Next Article in Journal
Comparative Efficacy of Different Amoxicillin Dosing Regimens in Preventing Early Implant Failure—A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Cytotoxicity and Antimicrobial Resistance of Aeromonas Strains Isolated from Fresh Produce and Irrigation Water
Previous Article in Special Issue
Chemical and Biological Studies of Achillea setacea Herba Essential Oil—First Report on Some Antimicrobial and Antipathogenic Features
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/antibiotics12030509
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Lower Concentrations of Amphotericin B Combined with Ent-Hardwickiic Acid Are Effective against Candida Strains

by
Maria V. Sousa Teixeira
,
Jennyfer A. Aldana-Mejía
,
Márcia E. da Silva Ferreira
and
Niege A. J. Cardoso Furtado
*
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Av. do Café, s/n, Ribeirão Preto 14040-903, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(3), 509; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12030509
Submission received: 29 December 2022 / Revised: 17 February 2023 / Accepted: 1 March 2023 / Published: 3 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Activity of Plant Extracts)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Life-threatening Candida infections have increased with the COVID-19 pandemic, and the already limited arsenal of antifungal drugs has become even more restricted due to its side effects associated with complications after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Drug combination strategies have the potential to reduce the risk of side effects without loss of therapeutic efficacy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the combination of ent-hardwickiic acid with low concentrations of amphotericin B against Candida strains. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values were determined for amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid as isolated compounds and for 77 combinations of amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid concentrations that were assessed by using the checkerboard microdilution method. Time–kill assays were performed in order to assess the fungistatic or fungicidal nature of the different combinations. The strategy of combining both compounds markedly reduced the MIC values from 16 µg/mL to 1 µg/mL of amphotericin B and from 12.5 µg/mL to 6.25 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid, from isolated to combined, against C. albicans resistant to azoles. The combination of 1 µg/mL of amphotericin B with 6.25 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid killed all the cells of the same strain within four hours of incubation.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Invasive candidiasis is the cause of unacceptable high mortality rates ranging from 30 to 70% in different parts of the world [1,2,3], and the treatment of life-threatening Candida infections has been limited to just three drug classes [2,4].
The emergence of Candida resistance to the available antifungal drugs has compromised the clinical management of this disease [1,4,5], and failure of antifungal treatment is due to multifactorial events involving molecular modifications related to drug mechanism of action and over-expression of efflux pumps, among other factors [6,7].
One mechanism of resistance of Candida species to azoles, for example, is the occurrence of point mutations in the ERG11 gene [7,8]. Azoles interfere with the ergosterol biosynthesis pathway in fungal membranes by inhibiting the cytochrome P450-dependent enzyme 14α-demethylase, which is synthesized by the ERG11 gene [7]. Mutations that resulted in amino acid substitutions decreased azoles susceptibility [7,8].
Therapeutic failures with echinocandins are also reported for Candida infections [6,9]. Candida strains with reduced susceptibility to echinocandins showed mutations in the FKS genes that correlated with amino acid substitutions in the 1,3-β-D-glucan synthase, the target of echinocandins [6,9].
Resistance of Candida species to polyenes is still uncommon compared to resistance to other antifungal drugs [6,10]. However, Candida species resistant to amphotericin B have been reported for clinical isolates [6,10]. A different ergosterol structure that prevents binding to the polyenes caused by several mutations has been associated with resistance to amphotericin B [6,10]. C. albicans resistance, for example, is associated with a substitution in ERG11 and loss of function of ERG5 genes (C-22 sterol desaturase) [10,11]. Isolates of other Candida species were reported as resistant to amphotericin B due to the inactivation of ERG6 (C-24 sterol methyl-transferase) and ERG2 (C-8 sterol isomerase) genes [10,12].
Although Candida albicans has been reported as a predominant species involved in invasive candidiasis around the world [3,4], the proportion of this infection caused by non-albicans species has grown in recent decades [1,3].
Candida krusei is among the non-albicans species whose occurrence increased during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to pre-pandemic years [13]. This species has been reported as resistant to fluconazole [14,15] and quickly developed resistance to other antifungal drugs [14,16].
With the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there was an increase in the mortality rate due to invasive candidiasis [17,18], which oscillated between 11 and 100% according to a literature search performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and LILACS without language restrictions, between January 2020 to February 2021 [19].
Data published by other authors confirmed that candidemia associated with COVID-19 also increased all-cause mortality twofold compared to patients with candidemia without COVID-19 [20].
Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receive immunosuppressive medication that potentially increases the susceptibility of these patients to co-infections, including polymicrobial Candida infections [21,22]. However, according to the literature, this is not the only reason for the increase in invasive fungal infections [23]. Defective antifungal immunity in patients of COVID-19 due to a dysregulation of the immune system has been observed through the expression of exhaustion markers of natural killer cells and T cells [23]. In addition, patients with COVID-19 also have reduced fungicidal activity of neutrophils [23].
Amphotericin B has been recommended for the treatment of pulmonary candidiasis associated with COVID-19 infection [24], but its side effects associated with several complications after SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as kidney injury, dyspnea and hypoxia, make its use unfeasible [25,26].
The other classes of therapeutically available antifungal drugs are not effective alone to treat fungal co-infections in COVID-19 patients managed in the intensive care unit with prolonged immunomodulatory treatments [27,28] and have caused important side effects [29,30]. Triazoles cause hepatotoxicity, drug–drug interactions, QTc prolongation (the heart muscle takes a comparatively longer time to contract and relax than usual), skeletal fluorosis, pseudohyperaldosteronism, adrenal insufficiency, hyponatremia and hypogonadism [29,30]. The most common complications of echinocandins are thrombophlebitis, hepatotoxicity, derangement of serum transaminases, hypotension and fever, but anemia, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia have also been reported [31,32,33,34]. It should be highlighted that dexamethasone, an important drug in the treatment of COVID-19 infections, is among other drugs that interact with caspofungin [33]. Moreover, echinocandins show embryotoxicity and may not be used during pregnancy [31,34].
Knowing that the current antifungal drugs have numerous limitations, there is an urgent need for the discovery of antifungal agents to improve the clinical outcome of fungal infections [35,36].
Natural products provide innovative structural patterns with novel mechanisms of action [37,38] that can be optimized to improve efficacy and reduce toxicity.
Among natural products, diterpenes have been recognized for their remarkable biological activities, including antifungal properties [39,40,41].
The clerodane-type diterpene ent-hardwickiic acid (Figure 1) is the major constituent of Copaifera pubiflora oleoresin [42] extracted from tree trunks. This tree is one of the species of the Copaifera genus found in Brazil, Colombia, Guyana and Venezuela [43].
Copaifera oleoresins are traditionally used by people from the Brazilian Amazonian region as an anti-inflammatory [43], antimicrobial [44] and antiparasitic [45], and literature data support the ethnopharmacological uses of this crude material [43].
The diterpene ent-hardwickiic acid has been highlighted as a lead compound in the search for bioactive compounds [46,47] and has been reported due to its anti-inflammatory [43], antibacterial [44], antifungal [47] and schistosomicidal activities [48].
Despite having several biological activities, it should be pointed out that this diterpene did not show cytotoxic activity against normal and cancer human cell lines [49].
This study reports for the first time the in vitro interaction between ent-hardwickiic acid and amphotericin B by using the checkerboard microdilution method against C. albicans and C. krusei strains, including a C. albicans strain resistant to azoles isolated from bloodstream infections in a tertiary care hospital in Brazil [50]. In addition, time–kill assays were performed to assess the fungistatic or fungicidal nature of different combinations of ent-hardwickiic acid and amphotericin B concentrations.
Considering that only one new azole and two new formulations of posaconazole have been launched in the market in the last decade [51] and that the need for new antifungal drugs is urgent, the strategy of combining ent-hardwickiic acid with amphotericin B was shown to be potentially effective at a low concentration of amphotericin B against Candida strains.

