Effect of subinhibitory concentration of some established and experimental antifungal compounds on the germ tube formation in Candida albicans
Language English Country United States Media print
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
17571794
DOI
10.1007/bf02932136
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Amphotericin B pharmacology MeSH
- Antifungal Agents chemical synthesis chemistry pharmacology MeSH
- Candida albicans drug effects growth & development MeSH
- 4-Butyrolactone analogs & derivatives chemical synthesis chemistry pharmacology MeSH
- Guanidines chemical synthesis chemistry pharmacology MeSH
- Microbial Sensitivity Tests methods standards MeSH
- Morphogenesis drug effects MeSH
- Salicylates chemical synthesis chemistry pharmacology MeSH
- Sulfhydryl Compounds chemical synthesis chemistry pharmacology MeSH
- Dose-Response Relationship, Drug MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Amphotericin B MeSH
- Antifungal Agents MeSH
- 4-Butyrolactone MeSH
- Guanidines MeSH
- incrustoporin MeSH Browser
- phenylguanidine MeSH Browser
- Salicylates MeSH
- Sulfhydryl Compounds MeSH
- thiosalicylic acid MeSH Browser
The influence of subinhibitory concentrations of six established and 19 newly synthesized antifungal compounds on the dimorphic transition of three C. albicans strains was evaluated in the filamentation-inducing medium. Amphotericin B was found to produce almost complete inhibition in the germination at a concentration of 1/10 of the corresponding MIC and partial inhibition at a concentration as low as MIC/50. Flucytosine and four azole derivatives were proven ineffective. From the newly synthesized drugs, the incrustoporin derivative LNO6-22, two phenylguanidine derivatives (PG15, PG45), and four thiosalicylanilide derivatives, in particular, showed results comparable to those of amphotericin B, with a high inhibition of germ tube formation at concentrations of MIC/10. In general, concentrations of MIC/50 had no visible effect.
See more in PubMed
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1986 Oct;18(4):473-8 PubMed
Mycopathologia. 2005 Jun;159(4):501-7 PubMed
Cell. 1997 Sep 5;90(5):939-49 PubMed
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2001 Apr;4(2):214-21 PubMed
Microbiology (Reading). 2004 Jan;150(Pt 1):229-240 PubMed
Infect Immun. 1998 Jun;66(6):2713-21 PubMed
Farmaco. 2004 Jun;59(6):443-50 PubMed
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983 Sep;24(3):401-8 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2006;51(1):3-20 PubMed
Chest. 2003 May;123(5 Suppl):500S-3S PubMed
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2001 Apr;25(2):245-68 PubMed
Trends Microbiol. 2001 Jul;9(7):327-35 PubMed
Oral Dis. 2000 May;6(3):166-71 PubMed
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000 Oct;44(10):2873-5 PubMed
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1996 Feb;6(3):141-4 PubMed
J Gen Microbiol. 1985 Oct;131(10):2581-9 PubMed
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004 Mar;48(3):873-8 PubMed
J Med Chem. 2001 Aug 16;44(17):2701-6 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2002;47(3):302-4 PubMed
J Infect Dis. 1986 Oct;154(4):665-9 PubMed
Mykosen. 1986 Feb;29(2):76-81 PubMed
J Oral Pathol Med. 1998 May;27(5):213-9 PubMed
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002 Apr;46(4):1153-5 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2002;47(2):105-12 PubMed
Curr Opin Microbiol. 1998 Dec;1(6):687-92 PubMed
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999 Apr;43(4):763-8 PubMed
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2002 Aug;5(4):366-71 PubMed
