Next Article in Journal
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum SsCut1 Modulates Virulence and Cutinase Activity
Previous Article in Journal
Ustilago maydis Metabolic Characterization and Growth Quantification with a Genome-Scale Metabolic Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Metrics of Antifungal Effects of Ciprofloxacin on Aspergillus fumigatus Planktonic Growth and Biofilm Metabolism; Effects of Iron and Siderophores
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 8
Issue 5
10.3390/jof8050525
jof-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

Synergistic In Vitro Interaction of Isavuconazole and Isoquercitrin against Candida glabrata

by
Petra V. Schwarz
1,
Ilya Nikolskiy
1,2,
Eric Dannaoui
3,4,5,
Frank Sommer
6,
Gert Bange
2,7 and
Patrick Schwarz
1,8,*
1
Center for Invasive Mycoses and Antifungals, Faculty of Medicine, Philipps University Marburg, D-35043 Marburg, Germany
2
Center for Synthetic Microbiology (SYNMIKRO), Department of Chemistry, Philipps University Marburg, D-35043 Marburg, Germany
3
Unité de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, F-75015 Paris, France
4
Dynamyc Research Group (EA 7380), Faculté de Médecine de Créteil, Université Paris-Est-Créteil-Val-de-Marne, F-94010 Créteil, France
5
Faculté de Médecine, Université de Paris, F-75006 Paris, France
6
Department of Microbiology, University Hospital Marburg, D-35032 Marburg, Germany
7
“Molecular Physiology of Microbes” Group, Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, D-35043 Marburg, Germany
8
Department of Internal Medicine, Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, University Hospital Marburg, D-35033 Marburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2022, 8(5), 525; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof8050525
Submission received: 3 May 2022 / Revised: 14 May 2022 / Accepted: 19 May 2022 / Published: 20 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antifungal Combinations in Fungal Infections)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In vitro interactions of broad-spectrum azole isavuconazole with flavonoid isoquercitrin were evaluated by a broth microdilution checkerboard technique based on the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) reference methodology for antifungal susceptibility testing against 60 Candida strains belonging to the species Candida albicans (n = 10), Candida glabrata (n = 30), Candida kefyr (n = 6), Candida krusei (n = 5), Candida parapsilosis (n = 4), and Candida tropicalis (n = 5). The results were analyzed with the fractional inhibitory concentration index and by response surface analysis based on the Bliss model. Synergy was found for all C. glabrata strains, when the results were interpreted by the fractional inhibitory concentration index, and for 60% of the strains when response surface analysis was used. Interaction for all other species was indifferent for all strains tested, whatever interpretation model used. Importantly, antagonistic interaction was never observed.

1. Introduction

Invasive candidiasis is a life-threatening disease associated with a high mortality rate of approximately 40% [1]. Ninety-five percent of invasive Candida infections are caused by only five different Candida species: Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Candida krusei, Candida parapsilosis, and Candida tropicalis [2]. The majority of infections worldwide are still caused by C. albicans [3], but non-albicans Candida species can represent up to 60% in the United States, or in parts of Europe [4,5]. The second most common species found in the United States and Central Europe is C. glabrata [6]. First-line therapy for invasive candidiasis are echinocandins. Azoles for primary therapy are not recommended anymore, but can be used as step-down therapy in case the infecting organism is susceptible [7]. C. parapsilosis has an intrinsic, decreased susceptibility to caspofungin [8]; C. krusei even has an intrinsic fluconazole resistance [9]. Echinocandin resistance in C. glabrata and other Candida species can be acquired by mutations in the glucan synthase encoding genes, FKS1 and FKS2 [10,11]. Echinocandin resistance is emerging, particularly in C. glabrata, with variable rates of 10–13% in the United States [12,13], 2.5% in Canada [14], 2.7% in Denmark [15], and 1.1–10% in Ibero-America [16], but can be as high as 48%, as reported in Germany. Of the 176 C. glabrata isolates submitted to the National Reference Center for Invasive Fungal Infections from 2015 to 2019, 84 were anidulafungin resistant, based on the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) susceptibility testing methodology. Seventy-one of these strains harbored FKS gene mutations. Over one-third of the echinocandin-resistant strains additionally displayed concomitant fluconazole resistance [17]. The high mortality rate, the lack of efficacy in monotherapy for some difficult-to-treat infections [18], and the emergence of antifungal resistance, especially among C. glabrata, underscore the need for alternative approaches. A promising strategy is the use of antifungals in combination. The main advantages of antifungal combinations are the possibility to increase efficacy [19], to reduce toxicity, to improve the pharmacokinetics of the molecules [20], and to overcome resistance [21]. However, using the common antifungals, no promising combination for the treatment of invasive candidiasis has been found [22]. As shown for Candida [23,24,25], Aspergillus [26,27], and Mucorales [28], combinations of non-antifungals with antifungals can also exhibit synergy. Isavuconazole is a broad-spectrum azole drug with potent in vitro activity against Candida blood-stream isolates, particularly against C. albicans and C. glabrata [29]. However, despite proven efficacy for the treatment of aspergillosis [30], isavuconazole could not prove non-inferiority compared with caspofungin as a primary treatment of invasive candidiasis [31]. Moreover, as the mechanisms of resistance for fluconazole and isavuconazole are similar [32], it has to be anticipated that isavuconazole resistance could also be a problem for the treatment of invasive candidiasis, but due to its limited use for treating invasive candidiasis, the rate of resistance is unknown. Isoquercitrin is a flavonoid which has shown fungicidal activity against C. albicans [33], which makes it an interesting partner to test in vitro combinations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate if isoquercitrin can enhance the in vitro activity of isavuconazole against common Candida species, including C. glabrata, assessed by a checkerboard technique based on the EUCAST methodology for antifungal susceptibility testing.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Strains

This study included a total of 60 clinical Candida strains belonging to six different species. Included were 10 C. albicans, 30 C. glabrata, 6 Candida kefyr, 5 C. krusei, 4 C. parapsilosis, and 5 C. tropicalis strains. Three strains belonged to international collections; two of these strains belonged to the American Type Culture Collection and the other to the Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen (DSM; https://www.dsmz.de (accessed on 1 May 2022)). The other 57 strains were obtained from the Department of Microbiology of the University Hospital Marburg. The strains not belonging to international collections were all identified to the species level by the sequencing of the complete Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS)1–5.8S-ITS2 region, as described elsewhere [34]. All sequences were deposited at GenBank under the accession numbers OL351325 to OL351353, OL351355, and OL351356 [24], under OM859334 to OM859338 [23], and under ON391951 to ON391970. Each batch of microplates was tested by the quality control strains C. krusei ATCC 6258 and C. parapsilosis ATCC 22019, as recommended by EUCAST.

