4.3 Article

Apoptosis in Candida biofilms exposed to amphotericin B

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 149-157

出版社

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.015784-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Candida biofilms are resistant to a range of antifungal agents in current clinical use. The basis of this drug resistance is not clear, but in some cases it could be due to the presence of a small number of drug-tolerant or persister cells. In this study, specific staining methods were used to investigate the existence of persisters and apoptosis in Candida biofilms subjected to different concentrations of amphotericin B. Fluorescein diacetate staining revealed the presence of persisters in biofilms of one of two strains of Candida albicans tested, and in biofilms of Candida krusei and Candida parapsilosis. Caspase activity, indicative of apoptosis, was detected with SR-FLICA and (aspartyl)(2)-rhodamine 110 fluorochrome-based staining reagents in all of these biofilms. The general inhibitor of mammalian caspases, Z-VAD-FMK, when used at a low concentration (2.5 mu M), increased the viability of drug-treated biofilms up to 11.5-fold (P <0.001 %). Seven specific caspase inhibitors had different effects on C. albicans biofilm viability, but inhibitors of caspases-1, -9, -5, -3 and -2 all significantly increased cell survival (40-fold, 8-fold, 3.5-fold, 1.9-fold and 1.7-fold, respectively). However, histone deacetylase (HDA) inhibitors enhanced the activity of amphotericin B for biofilms of all three Candida species. Sodium butyrate and sodium valproate, for example, when added concurrently with amphotericin B, completely eliminated biofilm populations of C. albicans. Overall, our results demonstrate an apoptotic process in amphotericin-treated biofilms of three Candida species. They also indicate that HDA inhibitors can enhance the action of the drug and in some cases even eradicate persister subpopulations, suggesting that histone acetylation might activate apoptosis in these cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据