Cited by 56Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Plant Pathogen ControlAntimicrobial agents and applications

In vitro anti-Candida activity of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors against fluconazole-resistant strains and their activity against biofilm-forming isolates

Open access
Costa Silva, Rose Anny, da Silva, Cecília Rocha, de Andrade Neto, João Batista, da Silva, Anderson Ramos, Campos, Rosana Sousa, Sampaio, Letícia Serpa, do Nascimento, Francisca Bruna Stefany Aires, da Silva Gaspar, Brenda +8 more·2017·Microbial Pathogenesis

Abstract

Recent research has shown broad antifungal activity of the classic antidepressants selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). This fact, combined with the increased cross-resistance frequency of the genre Candida regarding the main treatment today, fluconazole, requires the development of novel therapeutic strategies. In that context, this study aimed to assess the antifungal potential of fluoxetine, sertraline, and paroxetine against fluconazole-resistant Candida spp. planktonic cells, as well as to assess the mechanism of action and the viability of biofilms treated with fluoxetine. After 24 h, the fluconazole-resistant Candida spp. strains showed minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) in the ranges of 20-160 μg/mL for fluoxetine, 10-20 μg/mL for sertraline, and 10-100.8 μg/mL for paroxetine by the broth microdilution method (M27-A3). According to our data by flow cytometry, each of the SSRIs cause fungal death after damaging the plasma and mitochondrial membrane, which activates apoptotic signaling pathways and leads to dose-dependant cell viability loss. Regarding biofilm-forming isolates, the fluoxetine reduce mature biofilm of all the species tested. Therefore, it is concluded that SSRIs are capable of inhibit the growth in vitro of Candida spp., both in planktonic form, as biofilm, inducing cellular death by apoptosis.

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.micpath.2017.04.008

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Paroxetine inhibits bacterial growth at 110-282 μM (40-101 μg/mL).

    “| Paroxetine (third generation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) | C. albicans, E. coli, A. baumanii | 110-282 µM (40-101 µg/mL) | Inhibits cell growth; promotes mitochondrial inhibits bacterial growth. depolarization and membrane damage in yeast, | [56,58,67-69] |”
  • Paroxetine promotes mitochondrial depolarization and membrane damage in yeast at 110-282 μM (40-101 μg/mL).

    “| Paroxetine (third generation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) | C. albicans, E. coli, A. baumanii | 110-282 µM (40-101 µg/mL) | Inhibits cell growth; promotes mitochondrial inhibits bacterial growth. depolarization and membrane damage in yeast, | [56,58,67-69] |”
  • Paroxetine inhibits cell growth in C. albicans, E. coli, and A. baumanii at 110-282 μM (40-101 μg/mL).

    “| Paroxetine (third generation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) | C. albicans, E. coli, A. baumanii | 110-282 µM (40-101 µg/mL) | Inhibits cell growth; promotes mitochondrial inhibits bacterial growth. depolarization and membrane damage in yeast, | [56,58,67-69] |”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Costa Silva, R. A., da Silva, C. R., de Andrade Neto, J. B., da Silva, A. R., Campos, R. S., Sampaio, L. S., do Nascimento, F. B. S. A., da Silva Gaspar, B., da Cruz Fonseca, S. G., Josino, M. A. A., Grangeiro, T. B., Gaspar, D. M., de Lucena, D. F., de Moraes, M. O., Cavalcanti, B. C., & Nobre Júnior, H. V.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal do Ceará (BR)
Venue
Microbial Pathogenesis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
107
Pages
341-348
ISSN
0882-4010 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2607318997
Cited by
56
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Microbial Pathogenesis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Antimicrobial agents and applications
Keywords
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, Candida, fluconazole resistance, fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, antifungal activity, biofilm, apoptosis, mitochondrial membrane damage, cell membrane damage
MeSH terms
Animals, Antifungal Agents, Candida, Cell Count, Cell Line, DNA Damage, DNA, Fungal, Fibroblasts, Flow Cytometry, Membrane Potentials, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Plasma, Fluconazole, Cell Death, Apoptosis, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Paroxetine, Biofilms, Sertraline, Drug Resistance, Fungal, Cell Proliferation, Microbial Viability, Mitochondrial Membranes, Mice, In Vitro Techniques

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