2.2. Drugs

Isavuconazole powder was obtained from Pfizer (Berlin, Germany). The stock solution of isavuconazole was prepared in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) at a concentration of 3200 µg/mL. Isoquercitrin was purchased as powder from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany), and was solved in DMSO at a concentration of 12,800 µg/mL. Both stock solutions were kept at −25 °C until use.

2.3. Medium Preparation

All experiments were carried out in Roswell Park Memorial Institute 1640 (RPMI) medium (with L-glutamine and pH indicator, but without bicarbonate) (Merck). The medium was prepared in double strength and contained 2% (w/v) of D-Glucose and the buffer 3-(N-morpholino) propanesulfonic acid (Merck) at a final concentration of 0.165 mol/L. After adjustment of the pH to 7.0 with 2 molar NaOH, the medium was sterilized by vacuum filtration through a 0.22 µm pore-sized filter (Merck).

2.4. Microplate Preparation

All experiments of this study were carried out in NunclonTM delta surface 96-well microtiter plates for adherent cells (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Darmstadt, Germany). A two-dimensional checkerboard was used to evaluate the combination of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin [35]. Therefore, an antifungal susceptibility testing protocol, modified for broth microdilution combination studies, based on the EUCAST guidelines was used [36]. Each drug was two-fold serial diluted in the double strength RPMI medium. As the tested Candida species exhibited different susceptibility profiles to isavuconazole, two kinds of microplates were prepared. To test C. albicans, C. kefyr, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis strains, the final concentrations for isavuconazole on the microplates ranged from 0.00006 to 0.03 µg/mL, while 0.001 to 0.5 µg/mL was used to test C. glabrata and C. krusei strains. Isoquercitrin ranged from 1 to 64 µg/mL on all prepared microplates. The last column of the microplates contained only the RMPI medium without drugs and was used as the growth control (positive control). Before the addition of the inoculum, each well of the microplates contained 1% (v/v) DMSO.

2.5. Inoculum Preparation and Inoculation of Microplates

Candida strains were cultured from stocks frozen in 40% (v/v) glycerol at 35 °C and 95% humidity on Sabouraud dextrose agar slants, supplemented with chloramphenicol and gentamicin (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Feldkirchen, Germany). Twenty-four hours before the experiments, the strains were subcultured again under the same conditions. After subculture, yeast cells were transferred to sterile tubes, containing pure sterile water, by using inoculation loops. The final inoculum was adjusted to 2 × 105 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL after counting the cells in a hemocytometer. Directly after adjustment, Eppendorf Xplorer plus (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) electric multichannel pipettes were used to distribute 100 µL of the inoculum into each well of the microplates. To ensure the inoculum size, the final inoculum was further diluted to 1:10 and 50 µL were spread once on the Sabouraud dextrose agar plates with a sterile Drigalski spatula. The CFU were counted 24 hours after incubation. The microplates were incubated for 24 h at 35 °C and 95% humidity and the optical densities were read spectrophotometrically at a wavelength of 530 nm, using a MultiSkan FC spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Before spectrophotometric reading, all microplates were shaken for 2 min at 1100 rpm with the PMS-1000 Microplate Shaker (Grant Instruments, Shepreth, UK) to dissolve the yeast colonies in the wells. A blank plate, in which each well was inoculated with 100 µL of sterile distilled water, was incubated under the same conditions as mentioned above (negative control). The blank plate was read spectrophotometrically at 530 nm and the optical density values were subtracted from the values of the microplates inoculated with the Candida strains. The resulting optical density values were transformed into the percentage of growth compared with the growth control, and used for the calculation of the results. Combination experiments were run twice.

2.6. Interpretation of the Results by Fractional Inhibition Concentration Index

Fifty percent of inhibition was chosen as an endpoint for the determination of the MICs alone of both drugs and in combination. High off-scale MICs were converted to the next log2 dilution. The fractional inhibition concentration index (FICI) was calculated the following way: FICI = (MICisavuconazole in combination/MICisavuconazole alone) + (MICisoquercitrin in combination /MICisoquercitrin alone). For FICI values ≤0.5, synergy was concluded; indifference was concluded if the values were >0.5 to 4, and antagonism was concluded if the values were >4 [37].

2.7. Interpretation of the Results by Response Surface Analysis

Response surface analysis is an MIC and inhibition endpoint independent method to analyze checkerboard data. It allows the determination and visualization of the drug interactions on the complete surface of the microplate. FICI analyzes are limited to the evaluation of the interaction only for the MICs in combination. To analyze the checkerboard data, special programs are used; in the case of this study, all calculations were done by the Combenefit software [38]. First, the program calculates dose–response curves for the drugs alone, which are based on the growth rates in the wells of the single molecules. From the dose–response curves of the two drugs alone, according to the chosen theoretical model (this study uses the Bliss independence model), a dose–response surface with an indifferent interaction is calculated. The Bliss independence model is based on the hypothesis that drugs act independently from each other. Second, to evaluate the interaction of the combination, the program compares the experimentally obtained dose–response surface with the calculated indifferent dose–response surface. Synergy is observed if the experimentally obtained dose–response surface lies below the calculated dose–response surface. This corresponds to less growth on the microplate, compared with an indifferent interaction. If more growth is obtained on the plate compared with an indifferent interaction, which means that the experimentally obtained dose–response surface lies above the calculated indifferent dose–response surface, antagonism is concluded. Third, the program calculates the SUM-SYN-ANT metric to quantitatively assess the interaction of the drugs. The SUM-SYN-ANT metric is the sum of all the dose–response surface values lying below the calculated indifferent dose–response surface (SYN-SUM), minus the sum of all values lying above (ANT-SUM). Broth microdilution techniques have an intrinsic variability which makes the definition of a threshold necessary. This threshold defines the values for which the interaction of the combination is assumed to be indifferent. Threshold determination can be done experimentally by combining the active molecules with themselves. In the case of this study, the active molecule isavuconazole was tested with itself on the two-dimensional checkerboard with two-fold serial dilutions using the preparation, incubation, and analyzation protocol described above. The quality control strain C. krusei ATCC 6258 was used for threshold determination. The strain was tested in triplicate with the highest isavuconazole of 0.12 µg/mL in both axes. Based on these results, synergy was assumed when the SUM-SYN-ANT was ≥56.0%, and antagonism when ≤−56.0%. Between −56.0 and 56.0%, indifference was concluded. For the determination of the SUM-SYN-ANT metric of the tested strains, the data of both runs were combined.

