Cited by 577Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Plant Pathogen ControlFungal and yeast genetics research

A multicentre study of antifungal susceptibility patterns among 350 Candida auris isolates (2009–17) in India: role of the ERG11 and FKS1 genes in azole and echinocandin resistance

Open access
Chowdhary, Anuradha, Prakash, Anupam, Sharma, Cheshta, Kordalewska, Milena, Kumar, Anil, Sarma, Smita, Tarai, Bansidhar, Singh, Ashutosh +8 more·2018·Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Abstract

Background: Candida auris has emerged globally as an MDR nosocomial pathogen in ICU patients. Objectives: We studied the antifungal susceptibility of C. auris isolates (n = 350) from 10 hospitals in India collected over a period of 8 years. To investigate azole resistance, ERG11 gene sequencing and expression profiling was conducted. In addition, echinocandin resistance linked to mutations in the C. auris FKS1 gene was analysed. Methods: CLSI antifungal susceptibility testing of six azoles, amphotericin B, three echinocandins, terbinafine, 5-flucytosine and nystatin was conducted. Screening for amino acid substitutions in ERG11 and FKS1 was performed. Results: Overall, 90% of C. auris were fluconazole resistant (MICs 32 to ≥64 mg/L) and 2% and 8% were resistant to echinocandins (≥8 mg/L) and amphotericin B (≥2 mg/L), respectively. ERG11 sequences of C. auris exhibited amino acid substitutions Y132 and K143 in 77% (n = 34/44) of strains that were fluconazole resistant whereas WT genotypes, i.e. without substitutions at these positions, were observed in isolates with low fluconazole MICs (1-2 mg/L) suggesting that these substitutions confer a phenotype of resistance to fluconazole similar to that described for Candida albicans. No significant expression of ERG11 was observed, although expression was inducible in vitro with fluconazole exposure. Echinocandin resistance was linked to a novel mutation S639F in FKS1 hot spot region I. Conclusions: Overall, 25% and 13% of isolates were MDR and multi-azole resistant, respectively. The most common resistance combination was azoles and 5-flucytosine in 14% followed by azoles and amphotericin B in 7% and azoles and echinocandins in 2% of isolates.

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 · 10.1093/jac/dkx480

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • Resistance to all three classes of antifungals in C. auris is reported most commonly in India in South Asia (3%), whereas this is much less common in other regions of the world.

    “Resistance to all three classes of antifungals is reported most commonly in India in South Asia (3%), whereas this is much less common in other regions of the world.122–124”

    From Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis (2024) · cites this paper as [124]

    The JAC section reports that 2% of the Indian isolates had combined azole and echinocandin resistance. Resistance to all three classes could not therefore occur in 3% of those isolates. The Discussion’s 3% figure refers to echinocandin resistance alone among US isolates, and the paper does not establish that triple-class resistance is most common in India. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Candida auris, ERG11 polymorphisms and extra ERG11 gene copies are thought to underlie its mostly intrinsic azole resistance.

    “Finally, in Candida auris, ERG11 polymorphisms as well as an increased number of ERG11 gene copies are thought to be responsible for its largely intrinsic azole resistance37–40”

    From Drug resistance and tolerance in fungi. (2020) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) links ERG11 substitutions Y132F and K143R to fluconazole resistance in the C. auris isolates studied. It does not establish that C. auris has extra ERG11 gene copies or that its azole resistance is largely intrinsic. The reported increase after fluconazole exposure concerns ERG11 expression, not gene copy number. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • C. auris clades display substantial genetic diversity and distinct phenotypic traits, especially diminished susceptibilities to antifungal therapies.

    “Furthermore, C. auris clades display substantial genetic diversity and show distinct phenotypic traits, especially diminished susceptibilities to antifungal therapies (11–14).”

    From Transcriptomics and Phenotyping Define Genetic Signatures Associated with Echinocandin Resistance in Candida auris (2022) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) reports ERG11 alterations associated with geographic clades and describes high fluconazole MICs and variable susceptibility to other antifungals. The paper also reports resistance among its Indian isolates, but it does not establish substantial genetic diversity across clades or show that clades as a whole have distinct phenotypic traits. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Resistance to the echinocandins (up to 7%) and amphotericin B (up to 35%) in C. auris varies greatly between geographic regions.

    “Resistance to the echinocandins (up to 7%) and amphotericin B (up to 35%) vary greatly between geographic regions.122–124”

    From Epidemiology of Invasive Candidiasis (2024) · cites this paper as [124]

    The Introduction reports 7% echinocandin resistance and 35% amphotericin B resistance in a four-country sample, and the Discussion describes geographic differences. But those percentages are pooled results, not regional upper limits: the Discussion reports 43% amphotericin B resistance among US isolates and 5 of 6 isolates in Israel. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • C. auris can show clinical resistance to all classes of antifungal drugs, including echinocandins.

    “C. auris can show clinical resistance to all classes of antifungal drugs, including echinocandins that are usually recommended as first-line therapies for invasive candidiasis.”

    From Transcriptomics and Phenotyping Define Genetic Signatures Associated with Echinocandin Resistance in Candida auris (2022) · cites this paper as [12]

    Table 4 reports a C. auris isolate with resistance to azoles, amphotericin B and echinocandins, supporting the possibility of resistance across these drug classes. However, the study measured in vitro susceptibility, and the Discussion says species-specific clinical breakpoints had not been established; it does not establish clinical resistance or treatment failure. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [13]13. Magobo RE, Corcoran C, Seetharam S et al. Candida auris associated can- didemia, South Africa. Emerg Infect Dis 2014; 20: 1250-1.
  2. [30]30. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts; Approved Standard-Third Edition: CLSI Document M27-A3. CLSI, Wayne, PA, USA, 2008.
  3. [38]38. Xisto MI, Caramalho RD, Rocha DA et al. Pan-azole-resistant Candida tro- picalis carrying homozygous erg11 mutations at position K143R: a new emerging superbug? J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72: 988-92.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chowdhary, A., Prakash, A., Sharma, C., Kordalewska, M., Kumar, A., Sarma, S., Tarai, B., Singh, A., Upadhyaya, G., Upadhyay, S., Yadav, P., Singh, P. K., Khillan, V., Sachdeva, N., Perlin, D. S., & Meis, J. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Delhi (IN)
  • Rutgers Health (US)
  • Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre (IN)
  • Medanta The Medicity (IN)
  • Max Healthcare (IN)
  • Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences (IN)
  • Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre (IN)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Chowdhary, Anuradha
Venue
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Published
2018-01-09
Volume
73
Issue
4
Pages
891-899
ISSN
  • 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2091
OpenAlex
W2784269063
Cited by
577
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 36
FWCI
35.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Indian Council of Medical Research (5/3/3/26/2010-ECD-I)
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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
Keywords
Candida auris, antifungal susceptibility, multidrug resistance, azole resistance, fluconazole resistance, echinocandin resistance, ERG11, FKS1, gene expression profiling, amphotericin B resistance, nosocomial fungal infections, India
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Azoles, Candida, Candidiasis, Female, Fungal Proteins, Genotype, Humans, India, Male, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Middle Aged, Mutation, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Gene Expression Profiling, Drug Resistance, Fungal, Echinocandins

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