4.6 Article

Inadvertent Selection of a Pathogenic Fungus Highlights Areas of Concern in Human Clinical Practices

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof8020157

关键词

Candida auris; Candida glabrata; cross-tolerance; nosocomial infections; disinfectant cleaner; pathogen reservoir

资金

  1. NIH [Al137409, ES007015]
  2. HHMI Gilliam Fellowship
  3. National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA) Hatch project [1024598]
  4. Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund [IS-5323-20C]
  5. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de SAo Paulo (Fapesp) [2016/07870-9, 2017/19821-5]
  6. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In studying the development of tolerance to common hospital cleaners, it was found that the common yeast pathogen Candida glabrata can dominate mixed populations when exposed to these cleaners. This indicates that antimicrobial compounds can selectively choose stress-tolerant fungal pathogens. These findings highlight the importance of clinical disinfection practices in selecting for tolerant, pathogenic microbes.
In studying the development of tolerance to common hospital cleaners (Oxivir(R) and CaviCide (TM)) in clinical isolate stocks of the emerging, multidrug-resistant yeast pathogen Candida auris, we selected for a cleaner-tolerant subpopulation of a more common nosocomial pathogen, Candida glabrata. Through the purification of each species and subsequent competition and other analyses, we determined that C. glabrata is capable of readily dominating mixed populations of C. auris and C. glabrata when exposed to hospital cleaners. This result suggests that exposure to antimicrobial compounds can preferentially select for low-level, stress-tolerant fungal pathogens. These findings indicate that clinical disinfection practices could contribute to the selection of tolerant, pathogenic microbes that persist within healthcare settings.

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

4.6
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