4.0 Article

Biofilm Formation and Susceptibility to Amphotericin B and Fluconazole in Candida albicans

期刊

出版社

KOWSAR PUBL
DOI: 10.5812/jjm.17105

关键词

Candida albicans; Amphotericin B; Fluconazole

资金

  1. Health Research Institute, Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Centre, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran [OG-90135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The ability of Candida albicans to form biofilms and adhere to host tissues and biomaterial surfaces is an important factor in its pathogenesis. One of the main characteristics of biofilms is their resistance to broad-spectrum anti-microbial drugs. Objectives: In the present study the formation of biofilm by C. albicans from different sources was evaluated. In addition, the minimum biofilm inhibitory concentration (MBIC) for two antifungals was evaluated. Materials and Methods: In total, 120 isolates of C. albicans from different sources (patients with vaginitis, patients with candiduria, bucal cavity and environmental surfaces) were collected. Biofilm formation was determined by the 96-well micro-titeration plate method. MBIC testing was also performed, using the calorimetric indicator resazurin for amphotericin B and fluconazole. Results: The results indicated that 100% of C. albicans isolates from different sources had the ability to form biofilms in vitro. Amongst these isolates, 83.3% of isolates had the maximum potential (4+) to form biofilms, while only one (0.9%) of isolates had the minimum ability (1+) to form biofilms. Our results showed that 65.0% of the tested isolates are sensitive to amphotericin B at amounts lower than 10 mu g/mL, while only 26.7% are sensitive to fluconazole (had MBIC < 10 mu g/mL). Conclusions: Although biofilm formation was detected in all tested isolates, there were differences in the ability to form biofilms between isolates from different sources. In addition, there were differences in the MBIC against the two examined antifungals, amphotericin B and fluconazole.

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

4.0
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