2. Results

The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid were first determined using the broth microdilution method. Amphotericin B showed MIC values of 8 µg/mL against C. albicans ATCC 10231 and C. krusei ATCC 6258 and 16 µg/mL against a C. albicans strain resistant to azoles. The MIC values of ent-hardwickiic acid were smaller than those found for amphotericin B (6.25 µg/mL against C. albicans ATCC 10231, 3.12 µg/mL against C. krusei ATCC 6258 and 12.5 µg/mL against a C. albicans strain resistant to azoles).
MIC values of fluconazole were also determined for C. albicans ATCC 10231 (12.5 µg/mL) and the quality control strain Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019 (4 µg/mL) to assure that the antifungal microdilution test was performed appropriately [52,53]. Our results were reproducible, and the MIC values are within the proposed range for these strains.
It should be pointed out that C. krusei is considered intrinsically resistant to fluconazole [53], and the clinical isolate of C. albicans used in this study also showed resistance to fluconazole [50]. In this study, the MIC values of fluconazole against C. krusei ATCC 6258 and C. albicans resistant strain were 25 ug/mL and greater than 100 ug/mL, respectively.
The combination of amphotericin B (1) and ent-hardwickiic acid (2) was then assessed by using the checkerboard microdilution method and synergistic (ƩFIC ≤ 0.5) and additive (ƩFIC > 0.5) interactions of compounds 1 and 2 were found for tested strains (Table 1). Antagonism was not detected.
The combination of both compounds at determined concentrations markedly reduced the MIC values, and a synergistic effect was detected when 4 µg/mL of amphotericin B was combined with 3.12 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid against a C. albicans strain resistant to azoles. Additive effects were detected with 1 and 2 µg/mL of amphotericin B combined with 6.25 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid, with 0.125 µg/mL of amphotericin B combined with 1.00 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid and with 8 µg/mL of amphotericin B combined with 1.56 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid against the same resistant strain.
Synergistic effects were detected against the reference strains of C. albicans and C. krusei in the range of amphotericin B concentrations from 0.031 µg/mL to 2 µg/mL and from 0.0156 µg/mL to 2 µg/mL, respectively. The ent-hardwickiic acid concentrations varied in the same assay from 0.39 µg/mL to 3.12 µg/mL and from 0.195 µg/mL to 0.78 µg/mL, respectively.
In order to assess the fungistatic or fungicidal nature of different combinations of ent-hardwickiic acid and amphotericin B concentrations, time–kill assays were performed using four combinations of amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid concentrations for each strain that resulted in growth inhibition at amphotericin B concentrations lower than the MIC value of this antifungal agent alone. The four selected combinations for each strain are presented in Table 2.
The fourth combination containing 4 µg/mL of amphotericin B and 3.12 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid killed all C. albicans resistant strain cells within 2 h (Figure 2a). The combination of 1 µg/mL of amphotericin B with 6.25 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid killed all the cells of the same strain within 4 h of incubation. The other antifungal combinations did not show fungicidal activity within the 24 h incubation period, but exhibited a significant reduction in the growth of this strain.
Among the tested combinations of ent-hardwickiic acid and amphotericin B concentrations against the reference strain of the C. albicans, the combination of 0.5 µg/mL of amphotericin B and 0.78 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid was the one that showed the highest growth reduction within 24 h (Figure 2b). During this period of 24 h, ent-hardwickiic acid and amphotericin B combinations exhibited a significant reduction in the growth of C. albicans reference strain, but the fungicidal point was not detected.
The same behavior was observed for the time–kill curves of ent-hardwickiic acid and amphotericin B combinations against the C. krusei reference strain. All the curves showed a significant reduction in growth during 24 h without achieving the fungicidal point in this period. The combination of 0.25 µg/mL of amphotericin B and 0.39 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid showed the highest growth reduction within 24 h (Figure 2c).
Considering the results obtained from time–kill assays, it should be highlighted that the fungicidal activity of two combinations of ent-hardwickiic acid and amphotericin B concentrations against C. albicans resistant strain was very fast (2 to 4 h), which can be clinically relevant.

