| Literature DB >> 35498219 |
Amira M El-Ganiny1, Hend A Kamel1,2, Nehal E Yossef1, Basem Mansour3, Ahmed M El-Baz4.
Abstract
Candida species have a major role in nosocomial infections leading to high morbidity and mortality. Increased resistance to various antifungals, especially azoles is a significant problem. One of the main mechanisms for azole resistance is the up-regulation of efflux pump genes including CDR1 and MDR1. In the current study, clinical Candida isolates were identified to the species level and the antifungal susceptibility (AFS) of different Candida species was determined by disk diffusion method. Furthermore, the main mechanisms of azole resistance were investigated. Finally, haloperidol and pantoprazole were tested for their potential synergistic effect against fluconazole-resistant isolates. One hundred and twenty-two Candida clinical isolates were used in this study. 70 isolates were Candida albicans (57.4%), the non-albicans Candida species include: C. krusei (20.5%), C. tropicalis (6.6%), C. parapsilosis (5.7%), C. dubliniensis (4.9%) and C. glabrata (4.9%). The AFS testing showed that resistance to fluconazole and voriconazole were 13.1% (n = 16) and 9.8% (n = 12), respectively. Among the 16 resistant isolates, eight isolates (50%) were strong biofilm producers, seven (43.8 %) formed intermediate biofilm and one had no biofilm. All resistant strains overexpressed efflux pumps. Using RT-PCR, the efflux genes CDR1, MDR1 and ABC2 were over-expressed in azole resistant isolates. Haloperidol-fluconazole and pantoprazole-fluconazole combinations reduced the MIC of fluconazole in resistant isolates. The current study showed an increase in azole resistance of Candida species. The majority of resistant isolates form biofilm, and overexpress efflux pumps. Pantoprazole and Haloperidol showed a noteworthy effect as efflux pump inhibitors which oppose the fluconazole resistance in different Candida species.Entities:
Keywords: Azole resistance; Candida species; Efflux pump; Haloperidol; Pantoprazole
Year: 2022 PMID: 35498219 PMCID: PMC9051972 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2022.01.011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi Pharm J ISSN: 1319-0164 Impact factor: 4.562
Primers used for qRT-PCR in this study.
| Primer name | Primer sequence | Tm (°C) | Size | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GGGTGCATCATTCCAGCCTA | 57.3 | 189 | ||
| Ct-MDR1-R | GGGATGGCAATCATCACGAG | 56 | ||
| TTTACGCTGGTTTCTCCTTGCC | 57.9 | 322 | ||
| Ct-ACT1R | GCAGCTTCCAAACCTAAATCGG | 56.6 | ||
| Cg-CDR1F | TAGCACATCAACTACACGAACGT | 56.3 | 170 | |
| Cg-CDR1R | AGAGTGAACATTAAGGATGCCATG | 55.2 | ||
| Cg-URAF | GAAAACCAATCTTTGTGCTTCTCT | 54 | 125 | |
| Cg-URAR | CATGAGTCTTAAGCAAGCAAATGT | 54.1 | ||
| Ca-ACT1F | GCTTTTGGTGTTTGACGAGTTTCT | 56.4 | 72 | |
| Ca-ACT1R | GTGAGCCGGGAAATCTGTATAGTC | 56.9 | ||
| Ca-CDR1F | GTACTATCCATCAACCATCAGCACTT | 56.6 | 79 | |
| Ca-CDR1R | GCCGTTCTTCCACCTTTTTGTA | 55.7 | ||
| Ca-MDR1F | TCAGTCCGATGTCAGAAAATGC | 55.3 | 91 | |
| Ca-MDR1R | GCAGTGGGAATTTGTAGTATGACAA | 55.4 | ||
| Ck-ABC2-F | CCTTTTGTTCAGTGCCAGATTG | 57.4 | 301 | |
| Ck-ABC2-R | GTAACCAGGGACACCAGCAA | 57.3 | ||
| Ck-ACT1-F | TGGGCCAAAAGGATTCTTATG | 53 | 300 | |
| Ck-ACT1-R | AGATCTTTTCCATATCATCCCAG | 52.1 |
Fig. 1Antifungal susceptibility testing of candida isolates. FLU: fluconazole, VOR: voriconazole, AMB: Amphotericin B. R resistant, S susceptible.
