[Comparison of two different methods for the investigation of in vitro susceptibilities of planktonic and biofilm forming Candida species to antifungal agents].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microdilution method that determines the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of antifungal agents against Candida spp. is still the only method used in laboratories for both biofilm and planktonic forms. However, it was determined in several studies that there were susceptibility differences between the biofilm and planktonic forms of the same microorganism. The aims of this study were the determination of in vitro susceptibilities of planktonic and biofilm forms of Candida strains against antifungal agents, the comparison of the data obtained from planktonic and biofilm forms and the evaluation of two different methods used for the detection of susceptibilities of biofilm forms. Candida albicans ATCC 10231, Candida parapsilosis ATCC 90028 and Candida krusei ATCC 6258 were used as reference strains together with clinical isolates of one of each C.albicans, C.parapsilosis and Candida tropicalis. Microdilution method was used to determine the susceptibilities of planktonic forms of the strains according to CLSI M27-A3 standards, and MIC values of fluconazole, itraconazole, flucytosine, amphotericin B and nystatin were determined. For the detection of antifungal susceptibilities of Candida spp. biofilm forms, Calgary biofilm method (CBM) and BioTimer assay (BTA) were used, and minimum biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) and minimum biofilm inhibition concentration (MBIC) values of the same antifungals were determined. The difference between MIC and CBM-MBEC, CBM-MBEC and BTA-MBEC, CBM-MBEC and BTAMBIC values were found statistically significant (p < 0.05). In general CBM-MBEC values were found to be higher than MIC values. However, MBEC values were not always very reliable since the exact number of the microorganisms in biofilm can not be determined. BTA-MBIC values were also generally lower than the MBEC values and higher than the MIC values. Statistically significant difference between two methods was determined only for the MBEC values of flucytosine (p= 0.002) and itraconazole (p = 0.025). For flucytosine (p = 0.001) and itraconazole (p = 0.001), there was also a significant difference between CBM-MBEC and BTA-MBIC values, however, the difference was not significant (p > 0.05) for the other antifungal agents. These findings supported that antifungal susceptibilities of biofilm forming Candida strains should also be investigated. However, MBEC and MBIC of the antifungal agents should not always be expected to be higher than the MIC values since the mechanism of action of the specific antifungal agents and the first inoculum concentration of the microorganisms might differ.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".