3. Discussion

The aim of this study was to evaluate for the first time the potential of ent-hardwickiic acid combined with amphotericin B against Candida strains.
Amphotericin B was licensed in 1959 and after more than sixty years is still the main antifungal agent used to treat invasive fungal infections [54,55]. However, its principal chronic adverse effect is nephrotoxicity, whose clinical manifestations range from hypokalemia to kidney insufficiency [56].
Among several complications that might arise after SARS-CoV-2 infection is the acute kidney injury that affects over a quarter of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 disease [57]. The clinical management of these patients includes hemodynamic support and avoidance of nephrotoxic drugs [58].
Drug combination strategies have the potential to reduce the risk of side effects due to a reduction of effective dose of each compound without loss of therapeutic efficacy [59].
In this study, the combination of ent-hardwickiic acid and amphotericin B markedly reduced the MIC values when compared with those of drugs alone. The combination was effective in using lower concentrations of each compound than those needed to achieve the same effect of each isolated compound. In addition, two combinations of ent-hardwickiic acid and amphotericin B concentrations exhibited fungicidal activity against C. albicans resistant strain after 2–4 h of incubation.
The combination of 1 µg/mL of amphotericin B with 6.25 µg/mL of ent-hardwickiic acid killed all the cells of C. albicans resistant strain within four hours of incubation. This concentration of amphotericin B in plasma has not been associated with toxic effects and drug discontinuation [60]. According to the literature, the pharmacodynamic characteristics of amphotericin B indicate that after the administration of doses of 0.6 to 3.0 mg/kg of body weight/day of amphotericin B deoxycholate (Bristol-Myers Squibb), the mean maximum concentrations (Cmaxs) achieved in serum are 1.1 to 3.6 µg/mL [60,61]. In the presence of serum, amphotericin B loses its fungicidal activity, but remains with its fungistatic activity [62].
There are no studies yet about the stability of ent-hardwickiic acid in human serum, but this compound has been highlighted as a lead compound in the search for bioactive compounds [46,47]. In previous studies, this diterpene showed fungistatic and fungicidal effects against C. glabrata at lower concentrations than fluconazole and its derivatives obtained by biotransformation reactions exhibited potent antifungal activity [47].
Regarding the toxicity of ent-hardwickiic acid, a study carried out in normal and tumor human cell lines showed that this diterpene was not cytotoxic to the tested cell lines [43,49,63], as well as to the RAW 264.7 cells, which are monocyte/macrophage-like cells reported as an appropriate model of macrophages [45]. In addition, this compound did not affect the animal’s locomotor capacity in open-field and rotarod tests [43].
Many marketed drugs have a natural product origin, and the majority of these successful natural products were formulated to interact with biological systems to achieve their therapeutic potential [64,65].
Natural products may also provide different mechanisms of action, since these compounds are optimized by evolution to be useful in the defense of organisms [66]. As an example to be cited, macrocyclic diterpenes were able to overcome multidrug resistance in C. albicans as potent inhibitors of drug efflux pumps [67].
With regard to ent-hardwickiic acid, there is only one study reporting the mechanism of action of this diterpene against Streptococcus mutans (ATCC 25175) and Porphyromonas gingivalis (ATCC 33277) [68]. The authors performed assays to determine cell membrane integrity by leakage through the bacterial membrane of nucleic acids and protein. The results indicated that the diterpene ent-hardwickiic acid damaged the S. mutans and P. gingivalis cell membranes, causing cellular component release followed by the release of cytoplasmic material [68]. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the mechanism of the antifungal action of this compound.
The interest in natural products to provide drug leads has been revitalized mainly with the aim of overcoming the resistance of microorganisms to antimicrobial agents [66].
In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that the combination of amphotericin B and the natural product ent-hardwickiic acid has the potential to inspire the development of treatment options for life-threatening Candida infections.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Candida Strains

Candida albicans ATCC 10231, C. krusei ATCC 6258 and C. parapsilosis ATCC 22019 were acquired from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Rockville, MD, USA). The C. albicans strain resistant to azoles was isolated from bloodstream infections in a tertiary care hospital in Brazil using the Bactec™ 9240 system (Becton & Dickinson, Franklin Lanes, NJ, USA) and provided for this study by Prof. Dr. Márcia E. da Silva Ferreira. This strain was identified with the VITEK® 2 system (BioMérieux, Marcy l’Étoile, France) and by using molecular techniques [50].

4.2. Antifungal Agents

Amphotericin B and fluconazole were acquired from Sigma-Aldrich, and ent-hardwickiic acid was isolated from Copaifera pubiflora oleoresin according to Teixeira and co-workers [47].
The authorizations to undertake scientific studies with C. pubiflora oleoresin were issued under the numbers 35143-1 and 010225/2014-5 from the Brazilian Council for Authorization and Information on Biodiversity (SIBIO/ICMBio/MMA/BRASIL) and Genetic Heritage Management (CGEN/MMA/BRASIL), respectively.

