Photodynamic Inactivation Potentiates the Susceptibility of Antifungal Agents against the Planktonic and Biofilm Cells of Candida albicans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photodynamic inactivation (PDI) has been shown to be a potential treatment modality against Candida infection. However, limited light penetration might leave some cells alive and undergoing regrowth. In this study, we explored the possibility of combining PDI and antifungal agents to enhance the therapeutic efficacy of Candida albicans and drug-resistant clinical isolates. We found that planktonic cells that had survived toluidine blue O (TBO)-mediated PDI were significantly susceptible to fluconazole within the first 2 h post PDI. Following PDI, the killing efficacy of antifungal agents relates to the PDI dose in wild-type and drug-resistant clinical isolates. However, only a 3-log reduction was found in the biofilm cells, suggesting limited therapeutic efficacy under the combined treatment of PDI and azole antifungal drugs. Using confocal microscopic analysis, we showed that TBO-mediated PDI could partially remove the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) of biofilm. Finally, we showed that a combination of PDI with caspofungin could result in the complete killing of biofilms compared to those treated with caspofungin or PDI alone. These results clearly indicate that the combination of PDI and antifungal agents could be a promising treatment against C. albicans infections.
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".