:88–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Martin RJ. An electrophysiological preparation of Ascaris suum pharyngeal muscle reveals a glutamate-gated chloride channel sensitive to the avermectin analogue, milbemycin D. Parasitology 1996; 112 ( Pt 2):247–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sheriff JC, Kotze AC, Sangster NC et al. Effects of macrocyclic lactone anthelmintics on feeding and pharyngeal pumping in Trichostrongylus colubriformis in vitro. Parasitology 2002; 125:477–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gill JH, Kerr CA, Shoop WL et al. Evidence of multiple mechanisms of avermectin resistance in haemonchus contortus—comparison of selection protocols. Int J Parasitol 1998; 28:783–789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Richards JC, Behnke JM, Duce IR. In vitro studies on the relative sensitivity to ivermectin of Necator americanus and Ancylostoma ceylanicum. Int J Parasitol 1995; 25:1185–1191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Geary TG. Ivermectin 20 years on: maturation of a wonder drug. Trends Parasitol 2005; 21:530–532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mckellar QA and Scott EW. The benzimidazole anthelmintic agents—a review. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1990; 13:223–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Martin RJ, Robertson AP, Bjorn H. Target sites of anthelmintics. Parasitology 1997; 114 Suppl: S111–S124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lubega GW, Klein RD, Geary TG et al. Haemonchus contortus: the role of two beta-tubulin gene subfamilies in the resistance to benzimidazole anthelmintics. Biochem Pharmacol 1994; 47:1705–1715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Geary TG, Nulf SC, Exander-Bowman SJ et al. Cloning and characterization of cDNAs encoding beta-tubulin from Dirofilaria immitis and Onchocerca volvulus. J Parasitol 1998; 84:356–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gunawan M, Sangster NC, Kelly JD et al. The efficacy of fenbendazole and albendazole against immature and adult stages of benzimidazole-resistant sheep trichostrongylids. Res Vet Sci 1979; 27:111–115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sangster NC, Prichard RK, Lacey E. Tubulin and benzimidazole-resistance in Trichostrongylus colubriformis (Nematoda). J Parasitol 1985; 71:645–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sangster NC, Gill J. Pharmacology of anthelmintic resistance. Parasitol Today 1999; 15:141–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Harder A, Sangster NC et al. Efficacy of two cyclooctadepsipeptides, PF1022A and emodepside, against anthelmintic-resistant nematodes in sheep and cattle. Parasitology 2005; 130:343–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Harder A, Von Samson-Himmelstjerna G. Cyclooctadepsipeptides—a new class of anthelmintically active compounds. Parasitol Res 2002; 88:481–488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Willson J, Amliwala K, Harder A et al. The effect of the anthelmintic emodepside at the neuromuscular junction of the parasitic nematode Ascaris suum. Parasitology 2003; 126:79–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Davis RE. Action of excitatory amino acids on hypodermis and the motornervous system of Ascaris suum: pharmacological evidence for a glutamate transporter. Parasitology 1998; 116 (Pt 5):487–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schaeffer JM, Bergstrom AR, Turner MJ. MK-801 is a potent nematocidal agent. Characterization of MK-801 binding sites in Caenorhabditis elegans. Biochem J 1989; 260:923–926.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schaeffer JM, Bergstrom AR, Frazier EG et al. Nematocidal activity of MK-801 analogs and related drugs. Structure-activity relationships. Biochem Pharmacol 1994; 48:411–418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ehrlich P, Shiga K. Farbentherapeutische Versuche bei Trypanosomenerkrankung. 1904; 329–392.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Browning C. Experimental chemotherapy in Trypanosome Infections. 1907; 1405–1409.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Prichard RK. Anthelmintic resistance in nematodes: extent, recent understanding and future directions for control and research. Int J Parasitol 1990; 20:515–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Waruiru RM, Ngotho JW, Mukiri JG. Multiple anthelmintic resistance in Haemonchus contortus on a sheep farm in Kenya. Vet Res Commun 1997; 21:483–491.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sangster NC, Bannan SC, Weiss AS et al. Haemonchus contortus: sequence heterogeneity of internucleotide binding domains from P-glycoproteins. Exp Parasitol 1999; 91:250–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zajac AM, Gipson TA. Multiple anthelmintic resistance in a goat herd. Vet Parasitol 2000; 87:163–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Martin PJ, Mckenzie JA. Levamisole resistance in Trichostrongylus colubriformis: a sex-linked recessive character. Int J Parasitol 1990; 20:867–872.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jackson F. Anthelmintic resistance—the state of play. Br Vet J 1993; 149:123–138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Coles GC, Jackson F, Pomroy WE et al. The detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol 2006; 136:167–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lacey E, Prichard RK. Interactions of benzimidazoles (BZ) with tubulin from BZ-sensitive and BZ-resistant isolates of Haemonchus contortus. Mol Biochem Parasitol 1986; 19:171–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lubega GW, Prichard RK. Beta-tubulin and benzimidazole resistance in the sheep nematode Haemonchus contortus. Mol Biochem Parasitol 1991; 47:129–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Geary TG, Nulf SC, Favreau MA et al. Three beta-tubulin cDNAs from the parasitic nematode Haemonchus contortus. Mol Biochem Parasitol 1992; 50:295–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Roos MH, Kwa MS, Veenstra JG et al. Molecular aspects of drug resistance in parasitic helminths. Pharmacol Ther 1993; 60:331–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Blackhall WJ, Liu HY, Xu M et al. Selection at a P-glycoprotein gene in ivermectin-and moxidectinselected strains of Haemonchus contortus. Mol Biochem Parasitol 1998a; 95:193–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Blackhall WJ, Pouliot JF, Prichard RK et al. Haemonchus contortus: selection at a glutamate-gated chloride channel gene in ivermectin-and moxidectin-selected strains. Exp Parasitol 1998b; 90:42–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Dent JA, Smith MM, Vassilatis DK et al. The genetics of ivermectin resistance in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci. USA 2000; 97:2674–2679.