CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal and yeast genetics researchBacterial biofilms and quorum sensing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Role of Bcr1-Activated Genes Hwp1 and Hyr1 in Candida Albicans Oral Mucosal Biofilms and Neutrophil Evasion

Open access
Dwivedi, Prabhat, Thompson, Angela, Xie, Zhihong, Kashleva, Helena, Ganguly, Shantanu, Mitchell, Aaron P., Dongari-Bagtzoglou, Anna·2011·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0016218PMC PMC3026825
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Candida albicans triggers recurrent infections of the oropharyngeal mucosa that result from biofilm growth. Prior studies have indicated that the transcription factor Bcr1 regulates biofilm formation in a catheter model, both in vitro and in vivo. We thus hypothesized that Bcr1 plays similar roles in the formation of oral mucosal biofilms and tested this hypothesis in a mouse model of oral infection. We found that a bcr1/bcr1 mutant did not form significant biofilm on the tongues of immunocompromised mice, in contrast to reference and reconstituted strains that formed pseudomembranes covering most of the tongue dorsal surface. Overexpression of HWP1, which specifies an epithelial adhesin that is under the transcriptional control of Bcr1, partly but significantly rescued the bcr1/bcr1 biofilm phenotype in vivo. Since HWP1 overexpression only partly reversed the biofilm phenotype, we investigated whether additional mechanisms, besides adhesin down-regulation, were responsible for the reduced virulence of this mutant. We discovered that the bcr1/bcr1 mutant was more susceptible to damage by human leukocytes when grown on plastic or on the surface of a human oral mucosa tissue analogue. Overexpression of HYR1, but not HWP1, significantly rescued this phenotype. Furthermore a hyr1/hyr1 mutant had significantly attenuated virulence in the mouse oral biofilm model of infection. These discoveries show that Bcr1 is critical for mucosal biofilm infection via regulation of epithelial cell adhesin and neutrophil function.

