Cited by 86Antifungal resistance and susceptibilityFungal and yeast genetics researchFungal Plant Pathogen Control

Analysis of antifungal resistance genes in Candida albicans and Candida glabrata using next generation sequencing

Open access
Spettel, Kathrin, Barousch, Wolfgang, Makristathis, Athanasios, Zeller, Iris, Nehr, Marion, Selitsch, Brigitte, Lackner, Michaela, Rath, Peter-Michael +2 more·2019·PLoS ONE

Abstract

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: An increase in antifungal resistant Candida strains has been reported in recent years. The aim of this study was to detect mutations in resistance genes of azole-resistant, echinocandin-resistant or multi-resistant strains using next generation sequencing technology, which allows the analysis of multiple resistance mechanisms in a high throughput setting. METHODS: Forty clinical Candida isolates (16 C. albicans and 24 C. glabrata strains) with MICs for azoles and echinocandins above the clinical EUCAST breakpoint were examined. The genes ERG11, ERG3, TAC1 and GSC1 (FKS1) in C. albicans, as well as ERG11, CgPDR1, FKS1 and FKS2 in C. glabrata were sequenced. RESULTS: Fifty-four different missense mutations were identified, 13 of which have not been reported before. All nine echinocandin-resistant Candida isolates showed mutations in the hot spot (HS) regions of FKS1, FKS2 or GSC1. In ERG3 two homozygous premature stop codons were identified in two highly azole-resistant and moderately echinocandin-resistant C. albicans strains. Seven point mutations in ERG11 were determined in azole-resistant C. albicans whereas in azole-resistant C. glabrata, no ERG11 mutations were detected. In 10 out of 13 azole-resistant C. glabrata, 12 different potential gain-of-function mutations in the transcription factor CgPDR1 were verified, which are associated with an overexpression of the efflux pumps CDR1/2. CONCLUSION: This study showed that next generation sequencing allows the thorough investigation of a large number of isolates more cost efficient and faster than conventional Sanger sequencing. Targeting different resistance genes and a large sample size of highly resistant strains allows a better determination of the relevance of the different mutations, and to differentiate between causal mutations and polymorphisms.

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.0210397

Cites

49 of 49 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 overlap between CandidaMine variants and two datasets of previously described drug resistance mutations (SENTRY database and PDR1 mutations from the literature) was low, comparable to that found in this work.

    “In order to test this we calculated the overlap between CandidaMine variants and two datasets of previously described drug resistance-mutations: the SENTRY database6 and a set of described PDR1 mutations from the literature.71, 72, 73 This yielded low overlaps as well, comparable to those found in our work (Figure S5A).”

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
Spettel, K., Barousch, W., Makristathis, A., Zeller, I., Nehr, M., Selitsch, B., Lackner, M., Rath, P.-M., Steinmann, J., & Willinger, B.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • Innsbruck Medical University (AT)
  • Essen University Hospital (DE)
  • Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität (DE)
Corresponding author
Willinger, Birgit
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2019-01-10
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
e0210397
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2910178341
Cited by
86
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3
FWCI
9.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Pfizer
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
antifungal resistance, Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, azole resistance, echinocandin resistance, multidrug resistance, ERG11, ERG3, FKS1, FKS2, efflux pumps, missense mutations, clinical isolates, resistance gene mutations
MeSH terms
Antifungal Agents, Candida albicans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Mutation, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Computational Biology, Drug Resistance, Fungal, Candida glabrata

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