3. Results

In the first part of this study the combination of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin was screened against a panel of 35 Candida strains belonging to common Candida species using the EUCAST broth microdilution technique modified for combination studies. The data of these experiments were analyzed by FICI and response surface analysis, and the results are presented in Table 1. Based on these results, 25 additional C. glabrata strains were tested and analyzed the same way. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 2. A summary of all results is presented in Table 3. Figure 1 shows the synergy distributions for the combination of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin against all C. glabrata strains tested.
The MICs for isavuconazole were within the range of the EUCAST quality control range for this antifungal and are presented in Table 1 (first batch of microplates). The MICs for the quality controls of the second batch of microplates were exactly the same (data not shown). For isoquercitrin, no quality control ranges exist, but the MICs for isoquercitrin of the two quality controls were the same in both batches of microplates.
The 60 Candida strains exhibited MICs for isavuconazole ranging from 0.0005 to 1 μg/mL (Table 1 and Table 2) with an MIC50, MIC90, and geometric mean MIC of 0.06, 0.5, and 0.037 μg/mL, respectively. Isavuconazole MICs ranged from 0.001 to 0.004, 0.008 to 0.016, and 0.0005 to 0.004 µg/mL for C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, and C. kefyr, respectively, or were 0.06 and 0.008 µg/mL for C. krusei and C. tropicalis, respectively. For the strains of C. glabrata, MICs for isavuconazole ranged from 0.125 to 1 μg/mL with an MIC50, MIC90, and geometric mean MIC of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.28 μg/mL, respectively. When tested alone, isoquercitrin exhibited MICs ranging from 16 of 128 µg/mL for the different species (128 μg/mL being the high off-scale MIC) with an MIC50, MIC90, and a geometric mean MIC of 64, 128, and 65.5 μg/mL, respectively. Best activity of isoquercitrin was seen against C. glabrata with MICs ranging from 16 to 64 µg/mL and a geometric mean MIC of 42.22 µg/mL. Isoquercitrin showed no activity against C. krusei, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis; the MICs of all strains were >64 µg/mL. Almost no activity was seen against C. kefyr, with a geometric mean MIC of 101.6 µg/mL. Apart from C. glabrata, isoquercitrin exhibited only against C. albicans a certain degree of activity with a geometric mean MIC of 73.52 µg/mL. Between the experiments, isavuconazole and isoquercitrin MICs were within +/− 1 log2 dilutions in 98.33% of the cases for all Candida strains tested (data not shown). Interaction was synergistic for 100% of the tested C. glabrata strains (n = 30), with FICIs ranging from 0.125 to 0.5 with a geometric mean FICI of 0.25. Interaction against all other tested species was indifferent.
Although synergy was less frequently obtained than by FICI analysis, the interaction of the combination evaluated by response surface analysis was still synergistic for the majority (60%) of the C. glabrata stains tested. The SUM-SYN-ANT metric for the synergistic strains ranged from 56.24 to 95.8, with a mean of 76.06. The mean of the SUM-SYN-ANT metric of all strains of C. glabrata tested was 64.15. As obtained by FICI analysis, the interaction of the combination evaluated by response surface analysis against all other strains of the tested species was indifferent.