Overview

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0016218

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Biofilm formation and histological examination of the tongues of mice infected with the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, DAY185 (reference) and complemented strains. Tongues of immunocomrpomised animals were excised after five days of infection and the dorsal aspect was digitally photographed. Four mice were infected with each strain and representative clinical pictures are shown from 1 mouse in each group on the left panel. On the right panel, representative PAS-stained thin sections of the tongue of one mouse per group are shown. Arrows indicate the biofilm thickness.
Figure 1 Biofilm formation and histological examination of the tongues of mice infected with the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, DAY185 (reference) and complemented strains. Tongues of immunocomrpomised animals were excised after five days of infection and the dorsal aspect was digitally photographed. Four mice were infected with each strain and representative clinical pictures are shown from 1 mouse in each group on the left panel. On the right panel, representative PAS-stained thin sections of the tongue of one mouse per group are shown. Arrows indicate the biofilm thickness.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Biofilm surface area and fungal burden of animals infected with the bcr1/bcr1 mutant and related strains. (A) Percent tongue surface area covered by biofilm. Results represent the average of 4 tongues in each group. Image J was used to calculate the area covered by white plaques as well as the total surface area of each tongue. Error bars represent standard deviations. *p = 0.0000 for bcr1/bcr1 mutant versus reconstituted strain, **p = 0.026 for bcr1/bcr1TEF-HWP1 versus bcr1/bcr1 mutant strain. (B) Tongue fungal burden. Results represent the average of four mice per group and error bars represent standard deviations. *p = 0.0004 for bcr1/bcr1 mutant versus reconstituted strain, **p = 0.0002 for bcr1/bcr1TEF-HWP1 versus bcr1/bcr1 mutant strain.
Figure 2 Biofilm surface area and fungal burden of animals infected with the bcr1/bcr1 mutant and related strains. (A) Percent tongue surface area covered by biofilm. Results represent the average of 4 tongues in each group. Image J was used to calculate the area covered by white plaques as well as the total surface area of each tongue. Error bars represent standard deviations. *p = 0.0000 for bcr1/bcr1 mutant versus reconstituted strain, **p = 0.026 for bcr1/bcr1TEF-HWP1 versus bcr1/bcr1 mutant strain. (B) Tongue fungal burden. Results represent the average of four mice per group and error bars represent standard deviations. *p = 0.0004 for bcr1/bcr1 mutant versus reconstituted strain, **p = 0.0002 for bcr1/bcr1TEF-HWP1 versus bcr1/bcr1 mutant strain.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Biofilm formed by the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, complemented and reference (DAY185) strains on a three-dimensional organotypic model of the oral mucosa. Histologic pictures show 40× magnification after 6 and 24 hours of inoculation. Thin sections were stained with PAS. Arrows indicate biofilms forming on the (apical) epithelial surface of the cultures. Results are representative of one of three experiments.
Figure 3 Biofilm formed by the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, complemented and reference (DAY185) strains on a three-dimensional organotypic model of the oral mucosa. Histologic pictures show 40× magnification after 6 and 24 hours of inoculation. Thin sections were stained with PAS. Arrows indicate biofilms forming on the (apical) epithelial surface of the cultures. Results are representative of one of three experiments.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Mucosal damage by the indicated strains in the three dimensional model of the oral mucosa. Cell damage by the bcr1/bcr1 mutant and reference strains was quantified by the release of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in the media. Results are the mean ± SD of three experiments, each condition set up in triplicate. *bcr1/bcr1 mutant significantly different from DAY185 (reference) strain, p = 0.001–0.03.
Figure 4 Mucosal damage by the indicated strains in the three dimensional model of the oral mucosa. Cell damage by the bcr1/bcr1 mutant and reference strains was quantified by the release of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in the media. Results are the mean ± SD of three experiments, each condition set up in triplicate. *bcr1/bcr1 mutant significantly different from DAY185 (reference) strain, p = 0.001–0.03.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Biofilm formation and histological examination of the tongues of mice infected with strains overexpressing adhesins ALS1, ALS3 and HWP1 in the bcr1/bcr1 background. Tongues of immunocomrpomised animals were excised after five days of infection and the dorsal aspect was digitally photographed. Four mice were infected with each strain and representative clinical pictures are shown from 1 mouse in each group on the left panel. On the right panel, representative PAS-stained thin sections of the tongue of one mouse per group are shown. Arrows indicate the biofilm thickness.
Figure 5 Biofilm formation and histological examination of the tongues of mice infected with strains overexpressing adhesins ALS1, ALS3 and HWP1 in the bcr1/bcr1 background. Tongues of immunocomrpomised animals were excised after five days of infection and the dorsal aspect was digitally photographed. Four mice were infected with each strain and representative clinical pictures are shown from 1 mouse in each group on the left panel. On the right panel, representative PAS-stained thin sections of the tongue of one mouse per group are shown. Arrows indicate the biofilm thickness.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Detection of Als3 expression in the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, reference (DAY185) and adhesin-overexpressing strains on the 3D model of the human oral mucosa. The indicated strains of C. albicans were grown for 24 h and C. albicans RNA was extracted. The relative transcript levels of Als3 were measured by real-time PCR. Results are the mean ±SD of three biological replicates, each tested in duplicate.
