Paradoxical growth effects of the echinocandins caspofungin and micafungin, but not of anidulafungin, on clinical isolates of Candida albicans and C. dubliniensis
Abstract
Objectives To analyze the effects of a high concentration of three antifungal substances, the echinocandins anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin, on the growth of Candida spp.Methods The growth of 127 C. dubliniensis isolates and 103 C. albicans isolates cultured in medium containing anidulafungin, caspofungin, or micafungin was analyzed using a broth microdilution test according to the guidelines of the CLSI M27-A2 [NCCLS (1997), Wayne, PA]. The final concentrations of all three echinocandins ranged from 0.125 to 64 microg/L.Results The different effects of these three antifungal substances on C. albicans cells in comparison to C. dubliniensis cells were quite distinct. When both Candida species were grown in the presence of anidulafungin only a trailing effect was observed. Micafungin induced an Eagle effect in C. dubliniensis only (63%), while caspofungin induced this effect in the majority of C. dubliniensis isolates (90%) and in only a few C. albicans isolates (14%).Conclusions Based on our observations, anidulafungin has effects that are different from the ones produced by micafungin and caspofungin. Whether this different response to high concentrations of echinocandins is based on genetic or phenotypic differences between C. albicans and C. dubliniensis has to be determined in future experiments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A paradoxical echinocandin effect has been observed in which increased Candida growth is detected at higher than MIC drug concentrations.
“A paradoxical (or eagle) echinocandin effect has been observed in which increased Candida growth is detected at higher than MIC drug concentrations.”
From Treatment of Invasive Candidiasis: A Narrative Review (2018) · cites this paper as [38]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 78
- Authors
- Fleischhacker, M., Radecke, C., Schulz, B., & Ruhnke, M.
- Affiliations
- Stiftung Charité (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Ruhnke, M.
- Venue
- European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
- Published
- 2007-12-04
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 127-131
- ISSN
- 0934-9723 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-4373
- OpenAlex
- W2046768677
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 4.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
- Keywords
- echinocandins, caspofungin, micafungin, anidulafungin, Candida albicans, Candida dubliniensis, antifungal susceptibility, clinical isolates
- MeSH terms
- Caspofungin, Micafungin, Anidulafungin, Antifungal Agents, Candida, Humans, Lipoproteins, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Echinocandins, Lipopeptides
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review