Cinnamomum zeylanicum bark essential oil induces cell wall remodelling and spindle defects in Candida albicans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cinnamon ( Cinnamomum zeylanicum) bark extract exhibits potent inhibitory activity against Candida albicans but the antifungal mechanisms of this essential oil remain largely unexplored. We analyzed the impact of cinnamon bark oil on C. albicans RSY150, and clinical strains isolated from patients with candidemia and candidiasis. The viability of RSY150 was significantly compromised in a dose dependent manner when exposed to cinnamon bark oil, with extensive cell surface remodelling at sub inhibitory levels (62.5 μg/mL). Atomic force microscopy revealed cell surface exfoliation, altered ultrastructure and reduced cell wall integrity for both RSY150 and clinical isolates exposed to cinnamon bark oil. Cell wall damage induced by cinnamon bark oil was confirmed by exposure to stressors and the sensitivity of cell wall mutants involved in cell wall organization, biogenesis, and morphogenesis. The essential oil triggered cell cycle arrest by disrupting beta tubulin distribution, which led to mitotic spindle defects, ultimately compromising the cell membrane and allowing leakage of cellular components. The multiple targets of cinnamon bark oil can be attributed to its components, including cinnamaldehyde (74%), and minor components (< 6%) such as linalool (3.9%), cinamyl acetate (3.8%), α-caryophyllene (5.3%) and limonene (2%). Complete inhibition of the mitotic spindle assembly was observed in C. albicans treated with cinnamaldehyde at MIC (112 μg/mL). Since cinnamaldehyde disrupts both the cell wall and tubulin polymerization, it may serve as an effective antifungal, either by chemical modification to improve its specificity and efficacy or in combination with other antifungal drugs.
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".