Differential Response of <i>Candida</i> Species Morphologies and Isolates to Fluconazole and Boric Acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
yeast species is increasing. The azole fluconazole is the primary antifungal drug used to treat RVVC, yet isolates from some species have intrinsic resistance to fluconazole, and recurrent infection can occur even with fluconazole-susceptible populations. The second-line broad-spectrum antimicrobial drug, boric acid, is an alternative treatment that has been found to successfully treat complicated VVC infections. Far less is known about how boric acid inhibits growth of yeast isolates in different morphologies compared to fluconazole. We found significant differences in drug resistance and drug tolerance (the ability of a subpopulation to grow slowly in high levels of drug) between C. albicans, Candida glabrata, and Candida parapsilosis isolates, with the specific relationships dependent on both drug and phenotype. Population-level variation for both susceptibility and tolerance was broader for fluconazole than boric acid in all species. Unlike fluconazole, which neither prevented hyphal formation nor disrupted mature biofilms, boric acid inhibited C. albicans hyphal formation and reduced mature biofilm biomass and metabolic activity in all isolates in a dose-dependent manner. Variation in planktonic response did not generally predict biofilm phenotypes for either drug. Overall, our findings illustrate that boric acid is broadly effective at inhibiting growth across many isolates and morphologies, which could explain why it is an effective treatment for RVVC.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".