4.3. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration of Antifungal Compounds

The minimum inhibitory concentration values of amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid against Candida strains were first determined in triplicate by using the broth microdilution method in 96-well microplates according to the recommendations of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (document M27-A4) [69]. Amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid were dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (Merck, Saint Louis, USA) and diluted in RPMI 1640 medium to achieve concentrations ranging from 16 µg/mL to 0.0156 µg/mL and from 100 µg/mL to 0.19 µg/mL, respectively. The final content of DMSO was 5% (v/v), and this solution was used as negative control. The fungal inoculum was adjusted to yield a cell concentration of 2.5 × 103 CFU/mL. The following controls were included: one inoculated and one non-inoculated well to verify the adequacy of the broth for organism growth and the medium sterility, respectively. Fluconazole was used as positive control and its MIC value was also determined for the quality control strain C. parapsilosis ATCC 22019 to assure that the antifungal microdilution test was performed appropriately [52,53]. The 96-well microplates were incubated at 35 °C for 24 h. After the incubation period, the microorganism viability was also measured by adding 30 µL of resazurin solution (0.02%) to the microplates to confirm the MIC values determined visually [70].

4.4. Checkerboard Microdilution Method

The in vitro interactions between amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid were investigated by using the checkerboard microdilution method in 96-well microplates as previously described with adaptations [71]. Amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid were dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide, and stock solutions of both compounds were prepared in RPMI 1640 medium in the range of concentrations from 4- to 8-fold more concentrated than the highest concentration of each compound to be tested.
In each well of the microplate, 100 µL of growth medium was added, and serial twofold dilutions of amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid stock solutions were mixed in each well, resulting in 77 combinations (Figure S1).
The MIC values of the isolated compounds were again determined by inoculating only amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid in row H (12-2) and column 1 (A–G), respectively. One well without the antifungals was added as growth control.
The final inoculum was adjusted to yield a cell concentration of 2.5 × 103 CFU/mL. A mirror plate without microorganisms and with the same concentrations of compounds was prepared to be used as optical density background in a microplate reader. Both microplates were incubated at 35 °C for 24 h.
The growth in each well was quantified spectrophotometrically at 530 nm in a microplate reader, and the MIC values for each combination of compounds were defined as the concentration of compounds combination or the concentration of isolated compound that reduces microbial growth by more than 80% [71].
The interactions between amphotericin B (1) and ent-hardwickiic acid (2) in different combinations of concentrations were determined based on the calculated coefficient of the sum of fractional inhibitory concentration (ƩFIC) [72]. The ƩFIC is calculated according to the formula:
ƩFIC = FIC1 + FIC2,
where
FIC1 = MIC1 in combination/MIC1,
and
FIC2 = MIC2 in combination/MIC2
The results can be interpreted as follow: ƩFIC ≤ 0.5: synergistic, ƩFIC > 0.5 to ≤ 1: additive, ƩFIC > 1 to ≤ 4: indifferent and ƩFIC > 4: antagonistic.

4.5. Time–Kill Assays

Time–kill assays were performed in triplicate for four combinations of amphotericin B and ent-hardwickiic acid concentrations following the procedures proposed for the time–kill evaluation of antibacterial agents [73] with adaptations. The assays were also carried out with microorganisms without antifungal agents.
The final inoculum was adjusted to yield a cell concentration of 2.5 × 103 CFU/mL.
Microplates containing the combinations of compounds and the microorganisms were incubated at 35 °C for 24 h. During this period, aliquots (20 µL) of each well were removed, diluted when necessary and spread onto Sabouraud dextrose agar for counting of viable colonies at predetermined time points (0, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 h). The lower limit of accurate and reproducible detectable colony counts was 100 CFU/mL.
Time–kill curves were built by plotting log10 CFU/mL versus time with the aid of the Prism software (version 5.0; GraphPad Software, Inc., Boston, MA, USA).

