The Caspofungin Paradoxical Effect is a Tolerant “Eagle Effect” in the Filamentous Fungal Pathogen Aspergillus fumigatus
Open accessAbstract
The “Eagle effect,” initially described for bacterial species, which reflects the capacity of some strains to growth above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of specific antimicrobial agents, has been known for more than 70 years. However, its underlying mechanism of action in fungi is not fully understood and its connection with other phenomena such as tolerance or persistence is not clear yet.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Chitin content increased following caspofungin treatment, with higher intensities observed for the signature Ch4 and Ch2 peaks.
“Conversely, the chitin content increased, with higher intensities observed for the signature Ch4 and Ch2 peaks, reflecting the induction of the classical chitin upregulation compensatory mechanism that has been identified in different fungal species in response to echinocandin treatment28,77–79.”
From Distinct echinocandin responses of Candida albicans and Candida auris cell walls revealed by solid-state NMR (2025) · cites this paper as [79]
The Observation section discusses caspofungin-induced cell-wall remodeling, but it does not report increased chitin content or Ch4 and Ch2 peak intensities. Searches for those peaks and for chitin upregulation found no passage in our copy that addresses the claimed measurements; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.73)
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.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 23 · Cited by 23
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- [1]Eagle H. 1948. A paradoxical zone phenomenon in the bactericidalaction of penicillin in vitro. Science 107: 44– 45. doi: 10.1126/science.107.2767.44. 17778247 · DOI
- [2]Prasetyoputri A, Jarrad AM, Cooper MA, Blaskovich MAT. 2019. The Eagle effect and antibiotic-induced persistence: two sides of the same coin? Trends Microbiol 27: 339– 354. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2018.10.007. 30448198 · DOI · Paper page
- [3]Brauner A, Fridman O, Gefen O, Balaban NQ. 2016. Distinguishing between resistance, tolerance and persistence to antibiotic treatment. Nat Rev Microbiol 14: 320– 330. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.34. 27080241 · DOI · Paper page
- [5]Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Al-Obaidi M. 2017. Invasive fungal infections in the intensive care unit. Infect Dis Clin North Am 31: 475– 487. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2017.05.005. 28687215 · DOI · Paper page
- [6]Perfect JR. 2017. The antifungal pipeline: a reality check. Nat Rev Drug Discov 16: 603– 616. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.46. 28496146 PMC5760994 · DOI · Paper page
- [7]Robbins N, Caplan T, Cowen LE. 2017. Molecular evolution of antifungal drug resistance. Annu Rev Microbiol 71: 753– 775. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-030117-020345. 28886681 · DOI · Paper page
- [8]Warrilow AG, Parker JE, Price CL, Nes WD, Kelly SL, Kelly DE. 2015. In vitro biochemical study of CYP51-mediated azole resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59: 7771– 7778. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01806-15. 26459890 PMC4649140 · DOI
- [9]Perlin DS. 2015. Mechanisms of echinocandin antifungal drug resistance. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1354: 1– 11. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12831. 26190298 PMC4626328 · DOI · Paper page
- [10]Garcia-Rubio R, Cuenca-Estrella M, Mellado E. 2017. Triazole resistance in Aspergillus species: an emerging problem. Drugs 77: 599– 613. doi: 10.1007/s40265-017-0714-4. 28236169 · DOI
- [11]Shields RK, Nguyen MH, Clancy CJ. 2015. Clinical perspectives on echinocandin resistance among Candida species. Curr Opin Infect Dis 28: 514– 522. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000215. 26524326 PMC4632243 · DOI
- [13]Delarze E, Sanglard D. 2015. Defining the frontiers between antifungal resistance, tolerance and the concept of persistence. Drug Resist Updat 23: 12– 19. doi: 10.1016/j.drup.2015.10.001. 26690338 · DOI · Paper page
- [15]Ben-Ami R, Kontoyiannis DP. 2021. Resistance to antifungal drugs. Infect Dis Clin North Am 35: 279– 311. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2021.03.003. 34016279 · DOI
- [17]Papon N, Morio F, Sanglard D. 2020. Signaling pathways governing the caspofungin paradoxical effect in Aspergillus fumigatus. mBio 11: e01816-20. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01816-20. 32817108 PMC7439473 · DOI
- [18]Juvvadi PR, Munoz A, Lamoth F, Soderblom EJ, Moseley MA, Read ND, Steinbach WJ. 2015. Calcium-mediated induction of paradoxical growth following caspofungin treatment is associated with calcineurin activation and phosphorylation in Aspergillus fumigatus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 59: 4946– 4955. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00263-15. 26055379 PMC4505252 · DOI
- [20]Park HS, Lee SC, Cardenas ME, Heitman J. 2019. Calcium-calmodulin-calcineurin signaling: a globally conserved virulence cascade in eukaryotic microbial pathogens. Cell Host Microbe 26: 453– 462. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2019.08.004. 31600499 PMC6788756 · DOI · Paper page
- [23]Colabardini AC, Wang F, Dong Z, Pardeshi L, Rocha MC, Costa JH, Dos Reis TF, Brown A, Jaber QZ, Fridman M, Fill T, Rokas A, Malavazi I, Wong KH, Goldman GH. 2022. Heterogeneity in the transcriptional response of the human pathogen Aspergillus fumigatus to the antifungal agent caspofungin. Genetics 220: iyab183. doi: 10.1093/genetics/iyab183. 34718550 PMC8733440 · DOI
- Authors
- Valero, C., Colabardini, A. C., de Castro, P. A., Amich, J., Bromley, M. J., & Goldman, G. H.
- Affiliations
- Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
- Faculdade de Ciências Farmacêuticas de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
- Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Goldman, Gustavo H.
- Venue
- mBio
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2022-06-28
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e0044722-e0044722
- ISSN
- 2150-7511 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9239232
- OpenAlex
- W4223953979
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 2.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- mBio (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2018/00715-3, 2017/07536-4, 2016/12948-7, 2016/07870-9)
- MCTI | Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (301058/2019-9, 404735/2018-5)
- Wellcome Trust (219551/Z/19/Z, 208396/Z/17/Z)
- 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
- caspofungin, Aspergillus fumigatus, paradoxical effects, antifungal drug tolerance, minimum inhibitory concentration
- MeSH terms
- Caspofungin, Animals, Antifungal Agents, Aspergillus fumigatus, Fungal Proteins, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Spores, Fungal, Eagles, 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