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wolstenholme AJ, Fairweather I, Prichard R. Drug resistance in veterinary helminths. Trends Parasitol 2004; 20:469–476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Van DV, De VE. A single nucleotide polymorphism map of the mitochondrial genome of the parasitic nematode Cooperia oncophora. Parasitology 2004; 128:421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hoglund J, Engstrom A, Morrison DA et al. Genetic diversity assessed by amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis of the parasitic nematode Dictyocaulus viviparus the lungworm of cattle. Int J Parasitol 2004; 34:475–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Eng JK, Prichard RK. A comparison of genetic polymorphism in populations of Onchocerca volvulus from untreated-and ivermectin-treated patients. Mol Biochem Parasitol 2005; 142:193–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hoglund J, Morrison DA, Mattsson JG et al. Population genetics of the bovine/cattle lungworm (Dictyocaulus viviparus) based on mtDNA and AFLP marker techniques. Parasitology 2006; 133:89–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kaplan RM, Burke JM, Terrill TH et al. Validation of the FAMACHA eye color chart for detecting clinical anemia in sheep and goats on farms in the southern United States. Vet Parasitol 2004; 123:105–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Martin RJ, Murray I, Robertson AP et al. Anthelmintics and ion-channels: after a puncture, use a patch. Int J Parasitol 1998; 28:849–862.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Greenwood K, Williams T, Geary T. Nematode neuropeptide receptors and their development as anthelmintic screens. Parasitology 2005; 131 Suppl: S169–S177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jones AK, Sattelle DB. Functional genomics of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor gene family of the nematode. Caenorhabditis elegans Bioessays 2004; 26:39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yew JY, Kutz KK, Dikler S. Mass spectrometric map of neuropeptide expression in Ascaris suum. J Comp Neurol 2005; 488:396–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mousley A, Maule AG, Halton DW et al. Inter-phyla studies on neuropeptides: the potential for broad-spectrum anthelmintic and/or endectocide discovery. Parasitology 2005; 131 Suppl: S143–S167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mousley A, Marks NJ, Halton DW et al. Arthropod FMRFamide-related peptides modulate muscle activity in helminths. Int J Parasitol 2004; 34:755–768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kamath RS, Fraser AG, Dong Y et al. Systematic functional analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using RNAi. Nature 2003; 421:231–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Keating CD, Kriek N, Daniels M et al. Whole-genome analysis of 60 G protein-coupled receptors in Caenorhabditis elegans by gene knockout with RNAi Curr Biol 2003; 13:1715–1720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Maule AG, Bowman JW, Thompson DP et al. FMRFamide-related peptides (FaRPs) in nematodes: occurrence and neuromuscular physiology. Parasitology 1996; 113 Suppl: S119–S135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Maule AG, Mousley A, Marks NJ et al. Neuropeptide signaling systems—potential drug targets for parasite and pest control. Curr Top Med Chem 2002; 2:733–758.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Geary TG, Conder GA, Bishop B. The changing landscape of antiparasitic drug discovery for veterinary medicine. Trends Parasitol 2004; 20:449–455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Stables J, Green A, Marshall F et al. A bioluminescent assay for agonist activity at potentially any G-protein-coupled receptor. Anal Biochem 1997; 252:115–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Geary TG, Kubiak TM. Neuropeptide G-protein-coupled receptors, their cognate ligands and behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2005; 26:56–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Mckellar QA. Ecotoxicology and residues of anthelmintic compounds. Vet Parasitol 1997; 72:413–426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Dipietro JA, Todd KS, JR. Anthelmintics used in treatment of parasitic infections of horses. Vet Clin North Am. Equine Pract 1987; 3:1–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hopper K, Aldrich J, Haskins S. C. Ivermectin toxicity in 17 collies. J Vet Intern Med 2002; 16:89–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Nelson OL, Carsten E, Bentjen SA et al. Ivermectin toxicity in an Australian Shepherd dog with the MDR1 mutation associated with ivermectin sensitivity in Collies. J Vet Intern Med 2003; 17:354–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Seaman JT, Eagleson JS, Carrigan MJ et al. Avermectin B1 toxicity in a herd of Murray Grey cattle. Aust Vet J 1989; 64:284–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Whittaker SG, Faustman EM. Effects of albendazole and albendazole sulfoxide on cultures of differentiating rodent embryonic cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1991; 109:73–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Capece BP, Navarro M, Arcalis T et al. Albendazole sulphoxide enantiomers in pregnant rats’ embryo concentrations and developmental toxicity. Vet J 2003; 165:266–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard J. Martin
    • 1
  • Alan P. Robertson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical SciencesIowa State UniversityAmes

Personalised recommendations