Distribution of clinical Candida species and their resistance to azoles.
| No. of isolates | No. of resistant isolates in the species (%) | Fluconazole | Voriconazole | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 70 | 7 (10%) | 7 | 6 | |
| 25 | 4 (16%) | 4 | 3 | |
| 8 | 1 (12.5%) | 1 | 1 | |
| 6 | 4 (66.7%) | 4 | 2 | |
| 7 | – | – | – | |
| 6 | – | – | – | |
Biofilm and efflux pump activities in azole-resistant Candida isolates.
| Isolates no | VOR | FLU | Biofilm activity | Efflux activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | R | R | Strong | Strong | |
| 8 | S | R | Intermediate | Strong | |
| 11 | S | R | Intermediate | Strong | |
| 22 | S | R | Intermediate | Strong | |
| 26 | R | R | Strong | Strong | |
| 27 | R | R | Intermediate | Strong | |
| 28 | S | R | Intermediate | Strong | |
| 30 | R | R | Intermediate | Intermediate | |
| 32 | R | R | Strong | Strong | |
| 33 | R | R | Strong | Strong | |
| 38 | R | R | Intermediate | Strong | |
| 39 | R | R | Strong | Strong | |
| 40 | R | R | None | Strong | |
| 41 | R | R | Strong | Strong | |
| 55 | R | R | Strong | Strong | |
| 73 | R | R | Strong | Strong |
Fig. 2Expression levels of efflux pump genes in resistant Candida species.
The MIC (µg/mL) of Fluconazole alone and in combination with ¼ MIC of haloperidol and pantoprazole.
| Isolates no. | Candida Species | FLU alone | FLU + haloperidol | Fold decrease in MIC | FLU + pantoprazole | Fold decrease in MIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 1024 | 64 | 4 fold | 32 | 5 fold | |
| 8 | 512 | 64 | 3 fold | 32 | 4 fold | |
| 11 | 512 | 32 | 4 fold | 32 | 4 fold | |
| 22 | 256 | 64 | 2 fold | 32 | 3 fold | |
| 26 | 1024 | 1024 | None | 32 | 5 fold | |
| 27 | 512 | 64 | 3 fold | 64 | 3 fold | |
| 28 | 512 | 64 | 3 fold | 32 | 4 fold | |
| 30 | 512 | 64 | 3 fold | 32 | 4 fold | |
| 32 | 1024 | 128 | 3 fold | 32 | 5 fold | |
| 33 | 1024 | 64 | 4 fold | 32 | 5 fold | |
| 38 | 1024 | 512 | 1 fold | 32 | 5 fold | |
| 39 | 512 | 32 | 4 fold | 32 | 4 fold | |
| 40 | 512 | 64 | 3 fold | 16 | 5 fold | |
| 41 | 256 | 32 | 3 fold | 32 | 3 fold | |
| 55 | 1024 | 64 | 4 fold | 32 | 5 fold | |
| 73 | 512 | 64 | 3 fold | 64 | 3 fold |
Fig. 3Expression levels of efflux pump genes in resistant Candida albicans isolates in presence and absence of tested efflux pump inhibitors (Haloperidol and pantoprazole). A: expression of CDR1B: expression of MDR1. Data are expressed as means ± SEM. Results are considered significant when P < 0.0001. The control is Candida albicans in absence of inhibitors. *** Significance vs control group.
Fig. 4The Putative binding modes (2D & 3D) of Haloperidol and Pantoprazole and their free binding energies expressed in Kcal/mol in the active site of the predicted 3D structure of (A) Multidrug resistance protein 1 expressed by MDR1 gene in C. albicans. (B) Pleiotropic ABC efflux transporter expressed by CDR1 gene in C. albicans. The blue and cyan shadow of the ligand and active site amino acids respectively, indicated strong hydrophobic/hydrophilic interactions.
Fig. 5The Putative binding modes (2D & 3D) of Haloperidol and Pantoprazole and their free binding energies expressed in Kcal/mol in the active site of the predicted 3D structure of (A) CDR1 protein in C. glabrata. (B) ABC efflux transporter expressed by ABC2 gene in C krusei. The blue and cyan shadow of the ligand and active site amino acids respectively, indicated strong hydrophobic/hydrophilic interactions.