4. Discussion

Polyphenols are natural organic compounds comprising of multiple phenol units, found in fruits, vegetables, cereals, and beverages such as red wine or tea [39]. They are secondary metabolites of plants, and involved in the host defense against ultraviolet radiation or pathogens [40]. Epidemiological studies suggested that long-term use of plant polyphenol-rich diets could protect against the development of cancers, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, aging, asthma, neurodegenerative diseases, and infections [41]. Flavonoids are a class of polyphenols which have a 15-carbon skeleton comprising of two phenyl rings connected over a heterocyclic ring containing embedded oxygen, have the ability to inhibit spore germination in plant pathogenic fungi, and have, therefore, been proposed for use against fungal pathogens of man [42]. Flavonoids have shown antifungal activity against dermatophytes [43,44], human opportunistic filamentous fungi [43,45,46,47,48], and yeasts, including Candida species [43,49,50,51,52]. Isoquercitrin is a flavonoid which can be isolated from areal parts of Aster yomena, a perennial herb which grows in the southern part of Korea, and is used as a traditional medication to treat inflammation, colds, and bronchial asthma [53]. Apart from its anti-allergic [54], antibiotic [55], anti-hyperlipidemic [56], anti-inflammatory [57], and antioxidant properties [58], it causes fungicidal membrane disturbance [33] and reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated apoptosis in C. albicans [59], which make the drug an interesting partner to test combinations with antifungals.
The MICs of isavuconazole for the Candida species tested in this study were in the same range as described previously [60,61,62]. MICs of isoquercitrin of some of our C. albicans strains were in the same range as reported by others who used EUCAST methodology for MIC determination [63]; however, the majority of our strains had higher MICs. Another study which evaluated the activity of different polyphenols isolated from Pterogyne nitens found, in accordance with this study, high MICs of isoquercitrin against C. albicans, C. krusei, and C. parapsilosis, but CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) methodology was used for susceptibility testing.
MICs of isoquercitrin in combination for C. glabrata ranged from 2 to 8 μg/mL with a geometric mean MIC of 4 μg/mL. To our knowledge, peak serum levels of isoquercitrin in patients have not been studied so far. In rats, peak plasma levels of about 15 µg/mL were reached after a single intravenous administration of 5 mg/kg of body weight. With doses of 20 mg/kg of body weight, peak plasma levels of even 60 µg/mL have been reached [64]. These levels would have largely been enough against the C. glabrata strains tested in this study. However, even if achievable serum levels in patients would be lower, the synergy of the combination could not directly be out of the question, as it has been shown in patients that even lower serum levels than those of the MICs can lead to in vivo synergy [65].
Only one study evaluated the interaction of isoquercitrin with azoles against Candida. The combination of isoquercitrin with fluconazole was evaluated by checkerboard against one strain of C. albicans and found to be synergistic. The authors further showed that the addition of fluconazole to isoquercitrin increases the effect of isoquercitrin in lowering the activity of the superoxide dismutase and increasing metacaspase activation and DNA condensation, leading to ROS accumulation, oxidative stress, and induction of apoptosis. In the same study, the combination of isoquercitrin with amphotericin or flucytosine was tested against one strain of C. albicans, yielding synergy and indifference, respectively [66]. In our study, the combination of isoquercitrin and isavuconazole against 10 C. albicans strains evaluated by checkerboard and interpreted by FICI and by response surface analysis exhibited indifference. The different interaction could be specific to the strain used or associated with the different azole.
Against other Candida species, the combination of isoquercitrin has never been tested before. We found indifference of the combination of isoquercitrin with isavuconazole for all C. krusei, C. kefyr. C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis strains tested. In contrast to these results, combination was synergistic against all 30 C. glabrata strains tested, when the results of the checkerboard were interpreted by FICI. When the interpretation of the results was carried out by response surface analysis, synergy was still obtained for 60% of the C. glabrata strains tested. The discrepancy between the FICI and the response surface analysis results can be explained by the stringent threshold (56.0) used in this study compared with previous works, where lower thresholds have been used [24,25]. Nevertheless, despite the indifference of 40% of the C. glabrata results by response surface analysis, the mean of the SUM-SYN-ANT metric of all strains was 64.15, and therefore higher than the threshold.
One of the limitations of this study is that molecular determination of azole resistance or FKS gene mutation has not been performed for the C. glabrata strains used in this study. This limitation is aggravated by the lack of breakpoint and epidemiological cut-off value definition by EUCAST for isavuconazole against C. glabrata. It has been shown that C. glabrata strains with proven molecular azole resistance exhibit MICs to isavuconazole of 1 to ≥8 µg/mL [67,68]. In this study, one strain exhibited an MIC of 1 µg/mL. However, it cannot be concluded that this strain owns an azole-resistance mutation because the MICs in the mentioned studies were determined by CLSI methodology and, also, because wild-type strains can exhibit MICs of 1 and even 2 µg/mL to isavuconazole [67]. C. glabrata strains resistant to echinocandins are often cross-resistant to azoles. Even if the strain in this study with the MIC of 1 µg/mL would be isavuconazole resistant, it cannot be concluded that the strains are mandatory also echinocandin resistant [69]. Therefore, based on the results of this study, it cannot be concluded that the combination of isavuconazole and isoquercitrin can overcome proven azole or echinocandin resistance.
To summarize, we demonstrated that the combination of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin interacts synergistically against C. glabrata. Interaction against C. albicans, C. krusei, C. kefyr, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis exhibited only indifference, but importantly antagonistic interaction was never observed. These results warrant further animal experiments.

Author Contributions

P.S. and P.V.S. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. P.S. and I.N. carried out the experiments. P.V.S., P.S. and I.N. performed the analysis of the results. E.D., P.S., G.B. and F.S. contributed to the revisions. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by internal funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets of the sequenced Candida strains used in this study can be found at GenBank (https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/genbank/ (accessed on 1 May 2022)) under the accession numbers OL351325 to OL351353, OL351355, and OL351356, under OM859334 to OM859338, and under ON391951 to ON391970.

Conflicts of Interest

Patrick Schwarz has received research grants from Basilea Pharmaceutica, Gilead, and Pfizer, received travel grants from Gilead and Pfizer, and speaking fees from Pfizer. During the past 5 years, Eric Dannaoui has received research grants from MSD and Gilead, travel grants from Gilead, MSD, Pfizer, and Astellas, and speaker’s fees from Gilead, MSD, and Astellas. The other authors have none to declare.

