Cited by 60Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityNeutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative MechanismsFungal and yeast genetics research

Neutrophil activation by C andida glabrata but not C andida albicans promotes fungal uptake by monocytes: C. albicans , C. glabrata and neutrophils

Open access
Duggan, Seána, Essig, Fabian, Hünniger, Kerstin, Mokhtari, Zeinab, Bauer, Laura, Lehnert, Teresa, Brandes, Susanne, Häder, Antje +4 more·2015·Cellular Microbiology

Abstract

Candida albicans and Candida glabrata account for the majority of candidiasis cases worldwide. Although both species are in the same genus, they differ in key virulence attributes. Within this work, live cell imaging was used to examine the dynamics of neutrophil activation after confrontation with either C. albicans or C. glabrata. Analyses revealed higher phagocytosis rates of C. albicans than C. glabrata that resulted in stronger PMN (polymorphonuclear cells) activation by C. albicans. Furthermore, we observed differences in the secretion of chemokines, indicating chemotactic differences in PMN signalling towards recruitment of further immune cells upon confrontation with Candida spp. Supernatants from co-incubations of neutrophils with C. glabrata primarily attracted monocytes and increased the phagocytosis of C. glabrata by monocytes. In contrast, PMN activation by C. albicans resulted in recruitment of more neutrophils. Two complex infection models confirmed distinct targeting of immune cell populations by the two Candida spp.: In a human whole blood infection model, C. glabrata was more effectively taken up by monocytes than C. albicans and histopathological analyses of murine model infections confirmed primarily monocytic infiltrates in C. glabrata kidney infection in contrast to PMN-dominated infiltrates in C. albicans infection. Taken together, our data demonstrate that the human opportunistic fungi C. albicans and C. glabrata are differentially recognized by neutrophils and one outcome of this differential recognition is the preferential uptake of C. glabrata by monocytes.

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 · 10.1111/cmi.12443

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • C. glabrata was preferentially taken up by monocytes in the whole blood infection model.

    “Intriguingly, C. glabrata was preferentially taken up by monocytes in the whole blood infection model, and infiltration of predominantly monocytes was observed in mouse kidneys [143].”

    From Candida glabrata: A Lot More Than Meets the Eye (2019) · cites this paper as [143]

  • Infiltration of predominantly monocytes was observed in mouse kidneys.

    “Intriguingly, C. glabrata was preferentially taken up by monocytes in the whole blood infection model, and infiltration of predominantly monocytes was observed in mouse kidneys [143].”

    From Candida glabrata: A Lot More Than Meets the Eye (2019) · cites this paper as [143]

  • C. glabrata-activated neutrophils secreted monocyte chemoattractants MIP-1α and MIP-1β, leading to increased migration of monocytes to the site of neutrophil-C. glabrata confrontation.

    “Consistent with this, C. glabrata-activated neutrophils secreted monocyte chemoattractants, MIP-1α and MIP-1β, leading to increased migration of monocytes to the site of neutrophil-C. glabrata confrontation [143].”

    From Candida glabrata: A Lot More Than Meets the Eye (2019) · cites this paper as [143]

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
Duggan, S., Essig, F., Hünniger, K., Mokhtari, Z., Bauer, L., Lehnert, T., Brandes, S., Häder, A., Jacobsen, I. D., Martin, R., Figge, M. T., & Kurzai, O.
Affiliations
  • Leibniz-Institut für Naturstoff-Forschung und Infektionsbiologie e. V. - Hans-Knöll-Institut (HKI) (DE)
  • Jena University Hospital (DE)
Corresponding author
Kurzai, Oliver
Venue
Cellular Microbiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-05
Volume
17
Issue
9
Pages
1259-1276
ISSN
1462-5814 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1785625320
Cited by
60
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3
FWCI
2.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cellular Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (CRC124-B4, C3)
  • Federal Ministry for Science and Education (03Z2JN21)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Neutrophil, Myeloperoxidase and Oxidative Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Fungal and yeast genetics research
Keywords
Candida glabrata, Candida albicans, neutrophil activation, monocyte phagocytosis, chemokine secretion, neutrophil recruitment, candidiasis, fungal virulence, pyelonephritis, immune cell infiltration, host-pathogen interaction
MeSH terms
Animals, Candida albicans, Candidiasis, Cells, Cultured, Disease Models, Animal, Histocytochemistry, Humans, Kidney, Monocytes, Phagocytosis, Cytokines, Neutrophil Activation, Candida glabrata, Mice

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