Antibiofilm activity of manogepix, ibrexafungerp, amphotericin B, rezafungin, and caspofungin against <i>Candida</i> spp. biofilms of reference and clinical strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study comprehensively assessed the activity of manogepix (MNGX), ibrexafungerp (IBF), amphotericin B (AMB), rezafungin (RZF), and caspofungin (CAS) against planktonic cells and mature biofilms of Candida spp.—reference and clinical strains using the Calgary biofilm device. Mature-phase biofilms of C. albicans , C. auris (clades I, II, III, IV ), and C. parapsilosis were exposed to a range of drug concentrations (0.12–128 µg/mL). Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) values for planktonic cells were ≤2 µg/mL for all strains; however, biofilm-associated MICs, minimum biocidal concentration (MBC), minimum biofilm eradication (MBEC), and minimum biofilm damaging concentration (MBDC) were significantly higher (2–4,119 times). Geometric mean (GM) of MBEC values indicated that MNGX had the highest antifungal activity within Candida species, with a GM-MBEC of 5.9 µg/mL. Despite its overall potency, MNGX was less effective against C. auris biofilms from clade IV strains, where IBF showed superior activity. While not the most potent agent overall, AMB induced the smallest fold-change increases (2- to 32-fold) in biofilm-associated states data compared to planktonic MICs. Conversely, CAS exhibited the lowest activity against Candida spp. biofilms. The eradication of C. auris and C. parapsilosis biofilms required substantially higher concentrations than C. albicans , with some agents, such as RZF and CAS, necessitating up to 42-fold increases in dosage. In conclusion, our in vitro model highlights the antibiofilm activity of novel antifungals against major Candida species, revealing significant differences in efficacy among species. MNGX demonstrated the highest activity, underscoring its potential as a promising candidate for the treatment of biofilm-related 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".