References

  1. Kullberg, B.J.; Arendrup, M.C. Invasive candidiasis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 1445–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Yapar, N. Epidemiology and risk factors for invasive candidiasis. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2014, 10, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Pfaller, M.A.; Diekema, D.J.; Gibbs, D.L.; Newell, V.A.; Ellis, D.; Tullio, V.; Rodloff, A.; Fu, W.; Ling, T.A.; Global Antifungal Surveillance Group. Results from the ARTEMIS DISK global antifungal surveillance study, 1997 to 2007: A 10.5-year analysis of susceptibilities of Candida species to fluconazole and voriconazole as determined by CLSI standardized disk diffusion. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 1366–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Montagna, M.T.; Caggiano, G.; Lovero, G.; De Giglio, O.; Coretti, C.; Cuna, T.; Iatta, R.; Giglio, M.; Dalfino, L.; Bruno, F.; et al. Epidemiology of invasive fungal infections in the intensive care unit: Results of a multicenter Italian survey (AURORA Project). Infection 2013, 41, 645–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Vannini, M.; Emery, S.; Lieutier-Colas, F.; Legueult, K.; Mondain, V.; Retur, N.; Gastaud, L.; Pomares, C.; Hasseine, L. Epidemiology of candidemia in NICE area, France: A five-year study of antifungal susceptibility and mortality. J. Mycol. Med. 2022, 32, 101210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pappas, P.G.; Lionakis, M.S.; Arendrup, M.C.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L.; Kullberg, B.J. Invasive candidiasis. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2018, 4, 18026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cornely, O.A.; Bassetti, M.; Calandra, T.; Garbino, J.; Kullberg, B.J.; Lortholary, O.; Meersseman, W.; Akova, M.; Arendrup, M.C.; Arikan-Akdagli, S.; et al. ESCMID guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: Non-neutropenic adult patients. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18 (Suppl. S7), 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Pfaller, M.A.; Boyken, L.; Hollis, R.J.; Messer, S.A.; Tendolkar, S.; Diekema, D.J. In vitro susceptibilities of Candida spp. to caspofungin: Four years of global surveillance. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 760–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Orozco, A.S.; Higginbotham, L.M.; Hitchcock, C.A.; Parkinson, T.; Falconer, D.; Ibrahim, A.S.; Ghannoum, M.A.; Filler, S.G. Mechanism of fluconazole resistance in Candida krusei. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1998, 42, 2645–2649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Garcia-Effron, G.; Lee, S.; Park, S.; Cleary, J.D.; Perlin, D.S. Effect of Candida glabrata FKS1 and FKS2 mutations on echinocandin sensitivity and kinetics of 1,3-beta-D-glucan synthase: Implication for the existing susceptibility breakpoint. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2009, 53, 3690–3699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Dannaoui, E.; Desnos-Ollivier, M.; Garcia-Hermoso, D.; Grenouillet, F.; Cassaing, S.; Baixench, M.T.; Bretagne, S.; Dromer, F.; Lortholary, O.; French Mycoses Study Group. Candida spp. with acquired echinocandin resistance, France, 2004–2010. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2012, 18, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Alexander, B.D.; Johnson, M.D.; Pfeiffer, C.D.; Jimenez-Ortigosa, C.; Catania, J.; Booker, R.; Castanheira, M.; Messer, S.A.; Perlin, D.S.; Pfaller, M.A. Increasing echinocandin resistance in Candida glabrata: Clinical failure correlates with presence of FKS mutations and elevated minimum inhibitory concentrations. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2013, 56, 1724–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Messer, S.A.; Carvalhaes, C.G.; Castanheira, M.; Pfaller, M.A. In vitro activity of isavuconazole versus opportunistic filamentous fungal pathogens from the SENTRY antifungal surveillance program, 2017-2018. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2020, 97, 115007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fuller, J.; Dingle, T.C.; Bull, A.; Shokoples, S.; Laverdiere, M.; Baxter, M.R.; Adam, H.J.; Karlowsky, J.A.; Zhanel, G.G.; Canadian Antimicrobial Resistance Alliance; et al. Species distribution and antifungal susceptibility of invasive Candida isolates from Canadian hospitals: Results of the CANWARD 2011-16 study. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, iv48–iv54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Astvad, K.M.T.; Johansen, H.K.; Roder, B.L.; Rosenvinge, F.S.; Knudsen, J.D.; Lemming, L.; Schonheyder, H.C.; Hare, R.K.; Kristensen, L.; Nielsen, L.; et al. Update from a 12-year nationwide fungemia surveillance: Increasing intrinsic and acquired resistance causes concern. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e01564-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Martinez-Herrera, E.; Frias-De-Leon, M.G.; Hernandez-Castro, R.; Garcia-Salazar, E.; Arenas, R.; Ocharan-Hernandez, E.; Rodriguez-Cerdeira, C. Antifungal resistance in clinical isolates of Candida glabrata in Ibero-America. J. Fungi 2021, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Aldejohann, A.M.; Herz, M.; Martin, R.; Walther, G.; Kurzai, O. Emergence of resistant Candida glabrata in Germany. JAC Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 3, dlab122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vitale, R.G. Role of antifungal combinations in difficult to treat Candida infections. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vitale, R.G.; Afeltra, J.; Dannaoui, E. Antifungal combinations. Methods Mol. Med. 2005, 118, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Perfect, J.R.; Dismukes, W.E.; Dromer, F.; Goldman, D.L.; Graybill, J.R.; Hamill, R.J.; Harrison, T.S.; Larsen, R.A.; Lortholary, O.; Nguyen, M.H.; et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of cryptococcal disease: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2010, 50, 291–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kontoyiannis, D.P.; Lewis, R.E. Toward more effective antifungal therapy: The prospects of combination therapy. Br. J. Haematol. 2004, 126, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Johnson, M.D.; MacDougall, C.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L.; Perfect, J.R.; Rex, J.H. Combination antifungal therapy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2004, 48, 693–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Schwarz, P.; Nikolskiy, I.; Bidaud, A.L.; Sommer, F.; Bange, G.; Dannaoui, E. In vitro synergy of isavuconazole combined with colistin against common Candida species. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Schwarz, P.; Nikolskiy, I.; Bidaud, A.L.; Sommer, F.; Bange, G.; Dannaoui, E. In vitro activity of amphotericin B in combination with colistin against fungi responsible for invasive infections. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schwarz, P.; Bidaud, A.L.; Dannaoui, E. In vitro synergy of isavuconazole in combination with colistin against Candida auris. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schwarz, P.; Djenontin, E.; Dannaoui, E. Colistin and isavuconazole interact synergistically in vitro against Aspergillus nidulans and Aspergillus niger. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schwarz, P.; Dannaoui, E. In vitro interaction between isavuconazole and tacrolimus, cyclosporin A, or sirolimus against Aspergillus Species. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schwarz, P.; Schwarz, P.V.; Felske-Zech, H.; Dannaoui, E. In vitro interactions between isavuconazole and tacrolimus, cyclosporin A or sirolimus against Mucorales. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 74, 1921–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Seifert, H.; Aurbach, U.; Stefanik, D.; Cornely, O. In vitro activities of isavuconazole and other antifungal agents against Candida bloodstream isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2007, 51, 1818–1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Maertens, J.A.; Raad, I.I.; Marr, K.A.; Patterson, T.F.; Kontoyiannis, D.P.; Cornely, O.A.; Bow, E.J.; Rahav, G.; Neofytos, D.; Aoun, M.; et al. Isavuconazole versus voriconazole for primary treatment of invasive mould disease caused by Aspergillus and other filamentous fungi (SECURE): A phase 3, randomised-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016, 387, 760–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kullberg, B.J.; Viscoli, C.; Pappas, P.G.; Vazquez, J.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L.; Rotstein, C.; Sobel, J.D.; Herbrecht, R.; Rahav, G.; Jaruratanasirikul, S.; et al. Isavuconazole versus caspofungin in the treatment of candidemia and other invasive Candida infections: The ACTIVE trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2019, 68, 1981–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Ellsworth, M.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L. Isavuconazole: Mechanism of action, clinical efficacy, and resistance. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Yun, J.; Lee, H.; Ko, H.J.; Woo, E.R.; Lee, D.G. Fungicidal effect of isoquercitrin via inducing membrane disturbance. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2015, 1848, 695–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Schwarz, P.; Bretagne, S.; Gantier, J.C.; Garcia-Hermoso, D.; Lortholary, O.; Dromer, F.; Dannaoui, E. Molecular identification of zygomycetes from culture and experimentally infected tissues. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Bidaud, A.L.; Schwarz, P.; Herbreteau, G.; Dannaoui, E. Techniques for the assessment of in vitro and in vivo antifungal combinations. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Arendrup, M.C.; Meletiadis, J.; Mouton, J.W.; Lagrou, K.; Hamal, P.; Guinea, J. Method for the Determination of Broth Dilution Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations of Antifungal Agents for Yeasts (EUCAST Definitive Document E.Def 7.3.2). 2020. Available online: https://www.eucast.org/astoffungi/methodsinantifungalsusceptibilitytesting/susceptibility_testing_of_yeasts/ (accessed on 1 May 2022).
  37. Odds, F.C. Synergy, antagonism, and what the chequerboard puts between them. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2003, 52, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Di Veroli, G.Y.; Fornari, C.; Wang, D.; Mollard, S.; Bramhall, J.L.; Richards, F.M.; Jodrell, D.I. Combenefit: An interactive platform for the analysis and visualization of drug combinations. Bioinformatics 2016, 32, 2866–2868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cory, H.; Passarelli, S.; Szeto, J.; Tamez, M.; Mattei, J. The role of polyphenols in human health and food systems: A mini-review. Front. Nutr. 2018, 5, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Beckman, C.H. Phenolic-storing cells: Keys to programmed cell death and periderm formation in wilt disease resistance and in general defence responses in plants? Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2000, 57, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pandey, K.B.; Rizvi, S.I. Plant polyphenols as dietary antioxidants in human health and disease. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2009, 2, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Cushnie, T.P.; Lamb, A.J. Antimicrobial activity of flavonoids. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2005, 26, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Faustino, M.V.; Pinto, D.C.G.A.; Gonçalves, M.J.; Salgueiro, L.; Silveira, P.; Silva, A.M.S. Calendula L. species polyphenolic profile and in vitro antifungal activity. J. Funct. Foods 2018, 45, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Foss, S.R.; Nakamura, C.V.; Ueda-Nakamura, T.; Cortez, D.A.; Endo, E.H.; Dias Filho, B.P. Antifungal activity of pomegranate peel extract and isolated compound punicalagin against dermatophytes. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2014, 13, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Aguirre-Joya, J.A.; Pastrana-Castro, L.; Nieto-Oropeza, D.; Ventura-Sobrevilla, J.; Rojas-Molina, R.; Aguilar, C.N. The physicochemical, antifungal and antioxidant properties of a mixed polyphenol based bioactive film. Heliyon 2018, 4, e00942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Ascacio-Valdes, J.; Burboa, E.; Aguilera-Carbo, A.F.; Aparicio, M.; Perez-Schmidt, R.; Rodriguez, R.; Aguilar, C.N. Antifungal ellagitannin isolated from Euphorbia antisyphilitica Zucc. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2013, 3, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Kanwal, Q.; Hussain, I.; Latif Siddiqui, H.; Javaid, A. Antifungal activity of flavonoids isolated from mango (Mangifera indica L.) leaves. Nat. Prod. Res. 2010, 24, 1907–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rongai, D.; Pulcini, P.; Pesce, B.; Milano, F. Antifungal activity of pomegranate peel extract against fusarium wilt of tomato. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2017, 147, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Filho, A.A.O.; Oliveira, H.B.D.; de Sousa, J.P.; Meireles, D.R.P.; de Alzevedo Maia, G.L.; Filho, J.M.B.; de Siqueira Júnior, J.P.; de Oliveira Lima, E. In vitro anti-Candida activity and mechanism of action of the flavonoid isolated from Praxelis clematidea against Candida albicans species. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2016, 6, 066–069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Meragelman, T.L.; Tucker, K.D.; McCloud, T.G.; Cardellina, J.H., 2nd; Shoemaker, R.H. Antifungal flavonoids from Hildegardia barteri. J. Nat. Prod. 2005, 68, 1790–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nair, M.S.; Saxena, A.; Kaur, C. Characterization and antifungal activity of pomegranate peel extract and its use in polysaccharide-based edible coatings to extend the shelf-life of Capsicum (Capsicum annuum L.). Food Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 11, 1317–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yamaguchi, M.U.; Garcia, F.P.; Cortez, D.A.; Ueda-Nakamura, T.; Filho, B.P.; Nakamura, C.V. Antifungal effects of Ellagitannin isolated from leaves of Ocotea odorifera (Lauraceae). Antonie. Van. Leeuwenhoek 2011, 99, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Kim, A.R.; Jin, Q.; Jin, H.G.; Ko, H.J.; Woo, E.R. Phenolic compounds with IL-6 inhibitory activity from Aster yomena. Arch Pharm. Res. 2014, 37, 845–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Makino, T.; Kanemaru, M.; Okuyama, S.; Shimizu, R.; Tanaka, H.; Mizukami, H. Anti-allergic effects of enzymatically modified isoquercitrin (alpha-oligoglucosyl quercetin 3-O-glucoside), quercetin 3-O-glucoside, alpha-oligoglucosyl rutin, and quercetin, when administered orally to mice. J. Nat. Med. 2013, 67, 881–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Yun, J.; Woo, E.R.; Lee, D.G. Effect of isoquercitrin on membrane dynamics and apoptosis-like death in Escherichia coli. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 2018, 1860, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jayachandran, M.; Zhang, T.; Wu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Xu, B. Isoquercetin regulates SREBP-1C via AMPK pathway in skeletal muscle to exert antihyperlipidemic and anti-inflammatory effects in STZ induced diabetic rats. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2020, 47, 593–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rogerio, A.P.; Kanashiro, A.; Fontanari, C.; da Silva, E.V.; Lucisano-Valim, Y.M.; Soares, E.G.; Faccioli, L.H. Anti-inflammatory activity of quercetin and isoquercitrin in experimental murine allergic asthma. Inflamm. Res. 2007, 56, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jung, S.H.; Kim, B.J.; Lee, E.H.; Osborne, N.N. Isoquercitrin is the most effective antioxidant in the plant Thuja orientalis and able to counteract oxidative-induced damage to a transformed cell line (RGC-5 cells). Neurochem. Int. 2010, 57, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yun, J.; Woo, E.R.; Lee, D.L. Isoquercitrin, isolated from Aster yomena triggers ROS-mediated apoptosis in Candida albicans. J. Funct. Foods 2016, 22, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Desnos-Ollivier, M.; Bretagne, S.; Boullie, A.; Gautier, C.; Dromer, F.; Lortholary, O.; French Mycoses Study Group. Isavuconazole MIC distribution of 29 yeast species responsible for invasive infections (2015-2017). Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 634.e1–634.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jorgensen, K.M.; Astvad, K.M.T.; Hare, R.K.; Arendrup, M.C. EUCAST susceptibility testing of isavuconazole: MIC data for contemporary clinical mold and yeast isolates. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 63, e00073-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Sickles, E.A.; Greene, W.H.; Wiernik, P.H. Clinical presentation of infection in granulocytopenic patients. Arch. Intern. Med. 1975, 135, 715–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Ivanov, M.; Kannan, A.; Stojkovic, D.S.; Glamoclija, J.; Calhelha, R.C.; Ferreira, I.; Sanglard, D.; Sokovic, M. Flavones, flavonols, and glycosylated derivatives-impact on Candida albicans growth and virulence, expression of CDR1 and ERG11, cytotoxicity. Pharmaceuticals 2020, 14, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Xue, H.; Li, H.; Zhang, W.; Lu, D.; Chen, Y.; Yin, J.; Meng, Y.; Ying, X.; Kang, T. Pharmacokinetic study of isoquercitrin in rat plasma after intravenous administration at three different doses. Braz. J. Pharm. Sci. 2013, 49, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Kontoyiannis, D.P.; Lewis, R.E.; Alexander, B.D.; Lortholary, O.; Dromer, F.; Gupta, K.L.; John, G.T.; Del Busto, R.; Klintmalm, G.B.; Somani, J.; et al. Calcineurin inhibitor agents interact synergistically with antifungal agents in vitro against Cryptococcus neoformans isolates: Correlation with outcome in solid organ transplant recipients with cryptococcosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2008, 52, 735–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Kim, S.; Woo, E.R.; Lee, D.G. Synergistic antifungal activity of isoquercitrin: Apoptosis and membrane permeabilization related to reactive oxygen species in Candida albicans. IUBMB Life 2019, 71, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Castanheira, M.; Messer, S.A.; Rhomberg, P.R.; Dietrich, R.R.; Jones, R.N.; Pfaller, M.A. Isavuconazole and nine comparator antifungal susceptibility profiles for common and uncommon Candida species collected in 2012: Application of new CLSI clinical breakpoints and epidemiological cutoff values. Mycopathologia 2014, 178, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sanglard, D.; Coste, A.T. Activity of isavuconazole and other azoles against Candida clinical isolates and yeast model systems with known azole resistance mechanisms. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Pristov, K.E.; Ghannoum, M.A. Resistance of Candida to azoles and echinocandins worldwide. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 792–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jof 08 00525 g001 550
Figure 1. Synergy distribution for the combination of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin against all C. glabrata strains tested. Always from the left to the right, first row: V2105272, V2105282, N2101711, V2105636, DSM 70614; second row: U2105834, V2105576, N2102530, U2106503, U2106602; third row: U2106664, U2106745, U2107113, U2107210, U2107214; fourth row: V2107409, N2102703, N2102712, N2102714, U2107517; fifth row: U2107630, U2107836, V2108007, V2108459, B2109750; last row: A2100553, U2107634, U2107796, U2108032, U2107634. The mode of interaction was defined based on the SUM-SYN-ANT metric. IND, indifference; SYN, synergy.
Figure 1. Synergy distribution for the combination of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin against all C. glabrata strains tested. Always from the left to the right, first row: V2105272, V2105282, N2101711, V2105636, DSM 70614; second row: U2105834, V2105576, N2102530, U2106503, U2106602; third row: U2106664, U2106745, U2107113, U2107210, U2107214; fourth row: V2107409, N2102703, N2102712, N2102714, U2107517; fifth row: U2107630, U2107836, V2108007, V2108459, B2109750; last row: A2100553, U2107634, U2107796, U2108032, U2107634. The mode of interaction was defined based on the SUM-SYN-ANT metric. IND, indifference; SYN, synergy.
Jof 08 00525 g001
Table
Table 1. Interaction of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin against common Candida species evaluated by checkerboard and interpretation by fractional inhibitory concentration index and response surface analysis.
Table 1. Interaction of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin against common Candida species evaluated by checkerboard and interpretation by fractional inhibitory concentration index and response surface analysis.
