4.5 Article

Anti-Candida activity of antidepressants sertraline and fluoxetine: effect upon pre-formed biofilms

期刊

MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
卷 207, 期 3-4, 页码 195-200

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00430-018-0539-0

关键词

Candida spp.; Sertraline; Fluoxetine; Biofilm; Metabolic activity; Biomass

资金

  1. COMPETE program [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007491]
  2. FCT [UID/Multi/00709/2013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As an opportunistic fungal pathogen Candida spp. has the ability to form biofilms. The most prescribed drugs for Candida infections, azoles, have shown to be less effective when biofilms are present. In addition, increasing treatment costs and the fact that most prescribed antifungal drugs have only fungistatic activity justify the search for new treatment strategies. One promising approach is third generation antidepressants, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), because of their proven antifungal activity against several Candida spp. Thus, the aim of this work was to determine the ability of two commonly used SSRIs, fluoxetine and sertraline, to impair both biofilm metabolic viability and biofilm biomass. The in vitro effect of fluoxetine and sertraline was individually tested against biofilm metabolic viability and biofilm biomass using the MTT assay and the Crystal Violet assay, respectively. For both drugs, a dose-dependent reduction on both biofilm metabolism and biomass was present. At high concentrations, fluoxetine was able to reduce biofilm metabolism by 96% (C. krusei) and biofilm biomass by 82% (C. glabrata), when compared to the control. At similar conditions, sertraline achieved a reduction of 88% on biofilm biomass (C. glabrata) and 90% on biofilm metabolism (C. parapsilosis). Moreover, fluoxetine showed interesting anti-biofilm activity at previously reported planktonic MIC values and even at sub-MIC values. These results reinforce the potential interest of SSRIs as anti-biofilm agents to be study to counteract resistance phenomena on candidosis.

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