4.6 Article

Antifungal chemical compounds identified using a C-elegans pathogenicity assay

期刊

PLOS PATHOGENS
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 168-178

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.0030018

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI63084, R21 AI059483, U54 AI057159, K08 AI063084, AI057159] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is an urgent need for the development of new antifungal agents. A facile in vivo model that evaluates libraries of chemical compounds could solve some of the main obstacles in current antifungal discovery. We show that Candida albicans, as well as other Candida species, are ingested by Caenorhabditis elegans and establish a persistent lethal infection in the C. elegans intestinal track. Importantly, key components of Candida pathogenesis in mammals, such as filament formation, are also involved in nematode killing. We devised a Candida-mediated C. elegans assay that allows high-throughput in vivo screening of chemical libraries for antifungal activities, while synchronously screening against toxic compounds. The assay is performed in liquid media using standard 96-well plate technology and allows the study of C. albicans in non-planktonic form. A screen of 1,266 compounds with known pharmaceutical activities identified 15 (similar to 1.2%) that prolonged survival of C. albicans-infected nematodes and inhibited in vivo filamentation of C. albicans. Two compounds identified in the screen, caffeic acid phenethyl ester, a major active component of honeybee propolis, and the fluoroquinolone agent enoxacin exhibited antifungal activity in a murine model of candidiasis. The whole-animal C. elegans assay may help to study the molecular basis of C. albicans pathogenesis and identify antifungal compounds that most likely would not be identified by in vitro screens that target fungal growth. Compounds identified in the screen that affect the virulence of Candida in vivo can potentially be used as probe compounds'' and may have antifungal activity against other fungi.

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