How Yeast Antifungal Resistance Gene Analysis Is Essential to Validate Antifungal Susceptibility Testing Systems

被引:4
|
作者
Pellaton, Nicolas [1 ,3 ]
Sanglard, Dominique [1 ,3 ]
Lamoth, Frederic [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Coste, Alix T. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lausanne, Inst Microbiol, Lausanne, Switzerland
[2] Lausanne Univ Hosp, Dept Med, Infect Dis Serv, Lausanne, Switzerland
[3] Univ Hosp Ctr, Lausanne, Switzerland
关键词
antifungal susceptibility; diagnostic test; resistance genes; CLSI; EUCAST; Sensititre (TM) YeastOne (TM); MICRONAUT-AM; BROTH MICRODILUTION METHODS; CANDIDA-ALBICANS; AMPHOTERICIN-B; MECHANISMS; EUCAST; CLSI; MUTATIONS; ERG11; FKS1;
D O I
10.3389/fcimb.2022.859439
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Objectives: The antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) of yeast pathogen alerts clinicians about the potential emergence of resistance. In this study, we compared two commercial microdilution AFST methods: Sensititre YeastOne read visually (YO) and MICRONAUT-AM read visually (MN) or spectrophotometrically (MNV), interpreted with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing criteria, respectively. Methods: Overall, 97 strains from 19 yeast species were measured for nine antifungal drugs including a total of 873 observations. First, the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) was compared between YO and MNV, and between MNV and MN, either directly or by assigning them to five susceptibility categories. Those categories were based on the number of MIC dilutions around the breakpoint or epidemiological cut-off reference values (ECOFFs or ECVs). Second, YO and MNV methods were evaluated for their ability to detect the elevation of MICs due to mutation in antifungal resistance genes, thanks to pairs or triplets of isogenic strains isolated from a single patient along a treatment previously analyzed for antifungal resistance gene mutations. Reproducibility measurement was evaluated, thanks to three quality control (QC) strains. Results: YO and MNV direct MIC comparisons obtained a global agreement of 67%. Performing susceptibility category comparisons, only 22% and 49% of the MICs could be assigned to categories using breakpoints and ECOFFs/ECVs, respectively, and 40% could not be assigned due to the lack of criteria in both consortia. The YO and MN susceptibility categories gave accuracies as low as 50%, revealing the difficulty to implement this method of comparison. In contrast, using the antifungal resistance gene sequences as a gold standard, we demonstrated that both methods (YO and MN) were equally able to detect the acquisition of resistance in the Candida strains, even if MN showed a global lower MIC elevation than YO. Finally, no major differences in reproducibility were observed between the three AFST methods. Conclusion This study demonstrates the valuable use of both commercial microdilution AFST methods to detect antifungal resistance due to point mutations in antifungal resistance genes. We highlighted the difficulty to conduct conclusive analyses without antifungal gene sequence data as a gold standard. Indeed, MIC comparisons taking into account the consortia criteria of interpretation remain difficult even after the effort of harmonization.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] In vitro antifungal susceptibility testing
    Hoffman, HL
    Pfaller, MA
    PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2001, 21 (08): : 111S - 123S
  • [22] Antifungal resistance in yeast vaginitis
    Dun, E
    YALE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 1999, 72 (04): : 281 - 285
  • [23] Antifungal susceptibility testing of Malassezia yeast: comparison of two different methodologies
    Rojas, Florencia D.
    Cordoba, Susana B.
    de los Angeles Sosa, Maria
    Zalazar, Laura C.
    Fernandez, Mariana S.
    Cattana, Maria E.
    Alegre, Liliana R.
    Carrillo-Munoz, Alfonso J.
    Giusiano, Gustavo E.
    MYCOSES, 2017, 60 (02) : 104 - 111
  • [24] Cryptococcus neoformans: The Model Organism for Yeast Antifungal Drug Susceptibility Testing
    Madeline Bauer
    Ann M. Thomas
    Robert A. Larsen
    Mycopathologia, 2012, 173 : 435 - 443
  • [25] In vitro antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi with Sensititre Yeast One™
    Carrillo-Muñoz, A. J.
    Quindós, G.
    Ruesga, M.
    del Valle, O.
    Pemán, J.
    Cantón, E.
    Hernández-Molina, J. M.
    Santos, P.
    MYCOSES, 2006, 49 (04) : 293 - 297
  • [26] Cryptococcus neoformans: The Model Organism for Yeast Antifungal Drug Susceptibility Testing
    Bauer, Madeline
    Thomas, Ann M.
    Larsen, Robert A.
    MYCOPATHOLOGIA, 2012, 173 (5-6) : 435 - 443
  • [27] Antifungal susceptibility of emerging yeast pathogens
    García-Martos, P
    Domínguez, I
    Marín, P
    García-Agudo, R
    Mira, SAYJ
    ENFERMEDADES INFECCIOSAS Y MICROBIOLOGIA CLINICA, 2001, 19 (06): : 249 - 256
  • [28] Effect of sealing and Tween 80 on the antifungal susceptibility testing of essential oils
    Inouye, S
    Tsuruoka, T
    Uchida, K
    Yamaguchi, H
    MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY, 2001, 45 (03) : 201 - 208
  • [29] Role of the PDR gene network in yeast susceptibility to the antifungal antibiotic mucidin
    Michalkova-Papajova, D
    Obernauerova, M
    Subik, J
    ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY, 2000, 44 (02) : 418 - 420
  • [30] In vitro antifungal susceptibility methods and clinical implications of antifungal resistance
    Espinel-Ingroff, A
    Warnock, DW
    Vazquez, JA
    Arthington-Skaggs, BA
    MEDICAL MYCOLOGY, 2000, 38 : 293 - 304