<i>ERG11</i> mutations and upregulation in clinical itraconazole-resistant isolates of <i>Candida krusei</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better understand the association between the ERG11 gene and drug resistance in Candida krusei, C. krusei strains were isolated from patients from January 2010 to May 2013. Susceptibility to 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC), amphotericin B (AMB), voriconazole (VRC), fluconazole (FLC), and itraconazole (ITR) were tested by broth microdilution method. Mutations were detected using PCR amplification and gene sequencing. Expression levels of ERG11 were measured by real-time PCR and compared by a 2-tailed Student's t test between ITR-susceptible strains and ITR-resistant strains. In total, 15 C. krusei strains were obtained, of which 20.00%, 53.33%, and 40.00% were resistant to 5-FC, FLC, and ITR, respectively, whereas all isolates were susceptible to AMB and VRC. Three synonymous codon substitutions were found in ERG11, including T939C, T642C, and A756T. However, T939C was found in both resistant and susceptible C. krusei strains. The expression level of ERG11 was significantly higher in resistant C. krusei strains (1.34 ± 0.08) than in susceptible C. krusei strains (0.94 ± 0.14) (t = 3.74, p < 0.05). Our study demonstrates that point mutations (T642C and A756T) accompanied with the overexpression of ERG11 might be involved in the molecular mechanisms of drug resistance in C. krusei.
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 | 0.001 | 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".