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antibiotics12030509/s1. Figure S1: Combinations of amphotericin B (1) and ent-hardwickiic acid (2) concentrations against Candida strains in the 96-well microplates used in the checkerboard microdilution method.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.A.J.C.F.; methodology, N.A.J.C.F. and M.E.d.S.F.; formal analysis, N.A.J.C.F. and M.V.S.T.; investigation, M.V.S.T. and J.A.A.-M.; resources, N.A.J.C.F.; data curation, N.A.J.C.F. and M.V.S.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.V.S.T. and N.A.J.C.F.; writing—review and editing, N.A.J.C.F. and M.E.d.S.F.; supervision, N.A.J.C.F.; project administration, N.A.J.C.F.; funding acquisition, N.A.J.C.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by São Paulo Research Foundation, FAPESP, (grants 2011/13630-7, 2016/25201-7), Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES: finance code 001) and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (grants 306345/2016-1 and 301924/2019-8).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Jairo Kenupp Bastos for providing the oleoresin and Maria Angélica S. C. Chellegatti for the laboratory assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Toda, M.; Williams, S.R.; Berkow, E.L.; Farley, M.M.; Harrison, L.H.; Bonner, L.; Marceaux, K.M.; Hollick, R.; Zhang, A.Y.; Schaffner, W.; et al. Population-based active surveillance for culture-confirmed candidemia—Four Sites, United States, 2012–2016. MMWR Surveill. Summ. 2019, 68, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Murphy, S.E.; Bicanic, T. Drug resistance and novel therapeutic approaches in invasive candidiasis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 759408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Riera, F.O.; Caeiro, J.P.; Angiolini, S.C.; Vigezzi, C.; Rodriguez, E.; Icely, P.A.; Sotomayor, C.E. invasive candidiasis: Update and current challenges in the management of this mycosis in south america. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Parslow, B.Y.; Thornton, C.R. Continuing shifts in epidemiology and antifungal susceptibility highlight the need for improved disease management of invasive candidiasis. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kainz, K.; Bauer, M.A.; Madeo, F.; Carmona-Gutierrez, D. Fungal infections in humans: The silent crisis. Microb. Cell 2020, 7, 143–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Morace, G.; Perdoni, F.; Borghi, E. Antifungal drug resistance in Candida species. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2014, 2, 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Whaley, S.G.; Berkow, E.L.; Rybak, J.M.; Nishimoto, A.T.; Barker, K.S.; Rogers, P.D. Azole antifungal resistance in candida albicans and emerging non-albicans Candida species. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Flowers, S.A.; Colón, B.; Whaley, S.G.; Schuler, M.A.; David Rogers, P. Contribution of clinically derived mutations in ERG11 to azole resistance in Candida albicans. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015, 59, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Beyda, N.D.; Lewis, R.E.; Garey, K.W. Resistencia a equinocandinas en especies de candida: Mecanismos de susceptibilidad reducida y alternativas terapéuticas. Ann. Pharmacother. 2012, 46, 1086–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Carolus, H.; Pierson, S.; Lagrou, K.; Van Dijck, P. Amphotericin B and other polyenes—Discovery, clinical use, mode of action and drug resistance. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Martel, C.M.; Parker, J.E.; Bader, O.; Weig, M.; Gross, U.; Warrilow, A.G.S.; Kelly, D.E.; Kelly, S.L. A clinical isolate of Candida albicans with mutations in ERG11 (encoding sterol 14α-demethylase) and ERG5 (encoding C22 desaturase) is cross resistant to azoles and amphotericin B. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 3578–3583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Ahmad, S.; Joseph, L.; Parker, J.E.; Asadzadeh, M.; Kelly, S.L.; Meis, J.F.; Khan, Z. ERG6 and ERG2 are major targets conferring reduced susceptibility to amphotericin B in clinical candida glabrata isolates in kuwait. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e01900–e01918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Pfaller, M.A.; Carvalhaes, C.G.; Devries, S.; Rhomberg, P.R.; Castanheira, M. Impact of COVID-19 on the antifungal susceptibility profiles of isolates collected in a global surveillance program that monitors invasive fungal infections. Med. Mycol. 2022, 60, myac028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jamiu, A.T.; Albertyn, J.; Sebolai, O.M.; Pohl, C.H. Update on Candida krusei, a potential multidrug-resistant pathogen. Med. Mycol. 2021, 59, 14–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Perez-De Los Santos, F.J.; Garcia-Ortega, L.F.; Robledo-Marquez, K.; Guzman-Moreno, J.; Riego-Ruiz, L. Transcriptome analysis unveils GLN3 role in amino acids assimilation and fluconazole resistance in Candida glabrata. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 31, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Khalifa, H.O.; Arai, T.; Majima, H.; Watanabe, A.; Kamei, K. Genetic basis of azole and echinocandin resistance in clinical Candida glabrata in japan. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, e00783-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Segrelles-Calvo, G.; de S Araújo, G.R.; Llopis-Pastor, E.; Carrillo, J.; Hernández-Hernández, M.; Rey, L.; Melean, N.R.; Escribano, I.; Antón, E.; Zamarro, C.; et al. Candida spp. co-Infection in COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia: Prevalence study and associated risk factors. Respir. Med. 2021, 188, 106619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Altinkaya Çavuş, M.; Sav, H. Opportunistic Candida infections in critical COVID-19 patients. Polish J. Microbiol. 