In vitro cytotoxicity of two novel oral formulations of Amphotericin B (iCo-009 and iCo-010) against Candida albicans, human monocytic and kidney cell lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections such as candidiasis constitute an increasingly important medical problem. Drugs currently used for the treatment of candidiasis include polyenes (such as Amphotericin B) and azoles. Amphotericin B (AmpB) presents several limitations such as its nephrotoxicity and limited solubility. We have developed two novel lipid-based AmpB formulations which in vivo show less nephrotoxicity and enhanced solubility compared to Fungizone™ a commercial AmpB formulation. The purpose of this study was to determine the cytotoxicity of Fungizone™, Ambisome™ and two novel AmpB formulations (iCo-009 and iCo-010) against Candida albicans, human kidney (293T) cells and monocytic (THP1) cells. METHODS: Cell cytotoxicity to the AmpB formulations was evaluated by MTS and LDH assays. In vitro anti-Candida albicans activity was assessed after a 48 h drug incubation. RESULTS: None of the AmpB formulations tested showed cytotoxicity against 293T cells. In the case of THP1 cells only Fungizone™ and Ambisome™ showed cytotoxicity at 500 μg/L (n = 4-10, p < 0.05).The calculated EC50 to Candida albicans for the different formulations was as follows: 26.8 ± 2.9 for iCo-010, 74.6 ± 8.9 for iCo-009, 109 ± 31 for Ambisome™ and 87.1 ± 22 for Fungizone™ (μg of AmpB/L, n = 6-12, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The AmpB formulations analyzed were not cytotoxic to 293T cells. Cytotoxicity in THP1 cells was observed for Fungizone™ and Ambisome™, but not with the novel AmpB formulations. iCo-010 had higher efficacy compared to other three AmpB formulations in the Candida albicans model.The absence of cytotoxicity as well as its higher efficacy for the Candida model compared to Fungizone™ and Ambisome™ suggest that iCo-010 has potential in treating candidiasis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".