4.3 Article

Biofilm formation by five species of Candida on three clinical materials

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS
卷 86, 期 2, 页码 238-242

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2011.05.019

关键词

Candida; Biofilm formation; Clinical materials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most recalcitrant infections are associated with colonization and microbial biofilm development. These biofilms are difficult to eliminate by the immune response mechanisms and the current antimicrobial. Fungi can form biofilms on biomaterials commonly used in clinical practice (intravascular catheters, dentures, heart valves, implanted devices, contact lenses and other devices) and are associated with infections. A variety of in vitro models using different substrates/devices have been described. These models have been used to investigate the effect of different variables, including flow, growth time, nutrients and physiological conditions on fungal biofilm formation, morphology and architecture. The purpose of our study is to analyze biofilm formation capacity by 84 strains of Candida spp. (23 C albicans, 23 C. parapsilosis, 16 C. tropicalis, 17 C. glabrata and 5 C. krusei) on three materials used in medical devices and its quantification using a method based on viable cell count. Under the conditions of our study, all assayed Candida strains have been able to form biofilms. All species showed greater biofilm formation capacity on Teflon (TM), with the exception of C. glabrata which displayed higher biofilm formation capacity on PVC. Biofilm formation by Candida spp. varies depending on the type of material on which it grows and on the species and strain of Candida. The method we propose could be of great use to deepen scientific knowledge on this subject of remarkable clinical significance, considering the absence of standard biofilm formation and quantification techniques on the catheters and the level of difficulty associated to those available. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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