2022, 71, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Frías-De-león, M.G.; Pinto-Almazán, R.; Hernández-Castro, R.; García-Salazar, E.; Meza-Meneses, P.; Rodríguez-Cerdeira, C.; Arenas, R.; Conde-Cuevas, E.; Acosta-Altamirano, G.; Martínez-Herrera, E. Epidemiology of systemic mycoses in the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Seagle, E.E.; Jackson, B.R.; Lockhart, S.R.; Georgacopoulos, O.; Nunnally, N.S.; Roland, J.; Barter, D.M.; Johnston, H.L.; Czaja, C.A.; Kayalioglu, H.; et al. The landscape of candidemia during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2022, 9, 802–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hoenigl, M.; Seidel, D.; Sprute, R.; Cunha, C.; Oliverio, M.; Goldman, G.H.; Ibrahim, A.S.; Carvalho, A. COVID-19-associated fungal infections. Nat. Microbiol. 2022, 7, 1127–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Posteraro, B.; De Angelis, G.; Menchinelli, G.; D’inzeo, T.; Fiori, B.; De Maio, F.; Cortazzo, V.; Sanguinetti, M.; Spanu, T. Risk factors for mortality in adult COVID-19 patients who develop bloodstream infections mostly caused by antimicrobial-resistant organisms: Analysis at a large teaching hospital in Italy. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Morton, C.O.; Griffiths, J.S.; Loeffler, J.; Orr, S.; White, P.L. Defective antifungal immunity in patients with COVID-19. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 1080822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Shirvani, F.; Fattahi, A. Pulmonary candidiasis associated with COVID-19: Evaluation of causative agents and their antifungal susceptibility patterns. Tanaffos 2021, 20, 29–35. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ghosh, A.; Sarkar, A.; Paul, P.; Patel, P. The rise in cases of mucormycosis, candidiasis and aspergillosis amidst COVID-19. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2021, 38, 67–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lemke, A.; Kiderlen, A.F.; Kayser, O. Amphotericin B. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 68, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rovina, N.; Koukaki, E.; Romanou, V.; Ampelioti, S.; Loverdos, K.; Chantziara, V.; Koutsoukou, A.; Dimopoulos, G. Fungal infections in critically ill COVID-19 patients: Inevitabile malum. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bhatt, K.; Agolli, A.; Patel, M.H.; Garimella, R.; Devi, M.; Garcia, E.; Amin, H.; Domingue, C.; Del Castillo, R.G.; Sanchez-Gonzalez. High mortality co-infections of COVID-19 patients: Mucormycosis and other fungal infections. Discoveries 2021, 9, e126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Benitez, L.L.; Carver, P.L. Adverse effects associated with long-term administration of azole antifungal agents. Drugs 2019, 79, 833–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Balcerek, M.I.; Stewart, A.G.; Chapman, P.; Lazarus, S. Reducing the off-target endocrinologic adverse effects of azole antifungals—Can it be done? Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2022, 59, 106587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mroczyńska, M.; Brillowska-Dąbrowska, A. Review on current status of echinocandins use. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Keating, G.M.; Figgitt, D.P. Caspofungin: A review of its use in oesophageal candidiasis, invasive candidiasis and invasive aspergillosis. Drugs 2003, 63, 2235–2263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Carmona, E.M.; Limper, A.H. Overview of treatment approaches for fungal infections. Clin. Chest Med. 2017, 38, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chang, C.C.; Slavin, M.A.; Chen, S.C.A. New developments and directions in the clinical application of the echinocandins. Arch. Toxicol. 2017, 91, 1613–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pappas, P.G.; Lionakis, M.S.; Arendrup, M.C.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L.; Kullberg, B.J. Invasive candidiasis. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2018, 4, 18026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chakraborti, S.; Ramakrishnan, G.; Srinivasan, N. In silico modeling of fda-approved drugs for discovery of anticandida agents: A drug-repurposing approach. In In Silico Drug Design: Repurposing Techniques and Methodologies; Kunal, R., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 463–526. [Google Scholar]
  37. Aldholmi, M.; Marchand, P.; Ourliac-Garnier, I.; Le Pape, P.; Ganesan, A. A decade of antifungal leads from natural products: 2010–2019. Pharmaceuticals 2019, 12, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Zida, A.; Bamba, S.; Yacouba, A.; Ouedraogo-Traore, R.; Guiguemdé, R.T. Substances naturelles actives sur Candida albicans, sources de nouveaux médicaments antifongiques: Revue de la littérature. J. Mycol. Med. 2017, 27, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. De Sousa, I.P.; Teixeira, M.V.S.; Furtado, N.A.J.C. An overview of biotransformation and toxicity of diterpenes. Molecules 2018, 23, 1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. De Sousa, I.P.; Ferreira, A.G.; Crotti, A.E.M.; Alves dos Santos, R.; Kiermaier, J.; Kraus, B.; Heilmann, J.; Furtado, N.A.J.C. New antifungal ent-labdane diterpenes against Candida glabrata produced by microbial transformation of ent-polyalthic acid. Bioorg. Chem. 2020, 95, 103560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Saha, P.; Rahman, F.I.; Hussain, F.; Rahman, S.M.A.; Rahman, M.M. Antimicrobial diterpenes: Recent development from natural sources. Front. Pharmacol. 2022, 12, 820312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Da Silva, J.J.M.; Crevelin, E.J.; Carneiro, L.J.; Rogez, H.; Veneziani, R.C.S.; Ambrósio, S.R.; Beraldo Moraes, L.A.; Bastos, J.K. Development of a validated ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method for determination of acid diterpenes in Copaifera oleoresins. J. Chromatogr. A 2017, 1515, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Símaro, G.V.; Lemos, M.; Da Silva, J.J.M.; Ribeiro, V.P.; Arruda, C.; Schneider, A.H.; De Souza, W.W.C.; Carneiro, L.J.; Mariano, R.L.; Ambrósio, S.R.; et al. Antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory activities of Copaifera pubiflora Benth oleoresin and its major metabolite ent-hardwickiic acid. