| Literature DB >> 35049988 |
Eefje Subroto1, Jacq van Neer1, Ivan Valdes1, Hans de Cock1.
Abstract
Biofilm formation during infections with the opportunistic pathogen Aspergillus fumigatus can be very problematic in clinical settings, since it provides the fungal cells with a protective environment. Resistance against drug treatments, immune recognition as well as adaptation to the host environment allows fungal survival in the host. The exact molecular mechanisms behind most processes in the formation of biofilms are unclear. In general, the formation of biofilms can be categorized roughly in a few stages; adhesion, conidial germination and development of hyphae, biofilm maturation and cell dispersion. Fungi in biofilms can adapt to the in-host environment. These adaptations can occur on a level of phenotypic plasticity via gene regulation. However, also more substantial genetic changes of the genome can result in increased resistance and adaptation in the host, enhancing the survival chances of fungi in biofilms. Most research has focused on the development of biofilms. However, to tackle developing microbial resistance and adaptation in biofilms, more insight in mechanisms behind genetic adaptations is required to predict which defense mechanisms can be expected. This can be helpful in the development of novel and more targeted antifungal treatments to combat fungal infections.Entities:
Keywords: Aspergillus fumigatus; biofilm; gene expression; in-host adaptation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35049988 PMCID: PMC8779434 DOI: 10.3390/jof8010048
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Fungi (Basel) ISSN: 2309-608X
Drug resistance mechanisms in A. fumigatus and C. albicans biofilm.
| References | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ECM | Reducing drug susceptibility by preventing the drug from reaching their cellular target | Reducing drug susceptibility by preventing the drug from reaching their cellular target | [ |
| Efflux pumps | Upregulation of efflux pumps genes such as AfuMDR4, MDR1, MDR2, MDR4 | CDR1, CDR2 and MDR1 contributing to azole resistance | [ |
| eDNA | Promotes resistance against amphotericin B and caspofungins | Promoting resistance to amphotericin B and echinocandins | [ |
| Persister cells | Dormant drug tolerant cells developed during biofilm formation that can serve as an inoculum for new biofilms | Dormant drug tolerant cells developed during biofilm formation that can serve as an inoculum for new biofilms | [ |
| Induced stress response pathway | HSP90 pathway | MAPK-, HSP90- and calcineurin pathway to develop azole resistance | [ |
Figure 1Potential roles of GAG during fungal infection.
Overview of gene expression studies of A. fumigatus biofilms. Whole genome expression studies of A. fumigatus biofilm growth were used to cross-reference with the PHI database [111]. No modifications of expression data or reanalysis of raw data was made in the case of Bertuzzi et al. 2014 and Gibbons et al. 2012 [112,113]. The data marked with bullet points was used to describe which genes were up- or down-regulated in that specific study. Expression thresholds for differential expression were kept as reported by the authors. Additionally, names of the categories used for Figure 2 are depicted.
| Objective | Model | Object of Analysis | Time Point/Series of Analysis after Growth | Expression Threshold for Differential Expression, and Selected Categories | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bertuzzi et al. (2014) [ | Transcriptional profiling of Δ | In vivo | Bronchoalveolar lavage of infected mice (in vivo) | 4, 8, 12 and 16 h of WT and Δ | Log2 ratios ≥ +/− 1.5 relative to ungerminated spores (only WT) Mice up = Early up + late up Mice down = Early down+ late down |
| Bruns et al. (2010) [ | Proteome and transcriptome analysis of PL versus BF | In vitro | Planktonic and biofilm-grown | 24 and 48 h |
Biofilm 24 = Log2 ratio > ±2.3 Biofilm 48 = Log2 ratio > ±4 at 48 h |
| Gibbons et al. (2012) [ | Gene expression analysis of BF versus PL | In vitro | Fungal tissue from planktonic and biofilm grown | 16 h | Log2 ratio between Biofilm and planktonic RPKM values. Biofilm 16 up = Biofilm unique (only expressed in Biofilm) 2 -fold up in Biofilm Biofilm 16 down = 2 -fold down in Biofilm |
Figure 2Heatmap showing the expression profiles of selected genes that are known to be involved in pathogenesis as reported by PHI database [111], expression and thresholds for differential expression was kept as reported by the authors, for mice and biofilm data, some conditions were grouped into one condition were: Mice up = Early up + late up. Mice down = Early down + late down. Biofilm 16 up = Biofilm unique (only expressed in Biofilm) 2-fold up in Biofilm. Biofilm 16 down = 2-fold down in Biofilm (Table 2). Full expression values are on Supplementary Material Table S1.