Cited by 35Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityMicrobial Natural Products and BiosynthesisFungal Infections and Studies

In vitro interactions between primycin and different statins in their effects against some clinically important fungi

Nyilasi, Ildikó, Kocsubé, Sándor, Pesti, Miklós, Lukács, Gyöngyi, Papp, Tamás, Vágvölgyi, Csaba·2010·Journal of Medical Microbiology

Abstract

The in vitro antifungal activities of primycin (PN) and various statins against some opportunistic pathogenic fungi were investigated. PN completely inhibited the growth of Candida albicans (MIC 64 μg ml−1) and Candida glabrata (MIC 32 μg ml−1), and was very effective against Paecilomyces variotii (MIC 2 μg ml−1), but had little effect on Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus flavus or Rhizopus oryzae (MICs >64 μg ml−1). The fungi exhibited different degrees of sensitivity to the statins; fluvastatin (FLV) and simvastatin (SIM) exerted potent antifungal activities against a wide variety of clinically important fungal pathogens. Atorvastatin, rosuvastatin and lovastatin (LOV) had a slight effect against all fungal isolates tested, whereas pravastatin was completely ineffective. The in vitro interactions between PN and the different statins were investigated using a standard chequerboard titration method. When PN was combined with FLV, LOV or SIM, both synergistic and additive effects were observed. The extent of inhibition was higher when these compounds were applied together, and the concentrations of PN and the given statin needed to block fungal growth completely could be decreased by several dilution steps. Similar interactions were observed when the variability of the within-species sensitivities was investigated.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1099/jmm.0.013946-0

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The different fungi are not equally sensitive to statins in vitro; SIM exhibits the strongest antifungal activity against yeasts compared to filamentous fungi, whereas the reverse is true for FLV.

    “The different fungi are not equally sensitive to statins in vitro, e.g.SIM exhibits the strongest antifungal activity against yeasts compared to filamentous fungi, whereas the reverse is true for FLV [18] .”

    From Statins as antifungal agents (2011) · cites this paper as [18]

  • The inhibition activity of statins on the growth of filamentous fungi was revealed in several zygomycetous and ascomycetous fungal species.

    “The inhibition activity of statins on the growth of filamentous fungi was revealed in the cases of several zygo- [18,19,28,[31][32][33][34][35] and ascomycetous fungal species [18,25,28,29,36,37] .”

    From Statins as antifungal agents (2011) · cites this paper as [18]

  • Generally, synthetic statins are more effective than natural statins.

    “Generally, the synthetic statins are more effective than the natural ones [18,19] .”

    From Statins as antifungal agents (2011) · cites this paper as [18]

  • The various statins exhibit different antifungal effects against yeasts; SIM displays the strongest activity, followed by FLV, ATO, ROS, and LOV, while PRA is completely ineffective.

    “These studies demonstrated that the various statins exhibit different antifungal effects against yeasts.SIM displayed the strongest antifungal activity, followed by FLV, ATO, ROS, and LOV.PRA proved to be completely ineffective against them.”

    From Statins as antifungal agents (2011) · cites this paper as [18]

  • Statins exhibit fungicidal or fungistatic effects against yeasts in a dose-dependent manner.

    “Statins exhibit fungicidal or fungistatic effects against yeasts in a dose dependent-manner.”

    From Statins as antifungal agents (2011) · cites this paper as [18]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nyilasi, I., Kocsubé, S., Pesti, M., Lukács, G., Papp, T., & Vágvölgyi, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Szeged (HU)
  • Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Science and Informatics, University of Szeged, Közép Fasor 52, H-6726 Szeged, Hungary
  • University of Pecs (HU)
Venue
Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published
2010-02-01
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
200-205
ISSN
  • 0022-2615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-5644
OpenAlex
W2127976221
Cited by
35
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • AstraZeneca
  • Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Microbial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Fungal Infections and Studies
Keywords
statins, antifungal drug interactions, Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, Paecilomyces variotii, Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus flavus, Rhizopus oryzae, fluvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pravastatin, drug synergy, antifungal susceptibility, opportunistic fungal pathogens
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Drug Interactions, Fungi, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Macrolides, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

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