Cited by 953Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal Infections and StudiesYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies

Candida glabrata : Review of Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Clinical Disease with Comparison to C. albicans

Open access
Fidel, Paul L., Vazquez, Jose A., Sobel, Jack D.·1999·Clinical Microbiology Reviews

Abstract

Until recently, Candida glabrata was considered a relatively nonpathogenic commensal fungal organism of human mucosal tissues. However, with the increased use of immunosuppressive agents, mucosal and systemic infections caused by C. glabrata have increased significantly, especially in the human immunodeficiency virus-infected population. A major obstacle in C. glabrata infections is their innate resistance to azole antimycotic therapy, which is very effective in treating infections caused by other Candida species. Candida glabrata, formerly known as Torulopsis glabrata, contrasts with other Candida species in its nondimorphic blastoconidial morphology and haploid genome. C. glabrata currently ranks second or third as the causative agent of superficial (oral, esophageal, vaginal, or urinary) or systemic candidal infections, which are often nosocomial. Currently, however, there are few recognized virulence factors of C. glabrata and little is known about the host defense mechanisms that protect against infection. Two established animal models (systemic and vaginal) have been established to study treatment, pathogenesis, and immunity. Treatment of C. glabrata infections can include azoles but often requires amphotericin B or flucytosine. This review summarizes all known clinical and experimental information about C. glabrata infections with comparisons to C. albicans as a means of contrasting the two species commonly observed and emphasizing the many recognized differences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/cmr.12.1.80

Cites

183 of 183 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • C. glabrata is a causative agent of urinary tract and vaginal infections.

    “C. glabrata is also a causative agent of urinary tract and vaginal infections [10,11].”

    From Candida glabrata: A Lot More Than Meets the Eye (2019) · cites this paper as [10]

  • The number of candidiasis due to non-Candida albicans Candida (NCAC) species has meaningfully increased, namely in regard to Candida glabrata strains.

    “in the last few decades, the number of candidiasis due to non-Candida albicans Candida (NCAC) species has meaningfully raised, namely in regard to C. glabrata strains [1,10,11].”

    From Candida glabrata Biofilms: How Far Have We Come? (2017) · cites this paper as [1]

  • After Candida albicans, Candida glabrata is one of the most prevalent pathogenic fungi in humans.

    “After Candida albicans, Candida glabrata is one of the most prevalent pathogenic fungi in humans.”

    From Candida glabrata Biofilms: How Far Have We Come? (2017) · cites this paper as [1]

  • The NHDS approach is likely to underestimate both incidence and mortality of invasive candidiasis because of miscoding, use of codes not captured by the analysis, or failure to code the infection at all.

    “Although this approach provides a much more generalizable sample of U.S. hospitals than many other methods of surveillance, it is likely to underestimate both incidence and mortality because of miscoding of IC, use of codes not captured by the analysis, or failure to code the infection at all (79, 154).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fidel, P. L., Vazquez, J. A., & Sobel, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • <!--label omitted: 2-->Division of Infectious Diseases, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan2
  • Wayne State University (US)
Venue
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
Published
1999-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
80-96
ISSN
  • 0893-8512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6618
OpenAlex
W2143839871
Cited by
953
References
183
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 43
FWCI
18.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Microbiology Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Fungal Infections and Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Yeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Keywords
Candida glabrata, Candida albicans, candidiasis, azole resistance, immunosuppression, HIV infection, nosocomial infections, virulence factors, host defense, animal models of infection, amphotericin B, 5-fluorocytosine, superficial candidiasis, systemic candidiasis, haploid genome
MeSH terms
Animals, Candida, Candida albicans, Candidiasis, Female, Humans

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