4.7 Article

Genome-wide expression profile analysis reveals coordinately regulated genes associated with stepwise acquisition of azole resistance in Candida albicans clinical isolates

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 1220-1227

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.47.4.1220-1227.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Candida albicans is an opportunistic human fungal pathogen and a causative agent of oropharyngeal candidiasis (OPC), the most frequent opportunistic infection among patients with AIDS. Fluconazole and other azole antifungal agents have proven effective in the management of OPC; however, with increased use of these agents treatment failures have occurred. Such failures have been associated with the emergence of azole-resistant strains of C. albicans. In the present study we examined changes in the genome-wide gene expression profile of a series of C. albicans clinical isolates representing the stepwise acquisition of azole resistance. In addition to genes previously associated with azole resistance, we identified many genes whose differential expression was for the first time associated with this phenotype. Furthermore, the expression of these genes was correlated with that of the known resistance genes CDR1, CDR2, and CaMDR1. Genes coordinately regulated with the up-regulation of CDR1 and CDR2 included the up-regulation of GPX1 and RTA3 and the down-regulation of EBP1. Genes coordinately regulated with the up-regulation of CaMDR1 included the up-regulation of IFD1, IFD4, IFD5, IFD7, GRP2, DPP1, CRD2, and INO1 and the down-regulation of FET34, OPI3, and IPF1222. Several of these appeared to be coordinately regulated with both the CDR genes and CaMDR1. Many of these genes are involved in the oxidative stress response, suggesting that reduced susceptibility to oxidative damage may contribute to azole resistance. Further evaluation of the role these genes and their respective gene products play in azole antifungal resistance is warranted.

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

4.7
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