Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1. Introduction
During recent years, Candida albicans, together with related Candida
species, has become one of the commonest agents of hospital-acquired
infections (1, 2). Many of these are implant-associated infections, in
which adherent fungal populations, or biofilms, are formed on the
surfaces of medical devices including catheters, prosthetic heart valves
and endotracheal tubes (3, 4). Biofilm cells are organized into structured communities enclosed within a matrix of extracellular material.
They are phenotypically distinct from planktonic (suspended) cells;
most notably, they are significantly less susceptible to antifungal agents
(515). This property makes implant infections difficult to treat and
often the implant must be removed.
The mechanisms of biofilm resistance to antimicrobial
agents are not fully understood. One long-standing hypothesis is
Ronald L. Cihlar, Richard A. Calderone (eds.), Candida albicans: Methods and Protocols, vol. 499
Humana Press, a part of Springer ScienceBusiness Media, LLC 2009
DOI 10.1007/978-1-60327-151-6_5 Springerprotocols.com
37
38
Douglas
2. Materials
2.1. Preparation of
Biofilm Inoculum
2.4. Penetration of
Biofilms by Antifungal
Agents
39
2.6. Scanning
Electron Microscopy
1.
2.
3.
4.
3. Methods
3.1. Preparation
of Biofilm Inoculum
3.3. Penetration
of Biofilms by
Antifungal Agents
40
Douglas
C
D
B
Fig. 5.1. Experimental system used to determine the penetration of antifungal agents
through biofilms. The biofilm (B ) is formed on a 25-mm-diameter membrane filter (A )
resting on YNB agar. A second, smaller filter (C ) is placed on top of the biofilm, and a
moistened concentration disk (D ) is positioned on top of the second filter. The entire
assembly is then transferred to antifungal-containing agar (E ).
b)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
C/Co
C/Co
a)
41
60
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
60
Time (min)
Fig. 5.2. Penetration of flucytosine through biofilms of (a) C. albicans GDH 2346 (closed triangles ), C. albicans GDH 2023
(open squares ), and C. albicans GRI 682 (open circles ); (b) C. krusei (open squares ), C. glabrata (open diamonds ), C.
parapsilosis (closed triangles) and C. tropicalis (closed circles). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the means. C,
drug concentration on distal edge of biofilm; Co, drug concentration measured in control. Reproduced from Ref. (17 ) with
permission from the American Society of Microbiology.
b)
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
C/Co
C /Co
a)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
60
300 360
60
120
180
240
300
360
Time (min)
Fig. 5.3. Penetration of fluconazole through biofilms of (a) C. albicans strain GDH 2346 (closed triangles ), C. albicans GDH
2023 (open squares), and C. albicans GRI 682 (open circles ); (b) C. krusei (open squares ), C. glabrata (open diamonds ),
C. parapsilosis (closed triangles) and C. tropicalis (closed circles ). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the means. C,
drug concentration on distal edge of biofilm; Co, drug concentration measured in control. Reproduced from Ref. (17 ) with
permission from the American Society of Microbiology.
42
Douglas
3.5. Scanning
Electron Microscopy
4. Notes
1. Drug concentrations are selected on the basis of their ability to
give large zones of growth inhibition in control assays for drug
penetration. Examples of recommended concentrations would
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
43
References
1. Calderone, R. A. (ed.) (2002) Candida and
Candidiasis. ASM Press, Washington, D.C.
2. Kojic, E. M., and Darouiche, R. O. (2004)
Candida infections of medical devices. Clin.
Microbiol. Rev. 17, 255267.
3. Douglas, L. J. (2003) Candida biofilms
and their role in infection. Trends Microbiol.
11, 3036.
4. Donlan, R. M. (2001) Biofilms and deviceassociated infections. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 7,
277281.
5. Hawser, S. P., and Douglas, L. J. (1995)
Resistance of Candida albicans biofilms to
antifungal agents in vitro. Antimicrob. Agents
Chemother. 39, 21282131.
6. Baillie, G. S., and Douglas, L. J. (1998)
Effect of growth rate on resistance of
7.
8.
9.
10.
44
Douglas