An Antifungal Combination Matrix Identifies a Rich Pool of Adjuvant Molecules that Enhance Drug Activity against Diverse Fungal Pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an urgent need to identify new treatments for fungal infections. By combining sub-lethal concentrations of the known antifungals fluconazole, caspofungin, amphotericin B, terbinafine, benomyl, and cyprodinil with ∼3,600 compounds in diverse fungal species, we generated a deep reservoir of chemical-chemical interactions termed the Antifungal Combinations Matrix (ACM). Follow-up susceptibility testing against a fluconazole-resistant isolate of C. albicans unveiled ACM combinations capable of potentiating fluconazole in this clinical strain. We used chemical genetics to elucidate the mode of action of the antimycobacterial drug clofazimine, a compound with unreported antifungal activity that synergized with several antifungals. Clofazimine induces a cell membrane stress for which the Pkc1 signaling pathway is required for tolerance. Additional tests against additional fungal pathogens, including Aspergillus fumigatus, highlighted that clofazimine exhibits efficacy as a combination agent against multiple fungi. Thus, the ACM is a rich reservoir of chemical combinations with therapeutic potential against diverse fungal pathogens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".