Suppr超能文献

[两种不同方法用于研究浮游型和生物膜形成型念珠菌对抗真菌药物的体外敏感性的比较]

[Comparison of two different methods for the investigation of in vitro susceptibilities of planktonic and biofilm forming Candida species to antifungal agents].

作者信息

Kaynak Onurdağ Fatma, Ozgen Selda, Abbasoğlu Ufuk, Gürcan Ismail Safa

机构信息

Gazi Üniversitesi Eczacılık Fakültesi, Farmasötik Mikrobiyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye.

出版信息

Mikrobiyol Bul. 2010 Oct;44(4):619-31.

Abstract

Microdilution method that determines the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of antifungal agents against Candida spp. is still the only method used in laboratories for both biofilm and planktonic forms. However, it was determined in several studies that there were susceptibility differences between the biofilm and planktonic forms of the same microorganism. The aims of this study were the determination of in vitro susceptibilities of planktonic and biofilm forms of Candida strains against antifungal agents, the comparison of the data obtained from planktonic and biofilm forms and the evaluation of two different methods used for the detection of susceptibilities of biofilm forms. Candida albicans ATCC 10231, Candida parapsilosis ATCC 90028 and Candida krusei ATCC 6258 were used as reference strains together with clinical isolates of one of each C.albicans, C.parapsilosis and Candida tropicalis. Microdilution method was used to determine the susceptibilities of planktonic forms of the strains according to CLSI M27-A3 standards, and MIC values of fluconazole, itraconazole, flucytosine, amphotericin B and nystatin were determined. For the detection of antifungal susceptibilities of Candida spp. biofilm forms, Calgary biofilm method (CBM) and BioTimer assay (BTA) were used, and minimum biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) and minimum biofilm inhibition concentration (MBIC) values of the same antifungals were determined. The difference between MIC and CBM-MBEC, CBM-MBEC and BTA-MBEC, CBM-MBEC and BTAMBIC values were found statistically significant (p < 0.05). In general CBM-MBEC values were found to be higher than MIC values. However, MBEC values were not always very reliable since the exact number of the microorganisms in biofilm can not be determined. BTA-MBIC values were also generally lower than the MBEC values and higher than the MIC values. Statistically significant difference between two methods was determined only for the MBEC values of flucytosine (p= 0.002) and itraconazole (p = 0.025). For flucytosine (p = 0.001) and itraconazole (p = 0.001), there was also a significant difference between CBM-MBEC and BTA-MBIC values, however, the difference was not significant (p > 0.05) for the other antifungal agents. These findings supported that antifungal susceptibilities of biofilm forming Candida strains should also be investigated. However, MBEC and MBIC of the antifungal agents should not always be expected to be higher than the MIC values since the mechanism of action of the specific antifungal agents and the first inoculum concentration of the microorganisms might differ.

摘要

用于确定抗真菌剂对念珠菌属最低抑菌浓度(MIC)的微量稀释法仍是实验室中针对生物膜和浮游形式唯一使用的方法。然而,多项研究表明,同一微生物的生物膜和浮游形式之间存在药敏差异。本研究的目的是确定念珠菌菌株的浮游和生物膜形式对抗真菌剂的体外药敏情况,比较从浮游和生物膜形式获得的数据,并评估用于检测生物膜形式药敏的两种不同方法。白色念珠菌ATCC 10231、近平滑念珠菌ATCC 90028和克柔念珠菌ATCC 6258作为参考菌株,同时还使用了白色念珠菌、近平滑念珠菌和热带念珠菌各一株的临床分离株。根据CLSI M27 - A3标准,采用微量稀释法测定菌株浮游形式的药敏情况,确定氟康唑、伊曲康唑、氟胞嘧啶、两性霉素B和制霉菌素的MIC值。为检测念珠菌属生物膜形式的抗真菌药敏情况,采用了卡尔加里生物膜法(CBM)和BioTimer检测法(BTA),并确定了相同抗真菌药物的最低生物膜清除浓度(MBEC)和最低生物膜抑制浓度(MBIC)值。发现MIC与CBM - MBEC、CBM - MBEC与BTA - MBEC、CBM - MBEC与BTAMBIC值之间的差异具有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。一般来说,CBM - MBEC值高于MIC值。然而,由于无法确定生物膜中微生物的确切数量,MBEC值并不总是非常可靠。BTA - MBIC值通常也低于MBEC值且高于MIC值。仅在氟胞嘧啶(p = 0.002)和伊曲康唑(p = 0.025)的MBEC值方面,两种方法之间存在统计学显著差异。对于氟胞嘧啶(p = 0.001)和伊曲康唑(p = 0.001),CBM - MBEC与BTA - MBIC值之间也存在显著差异,然而,对于其他抗真菌药物,差异不显著(p > 0.05)。这些发现支持也应研究形成生物膜的念珠菌菌株的抗真菌药敏情况。然而,由于特定抗真菌药物的作用机制和微生物的初始接种浓度可能不同,不应总是期望抗真菌药物的MBEC和MBIC高于MIC值。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验