Figure 6 Detection of Als3 expression in the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, reference (DAY185) and adhesin-overexpressing strains on the 3D model of the human oral mucosa. The indicated strains of C. albicans were grown for 24 h and C. albicans RNA was extracted. The relative transcript levels of Als3 were measured by real-time PCR. Results are the mean ±SD of three biological replicates, each tested in duplicate.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Susceptibility of the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, reference (DAY185) and reconstituted strains to leukocyte-inflicted damage. Strains were exposed to HL-60 cells that had been differentiated into neutrophil-like cells in vitro. HL-60 cells were added to C. albicans for 3 h at effector to target cell ratios (E∶T) ranging from 5∶1 to 1∶2. Results represent the mean ± SD of three experiments, each condition set up in triplicate.
Figure 7 Susceptibility of the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, reference (DAY185) and reconstituted strains to leukocyte-inflicted damage. Strains were exposed to HL-60 cells that had been differentiated into neutrophil-like cells in vitro. HL-60 cells were added to C. albicans for 3 h at effector to target cell ratios (E∶T) ranging from 5∶1 to 1∶2. Results represent the mean ± SD of three experiments, each condition set up in triplicate.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Susceptibility of the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, hyr1/hyr1 mutant, and HYR1- or HWP1- overexpressing strains in the bcr1/bcr1 background, to human leukocytes. Susceptibility was tested on 96 well plates (A,B) or on a three dimensional model of the human oral mucosa (C). Strains were exposed to differentiated HL-60 cells (A,C) or freshly isolated neutrophils from one human donor (B) at an effector to target cell ratio of 1∶1 (A,B) or 10∶1 (C). Results represent the mean ± SD of three experiments, each condition set up in triplicate. *p<0.03 and **p<0.05 for a comparison between the bcr1/bcr1 mutant and HYR1- overexpressing strain in the bcr1/bcr1 background.
Figure 8 Susceptibility of the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, hyr1/hyr1 mutant, and HYR1- or HWP1- overexpressing strains in the bcr1/bcr1 background, to human leukocytes. Susceptibility was tested on 96 well plates (A,B) or on a three dimensional model of the human oral mucosa (C). Strains were exposed to differentiated HL-60 cells (A,C) or freshly isolated neutrophils from one human donor (B) at an effector to target cell ratio of 1∶1 (A,B) or 10∶1 (C). Results represent the mean ± SD of three experiments, each condition set up in triplicate. *p<0.03 and **p<0.05 for a comparison between the bcr1/bcr1 mutant and HYR1- overexpressing strain in the bcr1/bcr1 background.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Biofilm formation and histological examination of the tongues of mice infected with DAY286 (reference), hyr1/hyr1 mutant and HYR-1 overexpressing strains in the bcr1/bcr1 background. Tongues of immunocomrpomised animals were excised after five days of infection and the dorsal aspect was digitally photographed. Four mice were infected with each strain and representative clinical pictures are shown from 1 mouse in each group on the left panel. On the right panel, representative PAS-stained thin sections of the tongue of one mouse per group are shown. Arrows indicate microorganisms invading the spinous cell layer of the epithelium (strain DAY286) or remaining superficially within biofilms (hyr1/hyr1 mutant and HYR1- overexpressing strains).
Figure 9 Biofilm formation and histological examination of the tongues of mice infected with DAY286 (reference), hyr1/hyr1 mutant and HYR-1 overexpressing strains in the bcr1/bcr1 background. Tongues of immunocomrpomised animals were excised after five days of infection and the dorsal aspect was digitally photographed. Four mice were infected with each strain and representative clinical pictures are shown from 1 mouse in each group on the left panel. On the right panel, representative PAS-stained thin sections of the tongue of one mouse per group are shown. Arrows indicate microorganisms invading the spinous cell layer of the epithelium (strain DAY286) or remaining superficially within biofilms (hyr1/hyr1 mutant and HYR1- overexpressing strains).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 10 Biofilm surface area and fungal burden in animals infected with the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, hyr1/hyr1 mutant, HYR1- overexpressing and reference strains. (A) Percent tongue surface area covered by biofilm. Results represent the average of 4 tongues in each group. Image J was used to calculate the area covered by white plaques as well as the total surface area of each tongue. Error bars represent standard deviations. *p = 0.015 for hyr1/hyr1 mutant versus reference strain; **p = 0.008 for hyr1/hyr1 mutant versus bcr1/bcr1TEF-HYR1 strain; ***p = 006 for bcr1/bcr1TEF-HYR1 versus reference strain. (B) Tongue fungal burden. Results represent the average of four mice per group and error bars represent standard deviations. *p = 0.000 for bcr1/bcr1TEF-HYR1 or hyr1/hyr1 compared to reference strain, **p = 0.23 for hyr1/hyr1 versus the bcr1/bcr1TEF-HYR1 strain.
Figure 10 Biofilm surface area and fungal burden in animals infected with the bcr1/bcr1 mutant, hyr1/hyr1 mutant, HYR1- overexpressing and reference strains. (A) Percent tongue surface area covered by biofilm. Results represent the average of 4 tongues in each group. Image J was used to calculate the area covered by white plaques as well as the total surface area of each tongue. Error bars represent standard deviations. *p = 0.015 for hyr1/hyr1 mutant versus reference strain; **p = 0.008 for hyr1/hyr1 mutant versus bcr1/bcr1TEF-HYR1 strain; ***p = 006 for bcr1/bcr1TEF-HYR1 versus reference strain. (B) Tongue fungal burden. Results represent the average of four mice per group and error bars represent standard deviations. *p = 0.000 for bcr1/bcr1TEF-HYR1 or hyr1/hyr1 compared to reference strain, **p = 0.23 for hyr1/hyr1 versus the bcr1/bcr1TEF-HYR1 strain.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 110

Related

Metadata

Authors
Dwivedi, P., Thompson, A., Xie, Z., Kashleva, H., Ganguly, S., Mitchell, A. P., & Dongari-Bagtzoglou, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2011-01-25
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
e16218
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0016218
PMC
PMC3026825
OpenAlex
W2091452473
Cited by
110
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 12
FWCI
6.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI067703)
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R01DE013986)
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 › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bacterial biofilms and quorum sensing
Keywords
Candida albicans, HWP1, fungal virulence, oropharyngeal infection, immunodeficient mice, pseudomembranous candidiasis
MeSH terms
Animals, Candida albicans, Fungal Proteins, Membrane Glycoproteins, Mouth Mucosa, Neutrophils, Transcription Factors, Biofilms, Adhesins, Bacterial, Mice, Immune Evasion

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