SpeciesCollection NumberCheckerboard MICs (µg/mL) Response Surface Analysis
ISAISOQISA/ISOQFICIINTPNΣSYN-ANT (ΣSYN; ΣANT)INTPN
C. albicansV21051260.0021280.001/641IND17.47 (19.03; −1.56)IND
C. albicansN21015780.0041280.004/11.0078IND−7.17 (8.40; −15.57)IND
C. albicansV21055680.001640.00006/320.5625IND27.02 (27.98; −0.96)IND
C. albicansN21015770.0021280.002/11.0078IND34.95 (35.70; −0.75)IND
C. albicansV2105825iso30.001320.0005/161IND22.97 (23.54; −0.57)IND
C. albicansATCC 140530.002320.001/10.5313IND16.83 (18.45; −1.62)IND
C. albicansV21055290.001320.0005/80.75IND28.19 (28.66; −0.47)IND
C. albicansV21061390.002640.00006/320.5313IND0.85 (10.26: −9.41) IND
C. albicansV21060410.0011280.001/11.0078IND11.79 (12.27; −0.48)IND
C. albicansV21063050.0041280.002/10.5078IND12.60 (13.34; −0.74)IND
C. glabrataV21052720.5640.06/40.1875SYN93.42 (93.60; −0.18)SYN
C. glabrataV21052820.5640.016/80.1563SYN84.19 (84.83; −0.64)SYN
C. glabrataN21017110.125320.03/20.3125SYN55.66 (56.95; −1.29)IND
C. glabrataV21056360.125320.016/40.25SYN70.11 (70.56; −0.45)SYN
C. glabrataDSM 706140.125160.03/20.375SYN46.95 (48.26; −1.31)IND
C. kruseiV2105825iso40.061280.06/11.0078IND22.13 (24.96; −2.83)IND
C. kruseiV21058660.061280.06/11.0078IND−38.29 (1.94; −40.23)IND
C. kruseiV21061770.061280.03/10.5078IND9.70 (19.83; −10.13)IND
C. kruseiV21059200.061280.03/10.5078IND−4.50 (10.81; −15.31)IND
C. kruseiATCC 62580.061280.03/20.5156IND−30.31 (5.67; −35.98)IND
C. parapsilosisV21050560.0081280.008/11.0078IND−1.10 (11.54; −12.64)IND
C. parapsilosisV21052230.0081280.004/160.625IND−40.04 (9.22; −49.26)IND
C. parapsilosisB21073790.0081280.008/11.0078IND6.03 (13.39; −7.36)IND
C. parapsilosisATCC 220190.0161280.016/11.0078IND−8.18 (5.27; −13.45)IND
C. tropicalisV21051280.0081280.008/11.0078IND−5.10 (4.14, −9.24)IND
C. tropicalisV21052450.0081280.008/11.0078IND−9.39 (2.91; −12.30)IND
C. tropicalisV21055980.0081280.008/11.0078IND15.03 (16.16; −1.13)IND
C. tropicalisB19079750.0081280.008/11.0078IND−2.05 (6.51; −8.56)IND
C. tropicalisV21062980.0081280.008/11.0078IND−41.98 (1.63; −43.61)IND
C. kefyrV21061260.0021280.001/320.75IND7.71 (12.12; −4.41)IND
C. kefyrN21018990.0005320.0002/80.75IND9.04 (17.00; −7.96)IND
C. kefyrN21025410.0021280.001/80.5625IND8.52 (18.35; −9.83)IND
C. kefyrV21072930.0041280.004/161.125IND−4.30 (7.64; −11.94)IND
C. kefyrV21075340.00051280.0005/21.0156IND10.99 (16.08; −5.09)IND
C. kefyrV21084620.0021280.002/21.0156IND10.42 (24.18; −13.76)IND
FICI, fractional inhibitory concentration index; INTPN, interpretation; SYN, synergy; IND, no interaction; ISA, isavuconazole; ISOQ, isoquercitrin; ATCC, American Type Culture Collection; DSM, Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen.
Table
Table 2. Interaction of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin against C. glabrata evaluated by checkerboard and interpretation by fractional inhibitory concentration index and response surface analysis.
Table 2. Interaction of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin against C. glabrata evaluated by checkerboard and interpretation by fractional inhibitory concentration index and response surface analysis.
SpeciesCollection NumberCheckerboard MICs (µg/mL) Response Surface Analysis
ISAISOQISA/ISOQFICIINTPNΣSYN-ANT (ΣSYN; ΣANT)INTPN
C. glabrataU21058340.25320.03/40.25SYN81.95 (83.97; −2.02)SYN
C. glabrataV21055760.25320.03/40.25SYN53.99 (56.11; −2.12)IND
C. glabrataN21025300.5320.06/20.1875SYN95.80 (96.38; −0.58)SYN
C. glabrataU21065030.5320.06/20.1875SYN82.48 (82.62; −0.14)SYN
C. glabrataU21066020.5160.125/20.375SYN25.99 (37.29; −11.30)IND
C. glabrataU21066640.125320.016/40.25SYN47.50 (48.14; −0.64)IND
C. glabrataU21067450.25320.03/40.25SYN78.88 (81.92; −3.04)SYN
C. glabrataU21071130.25640.03/20.1563SYN76.94 (77.70; −0.76)SYN
C. glabrataU21072100.125640.03/40.3125SYN51.26 (54.21; −2.95)IND
C. glabrataU21072140.25640.06/80.375SYN56.24 (61.55; −5.31)SYN
C. glabrataV21074090.25640.03/80.25SYN55.26 (56.33; −1.07)IND
C. glabrataN21027030.5640.06/40.1875SYN93.46 (94.17; −0.71)SYN
C. glabrataN21027121640.06/40.125SYN87.70 (87.85; −0.15)SYN
C. glabrataN21027140.25640.03/40.1875SYN77.59 (77.66; −0.07)SYN
C. glabrataU21075170.5640.06/80.25SYN51.55 (53.74; −2.19)IND
C. glabrataU21076300.25320.06/40.375SYN35.48 (39.20; −3.72)IND
C. glabrataU21078360.25640.03/80.25SYN39.54 (40.73; −1.19)IND
C. glabrataV21080070.25640.03/80.25SYN57.34 (58.43; −1.09)SYN
C. glabrataV21084590.25640.06/20.2813SYN37.39 (39.26; −1.87)IND
C. glabrataB21097500.25640.03/80.25SYN70.15 (70.26; −0.11)SYN
C. glabrataA21005530.25640.03/80.25SYN60.71 (61.60; −0.89)SYN
C. glabrataU21076340.5640.06/40.1875SYN72.52 (73.38; −0.86)SYN
C. glabrataU21077960.25160.06/40.5SYN55.06 (55.47; −0.41)IND
C. glabrataU21080320.125160.016/40.375SYN65.49 (66.03; −0.54)SYN
C. glabrataU21076340.5320.06/20.1875SYN64.03 (65.77; −1.74)SYN
FICI, fractional inhibitory concentration index; INTPN, interpretation; SYN, synergy; IND, no interaction; ISA, isavuconazole; ISOQ, isoquercitrin.
Table
Table 3. Summary of the in vitro interactions of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin against common Candida species evaluated by checkerboard and interpretation by fractional concentration index and response surface analysis.
Table 3. Summary of the in vitro interactions of isavuconazole with isoquercitrin against common Candida species evaluated by checkerboard and interpretation by fractional concentration index and response surface analysis.
Species (Strains), Interpretation Model% of Strains with the Following Interaction
SynergyIndifferenceAntagonism
C. albicans (10), FICI01000
C. albicans (10), RSA01000
C. glabrata (30), FICI100000
C. glabrata (30), RSA60400
C. krusei (5) FICI01000
C. krusei (5), RSA01000
C. parapsilosis (4), FICI01000
C. parapsilosis (4), RSA01000
C. tropicalis (5), FICI01000
C. tropicalis (5), RSA01000
C. kefyr (6), FICI01000
C. kefyr (6), RSA01000
FICI, fractional inhibitory concentration index; RSA, response surface analysis.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schwarz, P.V.; Nikolskiy, I.; Dannaoui, E.; Sommer, F.; Bange, G.; Schwarz, P. Synergistic In Vitro Interaction of Isavuconazole and Isoquercitrin against Candida glabrata. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 525. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof8050525

AMA Style

Schwarz PV, Nikolskiy I, Dannaoui E, Sommer F, Bange G, Schwarz P. Synergistic In Vitro Interaction of Isavuconazole and Isoquercitrin against Candida glabrata. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(5):525. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof8050525

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schwarz, Petra V., Ilya Nikolskiy, Eric Dannaoui, Frank Sommer, Gert Bange, and Patrick Schwarz. 2022. "Synergistic In Vitro Interaction of Isavuconazole and Isoquercitrin against Candida glabrata" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 5: 525. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof8050525

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