Cited by 118Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal and yeast genetics researchFungal Plant Pathogen Control

Defining the frontiers between antifungal resistance, tolerance and the concept of persistence

Open access
Delarze, Eric, Sanglard, Dominique·2015·Drug Resistance Updates

Abstract

A restricted number of antifungal agents are available for the therapy of fungal diseases. With the introduction of epidemiological cut-off values for each agent in important fungal pathogens based on the distribution of minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC), the distinction between wild type and drug-resistant populations has been facilitated. Antifungal resistance has been described for all currently available antifungal agents in several pathogens and most of the associated resistance mechanisms have been deciphered at the molecular level. Clinical breakpoints for some agents have been proposed and can have predictive value for the success or failure of therapy. Tolerance to antifungals has been a much more ignored area. By definition, tolerance operates at antifungal concentrations above individual intrinsic inhibitory values. Important is that tolerance to antifungal agents favours the emergence of persister cells, which are able to survive antifungal therapy and can cause relapses. Here we will review the current knowledge on antifungal tolerance, its potential mechanisms and also evaluate the role of antifungal tolerance in the efficacy of drug treatments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drup.2015.10.001

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Trailing growth depends on growth conditions; clinical isolates differ in this sensitivity, causing substantial variation between laboratories in its measurement.

    “Like tolerance, trailing growth is sensitive to growth conditions17–19; the degree of sensitivity to these conditions differs for different clinical isolates9,(reviewed in 20), and leads to considerable laboratory-to-laboratory variation in the estimation of trailing growth.”

    From Drug resistance and tolerance in fungi. (2020) · cites this paper as [20]

    Section 6 reports trailing growth at neutral pH but not low pH, supporting sensitivity to growth conditions, while cautioning that the media also differed. Section 4 describes different degrees of trailing growth among C. albicans isolates. Neither passage establishes that isolates differ in their sensitivity to growth conditions or that this causes laboratory-to-laboratory variation in trailing-growth measurements; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • MIC measurements have been optimized to minimize or ignore residual fungal growth, termed tolerance or trailing growth, which is detected in 25-60% of clinical isolates.

    “MIC measurements have been optimized to minimize or ignore residual fungal growth 4,18 , termed”

    From Antifungal tolerance is a subpopulation effect distinct from resistance and is associated with persistent candidemia (2018) · cites this paper as [5]

    Section 4, “What is antifungal tolerance?” (page unavailable), identifies trailing growth as residual growth above the MIC and links its degree to azole tolerance. Section 8 discusses how MIC endpoint readings can change for trailing isolates, but does not say MIC measurements were optimized to minimize or ignore that growth. The cited passages also do not substantiate the claimed 25–60% prevalence among clinical isolates. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Antifungal tolerance and persistence are often overlooked in clinical practice.

    “However, antifungal tolerance and persistence are often overlooked [17,47].”

    From Antifungal persistence: Clinical relevance and mechanisms (2025) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Abstract and §4 describe antifungal tolerance as an ignored or neglected area. Section 5 says persistence after therapy is neglected in most animal-model reports, while noting that relapses matter clinically. These passages support the broad point that both receive insufficient attention, but do not establish that they are often overlooked in clinical practice. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Because azoles are fungistatic to most yeast pathogens, it is challenging to determine whether azole tolerance is associated with persistence or with inherent properties of the drug itself.

    “Given that azoles are fungistatic to most yeast pathogens, it can be challenging to determine whether azole tolerance is associated with persistence or the inherent properties of the drug itself [17].”

    From Antifungal persistence: Clinical relevance and mechanisms (2025) · cites this paper as [17]

    Section 4 (page not provided) identifies azoles as fungistatic and says fungal pathogens are generally tolerant to them because cells survive above the MIC. Section 5 (page not provided) says persisters may arise from increased antifungal tolerance and that their formation remains poorly understood. The paper does not specifically say that azole tolerance is difficult to distinguish from persistence versus the drug’s inherent effects. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Antifungal persistence is non-heritable, although progeny of persisters may still divide into persistent and non-persistent subpopulations.

    “Thirdly, antifungal persistence is non-heritable, although the progeny of persisters may still divide into persistent subpopulations and non-persistent subpopulations.”

    From Antifungal persistence: Clinical relevance and mechanisms (2025) · cites this paper as [17]

    Section 5 (page unavailable) describes fungal persistence as a reversible state, unlike resistance mediated by stable gene alterations. This supports the non-heritable characterization, but the paper does not say that persisters’ progeny divide into persistent and non-persistent subpopulations. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 58 · Cited by 118

Authors
Delarze, E., & Sanglard, D.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
Corresponding author
Sanglard, Dominique
Venue
Drug Resistance Updates
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
23
Pages
12-19
ISSN
1368-7646 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1948677335
Cited by
118
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2
FWCI
6.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drug Resistance Updates (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Swiss National Research Foundation (31003A_146936)
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
antifungal resistance, antifungal tolerance, fungal persistence, persister cells, epidemiological cut-off values, clinical breakpoints, minimum inhibitory concentration, fungal pathogens, relapse, antifungal treatment efficacy, resistance mechanisms
MeSH terms
Amphotericin B, Antifungal Agents, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Drug Tolerance, Flucytosine, Fungi, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mycoses, Triazoles, Drug Resistance, Fungal, Echinocandins, Host-Pathogen Interactions

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