Cited by 79Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal and yeast genetics researchFungal Plant Pathogen Control

CRS–MIS in C andida glabrata: sphingolipids modulate echinocandin–Fks interaction

Open access
Healey, Kelley R., Katiyar, Santosh K., Raj, Shriya, Edlind, Thomas D.·2012·Molecular Microbiology

Abstract

Infections with the azole-refractory yeast Candida glabrata are now commonly treated with the echinocandins caspofungin (CSF) or micafungin (MCF). True resistance (> 32-fold decreased susceptibility) to these lipopeptide inhibitors of cell wall synthesis is rare and strictly associated with mutations in integral membrane proteins Fks1 or Fks2. In contrast, mutants exhibiting 4- to 32-fold CSF reduced susceptibility (CRS) were readily selected in vitro, and surprisingly demonstrated 4- to 32-fold MCF increased susceptibility (MIS). Sequencing and gene deletion demonstrated that CRS-MIS is Fks-independent. To explore alternative mechanisms, we initially employed Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and observed that CRS was conferred by multiple mutations (fen1Δ, sur4Δ, cka2Δ and tsc10-ts) disrupting sphingolipid biosynthesis. Following this lead, C. glabrata fen1Δ and cka2Δ deletants were constructed, and shown to exhibit CRS-MIS. Sphingolipid analysis of CRS-MIS laboratory mutants and clinical isolates demonstrated elevated dihydrosphingosine (DHS) and phytosphingosine (PHS) levels, and consistent with this sequencing revealed fen1, sur4, ifa38 and sur2 mutations. Moreover, exogenous DHS or PHS conferred a CRS-MIS phenotype on wild-type C. glabrata. Exogenous PHS failed, however, to suppress CRS-MIS in a sur2 mutant blocked in conversion of DHS to PHS, implying that accumulation of these intermediates confers CRS-MIS. We conclude that membrane sphingolipids modulate echinocandin-Fks interaction.

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/j.1365-2958.2012.08194.x

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • The drug specificity of caspofungin heteroresistance is partly rooted in differential interaction with the drug target within the altered membrane environment resulting from regulated sphingolipid metabolism.

    “The drug specificity further underscores its unique mechanism, which is partly rooted in their differential interaction with the drug target within the altered membrane environment resulting from regulated sphingolipid metabolism [50]”

    From Calcineurin‐Dependent Stress Adaptation Enables Caspofungin Heteroresistance Leading to Stable Resistance in <i>Candida Glabrata</i> (2026) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Discussion proposes that altered membrane sphingolipids could weaken caspofungin’s interaction with Fks while strengthening micafungin’s. But it says the mechanism remains to be elucidated and explicitly calls this interaction a speculative model; the citing sentence presents it as an established basis for drug specificity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In C. glabrata, mutations or stress-induced alterations in sphingolipid biosynthesis can lead to paradoxically caspofungin-reduced-susceptibility but micafungin-increased-susceptibility.

    “In C. glabrata, studies have demonstrated that mutations or stress‐induced alterations in sphingolipid biosynthesis can lead to paradoxically caspofungin‐reduced‐susceptibility but micafungin‐increased‐susceptibility, a form of drug‐specific susceptibility phenotype [50].”

    From Calcineurin‐Dependent Stress Adaptation Enables Caspofungin Heteroresistance Leading to Stable Resistance in <i>Candida Glabrata</i> (2026) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Abstract and Discussion report that mutations affecting sphingolipid biosynthesis in C. glabrata produce reduced caspofungin susceptibility alongside increased micafungin susceptibility. The paper also reports that added sphingolipid intermediates reproduce the phenotype, but the passages do not establish that stress-induced alterations cause it. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent evidence suggests that membrane lipid composition, particularly sphingolipid biosynthesis, may contribute to drug-specific susceptibility profiles.

    “recent evidence suggests that membrane lipid composition, particularly sphingolipid biosynthesis, may contribute to drug‐specific susceptibility profiles [50, 52, 53].”
  • Mutations in FEN1 have been related to acquisition of resistance to echinocandins in C. glabrata, with some mutations leading to reduced susceptibility to caspofungin but not to micafungin.

    “Mutations in the FEN1 gene have been related to acquisition of resistance to echinocandins in C. glabrata, with some mutations leading to reduced susceptibility to caspofungin but not to micafungin (Healey et al., 2012).”

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
Healey, K. R., Katiyar, S. K., Raj, S., & Edlind, T. D.
Affiliations
  • Drexel University (US)
  • Department of Microbiology and Immunology Drexel University College of Medicine Philadelphia PA 19129 USA
Corresponding author
Edlind, Thomas D.
Venue
Molecular Microbiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-08-22
Volume
86
Issue
2
Pages
303-313
ISSN
  • 0950-382X (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2958
OpenAlex
W1576223091
Cited by
79
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical University of South Carolina
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI075272., R01AI075272)
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
Candida glabrata, echinocandin resistance, micafungin, caspofungin, sphingolipids, dihydrosphingosine, phytosphingosine, FKS1, FKS2, FEN1, SUR2, cell wall synthesis inhibitors, antifungal susceptibility, membrane lipid metabolism
MeSH terms
Caspofungin, Micafungin, Fungal Proteins, Membrane Proteins, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Sphingolipids, Candida glabrata, Echinocandins, Lipopeptides

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