4.5 Article

Species Distribution and Virulence Factors of Candida spp. Isolated from the Oral Cavity of Kidney Transplant Recipients in Brazil

期刊

MYCOPATHOLOGIA
卷 175, 期 3-4, 页码 255-263

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11046-013-9640-5

关键词

Candida spp.; Kidney transplant recipients; Epidemiology; Virulence factors

类别

资金

  1. Brazilian Ministry of Education
  2. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior) [08/2008]
  3. Postgraduate Programme of Pharmaceutical Sicences
  4. Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although yeasts belonging to the genus Candida are frequently seen as commensals in the oral cavity, they possess virulence attributes that contribute for pathogenicity. The aims of the present study were to study the prevalence of Candida spp. isolated from the oral cavity of renal transplant recipients and to analyze strains virulence factors. We isolated a total of 70 Candida strains from 111 transplant recipients, and Candida albicans was the most prevalent species (82.86 %). Oral candidiasis was diagnosed in 14.4 % kidney transplant patients, while 11 isolates (15.7 %) corresponded to non-Candida albicans Candida (NCAC) species. C. albicans adhered to a higher extension than NCAC strains. Some isolates of Candida tropicalis were markedly adherent to human buccal epithelial cells and highly biofilm-forming strains. Regarding proteinase activity, Candida orthopsilosis was more proteolytic than Candida metapsilosis. Candida glabrata and Candida dubliniensis showed very low ability to form biofilm on polystyrene microtiter plates. We have demonstrated here diverse peculiarities of different Candida species regarding the ability to express virulence factors. This study will contribute for the understanding of the natural history and pathogenesis of yeasts belonging to the genus Candida in the oral cavity of patients who were submitted to kidney transplant and are under immunosuppressive therapies.

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

4.5
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