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2021, 271, 113883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Abrão, F.; Silva, T.S.; Moura, C.L.; Ambrósio, S.R.; Veneziani, R.C.S.; de Paiva, R.E.F.; Bastos, J.K.; Martins, C.H.G. Oleoresins and naturally occurring compounds of Copaifera genus as antibacterial and antivirulence agents against periodontal pathogens. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 4953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Crentsil, J.A.; Yamthe, L.R.T.; Anibea, B.Z.; Broni, E.; Kwofie, S.K.; Tetteh, J.K.A.; Osei-Safo, D. Leishmanicidal potential of hardwickiic acid isolated from Croton sylvaticus. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lama, R.; Zhong, B.; Kulman, D.G.; Su, B. Bioassay guided identification of small chaperone proteins α-crystallin and HSP-27 inhibitors from copaiba oil. Phytochem. Lett. 2014, 10, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Teixeira, M.V.S.; Fernandes, L.M.; De Paula, V.S.; Ferreira, A.G.; Furtado, N.A.J.C. Ent-hardwickiic acid from C. pubiflora and its microbial metabolites are more potent than fluconazole in vitro against Candida glabrata. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 74, 622–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Oliveira, L.C.; Porto, T.S.; Junior, A.H.C.; Santos, M.F.C.; Ramos, H.P.; Braun, G.H.; de Lima Paula, L.A.; Bastos, J.K.; Furtado, N.A.J.C.; Parreira, R.L.T.; et al. Schistosomicidal activity of kaurane, labdane and clerodane-type diterpenes obtained by fungal transformation. Process Biochem. 2020, 98, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Carneiro, L.J.; Tasso, T.O.; Santos, M.F.C.; Goulart, M.O.; dos Santos, R.A.; Bastos, J.K.; da Silva, J.J.M.; Crotti, A.E.M.; Parreira, R.L.T.; Orenha, R.P.; et al. Copaifera Multijuga, Copaifera Pubiflora and Copaifera Trapezifolia oleoresins: Chemical characterization and in vitro cytotoxic potential against tumoral cell lines. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2020, 31, 1679–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Canela, H.M.S.; Cardoso, B.; Vitali, L.H.; Coelho, H.C.; Martinez, R.; da Silva Ferreira, M.E. Prevalence, virulence factors and antifungal susceptibility of Candida spp. isolated from bloodstream infections in a tertiary care hospital in Brazil. Mycoses 2018, 61, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Van Daele, R.; Spriet, I.; Wauters, J.; Maertens, J.; Mercier, T.; Van Hecke, S.; Brüggemann, R. Antifungal drugs: What brings the future? Med. Mycol. 2019, 57, S328–S343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Barry, A.L.; Pfaller, M.A.; Brown, S.D.; Espinel-Ingroff, A.; Ghannoum, M.A.; Knapp, C.; Rennie, R.P.; Rex, J.H.; Rinaldi, M.G. Quality control limits for broth microdilution susceptibility tests of ten antifungal agents. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2000, 38, 3457–3459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Performance Standards for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts, 1st ed.; CLSI supplement M60; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Wayne, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  54. Cavassin, F.B.; Baú-Carneiro, J.L.; Vilas-Boas, R.R.; Queiroz-Telles, F. Sixty years of amphotericin B: An overview of the main antifungal agent used to treat invasive fungal infections. Infect. Dis. Ther. 2021, 10, 115–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rossi, S.A.; De Oliveira, H.C.; Agreda-mellon, D.; Zaragoza, O. Identification of off-patent drugs that show synergism with amphotericin B or that present antifungal action against. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, e01921-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Laniado-Laborín, R.; Cabrales-Vargas, M.N. Amphotericin B: Side effects and toxicity. Rev. Iberoam. Micol. 2009, 26, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Legrand, M.; Bell, S.; Forni, L.; Joannidis, M.; Koyner, J.L.; Liu, K.; Cantaluppi, V. Pathophysiology of COVID-19-associated acute kidney injury. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 2021, 17, 751–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Sabaghian, T.; Kharazmi, A.B.; Ansari, A.; Omidi, F.; Kazemi, S.N.; Hajikhani, B.; Vaziri-Harami, R.; Tajbakhsh, A.; Omidi, S.; Haddadi, S.; et al. COVID-19 and acute kidney injury: A systematic review. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 705908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Cheng, F.; Kovács, I.A.; Barabási, A.L. Network-based prediction of drug combinations. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Cantón, E.; Pemán, J.; Gobernado, M.; Viudes, A.; Espinel-Ingroff, A. Patterns of amphotericin B killing kinetics against seven Candida species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2004, 48, 2477–2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Tollemar, J.; Klingspor, L.; Ringdén, O. Liposomal amphotericin B (ambisome) for fungal infections in immunocompromised adults and children. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2001, 7, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Zhanel, G.G.; Saunders, D.G.; Hoban, D.J.; Karlowsky, J.A. Influence of human serum on antifungal pharmacodynamics with Candida albicans. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2001, 45, 2018–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Ferreira, P.M.P.; Santos, A.G.; Tininis, A.G.; Costa, P.M.; Cavalheiro, A.J.; Bolzani, V.S.; Moraes, M.O.; Costa-Lotufo, L.V.; Montenegro, R.C.; Pessoa, C. Casearin X exhibits cytotoxic effects in leukemia cells triggered by apoptosis. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2010, 188, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Damasceno, J.P.L.; Da Rosa, H.S.; De Araújo, L.S.; Furtado, N.A.J.C. Andrographis paniculata formulations: Impact on diterpene lactone oral bioavailability. Eur. J. Drug Metab. Pharmacokinet. 2022, 47, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sousa, F.; Ferreira, D.; Reis, S.; Costa, P. Current insights on antifungal therapy: Novel nanotechnology approaches for drug delivery systems and new drugs from natural sources. Pharmaceuticals 2020, 13, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Atanasov, A.G.; Zotchev, S.B.; Dirsch, V.M.; Orhan, I.E.; Banach, M.; Rollinger, J.M.; Barreca, D.; Weckwerth, W.; Bauer, R.; Bayer, E.A.; et al. Natural products in drug discovery: Advances and opportunities. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2021, 20, 200–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nim, S.; Mónico, A.; Rawal, M.K.; Duarte, N.; Prasad, R.; Di Pietro, A.; Ferreira, M.J.U. Overcoming multidrug resistance in Candida albicans: Macrocyclic diterpenes from Euphorbia species as potent inhibitors of drug efflux pumps. Planta Med. 2016, 82, 1180–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Moraes, T.D.; Leandro, L.F.; Santiago, M.B.; Silva, L.O.; Bianchi, T.C.; Veneziani, R.C.S.; Ambrósio, S.R.; Ramos, S.B.; Bastos, J.K.; Martins, C.H. Assessment of the antibacterial, antivirulence, and action mechanism of Copaifera pubiflora oleoresin and isolated compounds against oral bacteria. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020, 129, 110467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts, 4th ed.; CLSI standard M27; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  70. Raber, H.F.; Sejfijaj, J.; Kissmann, A.K.; Wittgens, A.; Gonzalez-Garcia, M.; Alba, A.; Vázquez, A.A.; Vicente, F.E.M.; Erviti, J.P.; Kubiczek, D.; et al. Antimicrobial peptides pom-1 and pom-2 from Pomacea poeyana are active against Candida auris, C. parapsilosis and C. albicans biofilms. Pathogens 2021, 10, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bellio, P.; Fagnani, L.; Nazzicone, L.; Celenza, G. New and simplified method for drug combination studies by checkerboard assay. MethodsX 2021, 8, 101543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Saracino, I.M.; Foschi, C.; Pavoni, M.; Spigarelli, R.; Valerii, M.C.; Spisni, E. Antifungal activity of natural compounds vc. Candida spp.: A mixture of cinnamaldehyde and eugenol show promising in vitro results. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Methods for Determining Bactericidal Activity of Antimicrobial Agents; CLSI document M26-A; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): Wayne, PA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
Antibiotics 12 00509 g001 550
Figure 1. Chemical structure of ent-hardwickiic acid.
Figure 1. Chemical structure of ent-hardwickiic acid.
Antibiotics 12 00509 g001
Antibiotics 12 00509 g002 550
Figure 2. Time–kill curves of amphotericin B (1) and ent-hardwickiic acid (2) combinations against Candida strains: (a) C. albicans resistant strain; (b) C. albicans ATCC 10231; (c) C. krusei ATCC 6258. The error bars indicate standard deviations based on three replicates.
Figure 2. Time–kill curves of amphotericin B (1) and ent-hardwickiic acid (2) combinations against Candida strains: (a) C. albicans resistant strain; (b) C. albicans ATCC 10231; (c) C. krusei ATCC 6258. The error bars indicate standard deviations based on three replicates.
Antibiotics 12 00509 g002
Table
Table 1. Main interactions of amphotericin B (1) with ent-hardwickiic acid (2) in vitro against Candida strains using checkerboard microdilution method.
Table 1. Main interactions of amphotericin B (1) with ent-hardwickiic acid (2) in vitro against Candida strains using checkerboard microdilution method.
Strains
C. albicans Resistant StrainC. albicans ATCC 10231C. krusei ATCC 6258
MIC 1 Alone (µg/mL): 16MIC 2 Alone (µg/mL): 12.5MIC 1 Alone (µg/mL): 8MIC 2 Alone
(µg/mL): 6.25		MIC 1 Alone
(µg/mL): 8		MIC 2 Alone
(µg/mL): 3.12
MIC Combinated 1
(µg/mL)		MIC Combinated 2
(µg/mL)		Ʃ
FIC		Interaction Type *MIC Combinated 2
(µg/mL)		Ʃ
FIC		Interaction
Type *		MIC
Combinated 2
(µg/mL)		Ʃ
FIC		Interaction
Type *
161.561.12Indifferent0.392.06Indifferent0.1952.06Indifferent
81.560.62Additive0.391.06Indifferent0.1951.06Indifferent
43.120.50Synergism0.390.56Additive0.1950.56Additive
26.250.62Additive0.390.31Synergism0.1950.31Synergism
16.250.56Additive0.780.24Synergism0.390.25Synergism
0.512.51.03Indifferent0.780.18Synergism0.390.18Synergism
0.2512.51.01Indifferent1.560.28Synergism0.390.15Synergism
0.12512.51.00Additive3.120.50Synergism0.390.14Synergism
0.062252.00Indifferent3.120.50Synergism0.780.25Synergism
0.031252.00Indifferent3.120.50Synergism0.780.24Synergism
0.0156252.00Indifferent6.251.00Additive0.780.25Synergism
* Interpretations of interactions type: ƩFIC ≤ 0.5: synergistic, ƩFIC > 0.5 to ≤ 1: additive, ƩFIC > 1 to ≤ 4: indifferent and ƩFIC > 4: antagonistic.
Table
Table 2. Selected concentrations of amphotericin B (1) and ent-hardwickiic acid (2) (µg/mL) based on the checkerboard assay for time–kill assays of Candida strains.
Table 2. Selected concentrations of amphotericin B (1) and ent-hardwickiic acid (2) (µg/mL) based on the checkerboard assay for time–kill assays of Candida strains.
Strains
C. Albicans Resistant StrainC. albicans ATCC 10231C. krusei ATCC 6258
Amphotericin B (1) and
Ent-Hardwickiic Acid (2) (µg/mL)
Selected Combinations121212
1°0.2512.50.0313.120.01560.78
2°0.512.50.1253.120.0310.78
3°16.250.251.560.0620.78
4°43.120.50.780.250.39
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Teixeira, M.V.S.; Aldana-Mejía, J.A.; da Silva Ferreira, M.E.; Furtado, N.A.J.C. Lower Concentrations of Amphotericin B Combined with Ent-Hardwickiic Acid Are Effective against Candida Strains. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 509. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12030509

AMA Style

Teixeira MVS, Aldana-Mejía JA, da Silva Ferreira ME, Furtado NAJC. Lower Concentrations of Amphotericin B Combined with Ent-Hardwickiic Acid Are Effective against Candida Strains. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(3):509. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12030509

Chicago/Turabian Style

Teixeira, Maria V. Sousa, Jennyfer A. Aldana-Mejía, Márcia E. da Silva Ferreira, and Niege A. J. Cardoso Furtado. 2023. "Lower Concentrations of Amphotericin B Combined with Ent-Hardwickiic Acid Are Effective against Candida Strains" Antibiotics 12, no. 3: 509. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12030509

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop