The Risk Factors and Mechanisms of Azole Resistance of Candida tropicalis Blood Isolates in Thailand: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2022, 8(10), 983; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8100983
Submission received: 23 July 2022
/
Revised: 16 September 2022
/
Accepted: 17 September 2022
/
Published: 20 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Invasive Candidiasis)
Abstract
:In recent decades, an epidemiological shift has been observed from Candida infections to non-albicans species and resistance to azoles. We investigated the associated factors and molecular mechanisms of azole-resistant blood isolates of C. tropicalis. Full-length sequencing of the ERG11 gene and quantitative real-time RT-PCR for the ERG11, MDR1, and CDR1 genes were performed. Male sex (odds ratio, 0.38), leukemia (odds ratio 3.15), and recent administration of azole (odds ratio 10.56) were associated with isolates resistant to azole. ERG11 mutations were found in 83% of resistant isolates, with A395T as the most common mutation (53%). There were no statistically significant differences in the expression of the ERG11, MDR1, and CDR1 genes between the groups resistant and susceptible to azole. The prevalence of azole-resistant isolates was higher than the usage of antifungal drugs, suggesting the possibility of environmental transmission in the healthcare setting. The unknown mechanism of the other 17% of the resistant isolates remains to be further investigated.
1. Introduction
Candida species are the most common cause of invasive fungal infections, affecting around three-quarters of a million patients per year [1]. Although C. albicans is the major species causing worldwide candidemia, the prevalence of non-albicans candidemia is increasing, especially in the Asia-Pacific region [2]. Moreover, C. tropicalis has become the major cause of Candida bloodstream infection in Thailand [3,4].
C. tropicalis bloodstream infection also raised concerns about the high rate of death from cases [4]. Furthermore, the prevalence of azole resistance is an increasing trend in Thailand, South Korea, and China, which might be associated with the use of fungicides in agriculture and cross-transmission to the hospital [5,6,7,8]. However, the azole resistance rate is lower in some other Asian countries including India and Iran [9,10]. The prevalence of fluconazole-resistant C. tropicalis isolates in Thailand increased from 20.2% in 2013–2015 to 37.8% in 2016–2017 [8,11]. Similarly, in China, fluconazole-resistant isolates increased from less than 10% in 2010–2012 to more than 30% in 2016–2017 [7]. Several studies reported the relationship between azole-resistant Candida infection and identified multiple risk factors including previous exposure to fluconazole and a history of bacterial bloodstream infection [12,13]. The description of C. tropicalis azole resistance was attributed to the four major mechanisms related to ERG11 mutations, ERG11 overexpression, alteration of membrane sterol composition, and increased expression of the efflux pump genes [14]. However, the frequency of each mechanism has been reported to vary among different demographic locations [15,16].
In Thailand, there are few data on the association between azole-resistant isolates of C. tropicalis and the underlying molecular mechanisms of azole resistance. We aimed to analyze the ERG11 mutations and the expression of genes responsible for resistance among these isolates. The association between non-susceptible C. tropicalis isolates to fluconazole and risk factors for C. tropicalis blood infection were also investigated.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Blood Isolates of C. tropicalis
Blood isolates of C. tropicalis were collected from patients with C. tropicalis candidemia between January 2015 and December 2019 at Siriraj Hospital, a large tertiary center in Bangkok. Only the first strain isolated from the first episode of C. tropicalis was included in the study. All isolates were identified using a Microflex LT mass spectrometer (Bruker Daltonik, Bremen, Germany) according to the recommendations of the manufacturer. The study was approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board (certificate of approval Si 802/2019).
2.2. Definitions and Data Collection
We collected data from medical records including demographic data, comorbidities, predisposing factors, and clinical characteristics. Comorbidities were assessed using Charlson’s Comorbidity Index [17]. The source of candidemia was defined using the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines [18]. Predisposing factors on the day of bloodstream infection diagnosis included corticosteroid and antimicrobial administrations, parenteral nutrition, transplantation within 30 days, mechanical ventilation, placement of a central venous catheter at the time of onset, neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count ≤ 500 cells/mL). The severity of clinical presentation was evaluated using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA) [19]. Isolates from patients with either non-retrievable data or no antifungal susceptibility test results were excluded (Figure 1). The association between azole resistance and candidemia due to C. tropicalis was divided into two groups: the susceptible group (minimal inhibitory concentration {MIC} for fluconazole ≤ 2 μg/mL) and the non-susceptible group (MIC for fluconazole ≥ 4 μg/mL) [20,21].
2.3. Antifungal Susceptibility Test
All recovered C. tropicalis isolates were subjected to a retrospective antifungal susceptibility test (AFST) using Sensititre YeastOne (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA) which comprised nine drugs (fluconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, 5-flucytosine, anidulafungin, micafungin, caspofungin, and amphotericin B). Interpretations of this colorimetric microdilution method followed the manufacturer’s recommendations. To ensure the commercial test’s reliability, all viable isolates used for the molecular studies were retested for fluconazole susceptibility by the broth microdilution method following the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) documents M27A3 and M60 [21,22]. Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019 and Candida krusei ATCC 6258 were used as quality controls. MICs by the commercial test were highly reproducible, with 97.7% of repeat testing results being within a single 2-fold dilution of the samples as shown in Table S2.
2.4. Sequencing of the ERG11 Gene
Complete sequencing of the ERG11 gene was performed on 53 isolates of the fluconazole-resistant group (one isolate was lost during sample collection) and 36 randomly selected isolates of the fluconazole susceptible group. DNA was extracted following the protocol described previously [23]. The amplified PCR products were sequenced using four primer pairs (Table S1). The PCR protocol was used following the manufacturer’s recommendation for the Phusion Plus DNA Polymerase (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA) which recommended denaturation at 98 °C for 10 s, annealing at 60 °C for 10 s, and extension at 72 °C for 30 s. The amplified fragment was purified and directly used for bidirectional sequencing by Macrogen Inc. Korea using the PCR primers. The nucleotide sequences were examined for sequencing errors and heterozygous. The heterozygous was visually detected as the double peaks with strong intensity on the same locus and both strands and edited by Bionumeric software (version 8.0; Applied Maths NV, Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium). The edited nucleotide sequences were compared with the ERG11 of C. tropicalis MYA-3404 (GenBank accession number: XM_002550939).
2.5. Quantitative Real-Time RT-PCR of the ERG11, CDR1, and MDR1 Genes
Quantitative real-time RT-PCR was carried out on 80 isolates consisting of 47 isolates with fluconazole resistance (A total of 53 fluconazole-resistant isolates were excluded eight slow-grower isolates.) and 33 randomly selected isolates with fluconazole susceptibility. The C. tropicalis isolates were grown in the yeast extract peptone dextrose (YPD) broth and incubated at 37 °C in a shaker incubator at 200 rpm until the mid-log phase. Then, fluconazole at ¼ MIC level of each isolate was added to the media and continued incubation for 2 h which all isolates were grown to exponential phase. Meanwhile, the isolates were grown in the drug-free media under the same condition that was used as controls. After that, the isolates with- and without- the drug condition were extracted for total RNA [24]. Total RNA products were extracted using RNeasy Kits (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and reverse transcribed using the High-Capacity cDNA reverse transcription kit (ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA). The cDNA products were obtained from the ERG11, CDR1, and MDR1 genes using primers in Table S1 and measured with the LightCycler 480 instrument (Roche, Basel, Switzerland). The experiments were technical triplicated to ensure the reliability of the method. The expression of these genes was determined by the 2−ΔΔCT method using the ACT1 gene as an internal control [25]. The studied isolates were compared to the three genes’ expression during exposure to the drug relative to their expression’s growth in the drug-free condition.
2.6. Statistical Analysis
The minimal sample size for the prediction model of 137 patients was calculated using an azole resistance rate of 30% with 237 isolates over 5 years [8]. The categorical variables are presented as frequencies and compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables are shown as medians and interquartile ranges and analyzed with Student’s t-test and ANOVA. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses selected variables with a p-value < 0.2 and presented them with an odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. The reliability and internal validation of the prediction model were using the rule of 10 events per covariate and bootstrapping, respectively [26]. All statistical analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 22.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and Prism software (version 9.4.1; GraphPad, San Diego, CA, USA).
3. Results
188 isolates of C. tropicalis bloodstream infections were included in the study. Forty-nine isolates were excluded, which consisted of 20 isolates with unretrievable data and 29 isolates with a lack of AFST results. The prevalence of non-susceptible fluconazole C. tropicalis was 40.4% (76 isolates) which consists of 54 fluconazole-resistant isolates and 22 fluconazole susceptible-dose dependent isolates.
3.1. Demographic Data and Clinical Characteristics
Age, admission to intensive care, Charlson’s comorbidity index, and severity at the time of onset were similar for both the fluconazole susceptible and resistant groups. Leukemia, lymphoma, recent chemotherapy administration, and exposure to carbapenem and azole were more common among patients with non-susceptible C. tropicalis blood isolates, as presented in Table 1.
3.2. Log Regression Analysis of Non-Susceptible Fluconazole C. tropicalis Blood Isolates
Independent factors associated with non-susceptible fluconazole C. tropicalis blood isolates were male sex (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19–0.77; p = 0.007); leukemia (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.03–9.63; p = 0.044) and recent administration of azoles (OR, 10.56; 95% CI, 3.56–31.32; p = <0.001; Table 2).
3.3. Missense Mutation in the ERG11 Gene
The ERG11 missense mutations were found in 44 of 53 resistant isolates (83.0%, Table 3) and absent in all susceptible strains. The most common base substitution was A395T (28 of 53, 52.8%) and the A395W substitution was the second most common (13 of 53, 24.5%). The A428G substitution was founded in two of 53 isolates (3.8%) and the A395W/T769C substitution was founded in only one isolate (1 of 53, 1.9%).
3.4. Expression Level of the ERG11, MDR1, and CDR1 Genes
The mean expression level in the ERG11, MDR1, and CDR1 genes was 1.10, 1.05, and 1.16, respectively (all data shown in Table S2). There were no statistically significant differences in the expression of the ERG11, MDR1, and CDR1 genes between the azole-resistant and azole-susceptible groups (Figure 2). Interestingly, we found the azole-resistant isolates without ERG11 mutations (R-WOM) had a significantly higher level CDR1 expression (2.07) in the CDR1 gene than the resistant isolates with ERG11 mutations (R-WM, 1.01) and susceptible group (S, 1.13).
4. Discussion
This retrospective study revealed the prevalence of strains with dose-dependent fluconazole susceptibility and resistance was slightly higher than a previous report in 2013–2015, which found that the prevalence of dose-dependent susceptible and resistant strains was 9.5% to 11.7% and 20.2% to 28.7%, respectively [11].
Interestingly, the rate of recent exposure to azole was less (17%) than the rate of resistance to azole (28.7%). The earlier study reported that the azole-resistant group had a history of azole use in only one-third of the isolates [27]. Environmental spreading of resistant C. tropicalis strains was possible, according to previous reports on C. tropicalis and C. parapsilosis [6,28]. However, we have no direct evidence of patient-to-patient transmission, although the history of azole exposure was still a strong independent risk factor as in previous studies [12,13].
We report for the first time that leukemia and female sex are factors associated with C. tropicalis isolates resistant to azole. Leukemia increases exposure to antifungal prophylaxis to prevent invasive fungal disease after chemotherapy [29]. Men have lower rates of exposure to antifungal agents than women who may have chronic vulvovaginal candidiasis [30]. Therefore, we recommend the strict use of antifungal treatment according to the indications of the guidelines to reduce antifungal pressure [31,32].
The ERG11 mutations found in our study consisted of four sites that were reported in previous studies [15,16,33,34]. Furthermore, the A395T mutation was the major missense mutation site found in more than 80% of previous studies and resulted in a high fluconazole MIC, especially as a homozygous mutation [15]. The A395T mutation was shown to alter the binding of heme to azole without altering enzyme activity which may be the reason for the isolates in our study that this mutation does not need the ERG11 gene overexpression when counteracted with azoles [35]. However, further studies of the UPC2 genes which are involved in the ERG11 regulation are warranted [36].
Upregulation of the MDR1 and CDR1 genes may play a role in resistance to azoles, which was described in previous studies [15,16]. Similar to the previous studies, our results did not report a statistically significant difference in MDR1 and CDR1 gene expression between the azole-resistant and azole-susceptible isolates [15,37]. However, we found a higher level of expression of the CDR1 gene in the R-WOM isolates. A recent study also revealed the role of the Tac1, which regulates the overexpression of the CDR1 gene [38]. However, further investigations are needed to study the precise function of the other efflux pump genes such as CDR2 and CDR3 genes in azole-resistant C. tropicalis from our institute [37,38].
In conclusion, our results revealed two factors: female sex and leukemia that had not previously been reported in association with blood isolates of C. tropicalis resistant to azole. While ERG11 missense mutations played an important role in azole resistance, neither higher expression of the ERG11 nor drug transporter genes contributed to this phenotype. Other resistance mechanisms and additional genotyping to evaluate the potential the environmental transmission of the azole-resistant isolates remain to be further studied.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jof8100983/s1, Table S1. Primers used in this study; Table S2. Antifungal susceptibility test results, missense mutation of ERG11 gene and gene expression levels of Candida tropicalis blood isolates Refs. [33,39] are cited in the Supplementary Materials file.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, T.L. and P.N.; methodology, T.L.; validation, T.L. and O.T.; formal analysis, T.L.; investigation, T.L. and O.T.; resources, T.L and O.T.; data curation, T.L.; writing—original draft preparation, T.L.; writing—review and editing, P.N.; visualization, T.L.; supervision, P.N.; project administration, O.T.; funding acquisition, P.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The study was supported by the Siriraj Research Fund, Grant Number R016333035, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was carried out according to the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Siriraj Hospital Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital (certificate of approval Si 802/2019 and approval date 28 November 2019).
Informed Consent Statement
Patient consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of this study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the Thailand Personal Data Protection Act.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the Mycobacteriology and Mycology laboratory at the Department of Microbiology, the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University for providing strains and preliminary identification results.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results.
References
- Bongomin, F.; Gago, S.; Oladele, R.O.; Denning, D.W. Global and Multi-National Prevalence of Fungal Diseases-Estimate Precision. J. Fungi 2017, 3, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pfaller, M.A.; Diekema, D.J.; Turnidge, J.D.; Castanheira, M.; Jones, R.N. Twenty Years of the SENTRY Antifungal Surveillance Program: Results for Candida Species from 1997–2016. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2019, 6, S79–S94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boonsilp, S.; Homkaew, A.; Phumisantiphong, U.; Nutalai, D.; Wongsuk, T. Species Distribution, Antifungal Susceptibility, and Molecular Epidemiology of Candida Species Causing Candidemia in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ngamchokwathana, C.; Chongtrakool, P.; Waesamaae, A.; Chayakulkeeree, M. Risk Factors and Outcomes of Non-albicans Candida Bloodstream Infection in Patients with Candidemia at Siriraj Hospital—Thailand’s Largest National Tertiary Referral Hospital. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, I.Y.; Jeong, S.J.; Kim, Y.K.; Kim, H.Y.; Song, Y.G.; Kim, J.M.; Choi, J.Y. A multicenter retrospective analysis of the antifungal susceptibility patterns of Candida species and the predictive factors of mortality in South Korean patients with candidemia. Medicine 2020, 99, e19494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Tang, D.; Tang, K.; Guo, J.; Huang, Y.; Li, C. Multilocus Sequence Typing Reveals Clonality of Fluconazole-Nonsusceptible Candida tropicalis: A Study from Wuhan to the Global. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, M.; Chen, S.C.-A.; Kong, F.; Xu, X.-L.; Yan, L.; Kong, H.-S.; Fan, X.; Hou, X.; Cheng, J.-W.; Zhou, M.-L.; et al. Distribution and Antifungal Susceptibility of Candida Species Causing Candidemia in China: An Update From the CHIF-NET Study. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 221, S139–S147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leepattarakit, T.; Tulyaprawat, O.; Vongseenin, C.; Rujirachun, P.; Wattanachayakul, P.; Phichinitikorn, P.; Phoompoung, P.; Ngamskulrungroj, P. EQUAL Candida score, an effective tool for predicting the outcomes of Candida tropicalis candidaemia: A retrospective cohort study. Mycoses 2022, 65, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, H.; Singh, S.; Rudramurthy, S.M.; Ghosh, A.K.; Jayashree, M.; Narayana, Y.; Ray, P.; Chakrabarti, A. Candidaemia in a tertiary care centre of developing country: Monitoring possible change in spectrum of agents and antifungal susceptibility. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2020, 38, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasani, E.; Yadegari, M.H.; Khodavaisy, S.; Rezaie, S.; Salehi, M.; Getso, M.I. Virulence Factors and Azole-Resistant Mechanism of Candida tropicalis Isolated from Candidemia. Mycopathologia 2021, 186, 847–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, T.Y.; Hsu, L.Y.; Alejandria, M.M.; Chaiwarith, R.; Chinniah, T.; Chayakulkeeree, M.; Choudhury, S.; Chen, Y.H.; Shin, J.H.; Kiratisin, P.; et al. Antifungal susceptibility of invasive Candida bloodstream isolates from the Asia-Pacific region. Med. Mycol. 2016, 54, 471–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aldardeer, N.F.; Albar, H.; Al-Attas, M.; Eldali, A.; Qutub, M.; Hassanien, A.; Alraddadi, B. Antifungal resistance in patients with Candidaemia: A retrospective cohort study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rauseo, A.M.; Olsen, M.A.; Stwalley, D.; Mazi, P.B.; Larson, L.; Powderly, W.G.; Spec, A. Creation and Internal Validation of a Clinical Predictive Model for Fluconazole Resistance in Patients with Candida Bloodstream Infection. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2022, 9, ofac447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whaley, S.G.; Berkow, E.L.; Rybak, J.M.; Nishimoto, A.T.; Barker, K.S.; Rogers, P.D. Azole Antifungal Resistance in Candida albicans and Emerging Non-albicans Candida Species. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fan, X.; Xiao, M.; Zhang, D.; Huang, J.J.; Wang, H.; Hou, X.; Zhang, L.; Kong, F.; Chen, S.C.A.; Tong, Z.H.; et al. Molecular mechanisms of azole resistance in Candida tropicalis isolates causing invasive candidiasis in China. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 885–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teo, J.Q.; Lee, S.J.; Tan, A.L.; Lim, R.S.; Cai, Y.; Lim, T.P.; Kwa, A.L. Molecular mechanisms of azole resistance in Candida bloodstream isolates. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Charlson, M.E.; Pompei, P.; Ales, K.L.; MacKenzie, C.R. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J. Chronic Dis. 1987, 40, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, E.J.; Miller, J.M.; Weinstein, M.P.; Richter, S.S.; Gilligan, P.H.; Thomson, R.B., Jr.; Bourbeau, P.; Carroll, K.C.; Kehl, S.C.; Dunne, W.M.; et al. A Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2013 Recommendations by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM)a. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2013, 57, e22–e121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singer, M.; Deutschman, C.S.; Seymour, C.W.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Annane, D.; Bauer, M.; Bellomo, R.; Bernard, G.R.; Chiche, J.-D.; Coopersmith, C.M.; et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA 2016, 315, 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuervo, G.; Puig-Asensio, M.; Garcia-Vidal, C.; Fernández-Ruiz, M.; Pemán, J.; Nucci, M.; Aguado, J.M.; Salavert, M.; González-Romo, F.; Guinea, J.; et al. A simple prediction score for estimating the risk of candidaemia caused by fluconazole non-susceptible strains. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2015, 21, 684.e1-9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CLSI. Performance Standards for Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts, 2nd ed.; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- CLSI. Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts; Approved Standard—Third Edition; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Danesi, P.; Firacative, C.; Cogliati, M.; Otranto, D.; Capelli, G.; Meyer, W. Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and M13 PCR fingerprinting revealed heterogeneity amongst Cryptococcus species obtained from Italian veterinary isolates. FEMS Yeast Res. 2014, 14, 897–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paul, S.; Singh, S.; Sharma, D.; Chakrabarti, A.; Rudramurthy, S.M.; Ghosh, A.K. Dynamics of in vitro development of azole resistance in Candida tropicalis. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 22, 553–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Livak, K.J.; Schmittgen, T.D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods 2001, 25, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vittinghoff, E.; McCulloch, C.E. Relaxing the Rule of Ten Events per Variable in Logistic and Cox Regression. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2006, 165, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z.L.; Tseng, K.Y.; Chen, Y.Z.; Tsai, D.J.; Wu, C.J.; Chen, Y.C.; Peng, H.L.; Yang, Y.L.; Hsieh, L.Y.; Chen, C.H.; et al. Genetic relatedness among azole-resistant Candida tropicalis clinical strains in Taiwan from 2014 to 2018. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2022, 59, 106592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomaz, D.Y.; de Almeida, J.N.; Sejas, O.N.E.; Del Negro, G.M.B.; Carvalho, G.O.M.H.; Gimenes, V.M.F.; de Souza, M.E.B.; Arastehfar, A.; Camargo, C.H.; Motta, A.L.; et al. Environmental Clonal Spread of Azole-Resistant Candida parapsilosis with Erg11-Y132F Mutation Causing a Large Candidemia Outbreak in a Brazilian Cancer Referral Center. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maertens, J.A.; Girmenia, C.; Brüggemann, R.J.; Duarte, R.F.; Kibbler, C.C.; Ljungman, P.; Racil, Z.; Ribaud, P.; Slavin, M.A.; Cornely, O.A.; et al. European guidelines for primary antifungal prophylaxis in adult haematology patients: Summary of the updated recommendations from the European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 73, 3221–3230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morschhäuser, J. The development of fluconazole resistance in Candida albicans—An example of microevolution of a fungal pathogen. J. Microbiol. 2016, 54, 192–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pappas, P.G.; Kauffman, C.A.; Andes, D.R.; Clancy, C.J.; Marr, K.A.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L.; Reboli, A.C.; Schuster, M.G.; Vazquez, J.A.; Walsh, T.J.; et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015, 62, e1–e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cornely, O.A.; Bassetti, M.; Calandra, T.; Garbino, J.; Kullberg, B.J.; Lortholary, O.; Meersseman, W.; Akova, M.; Arendrup, M.C.; Arikan-Akdagli, S.; et al. ESCMID* *This guideline was presented in part at ECCMID 2011. European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: Non-neutropenic adult patients. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2012, 18, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiang, C.; Dong, D.; Yu, B.; Cai, G.; Wang, X.; Ji, Y.; Peng, Y. Mechanisms of azole resistance in 52 clinical isolates of Candida tropicalis in China. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2012, 68, 778–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xisto, M.I.; Caramalho, R.D.; Rocha, D.A.; Ferreira-Pereira, A.; Sartori, B.; Barreto-Bergter, E.; Junqueira, M.L.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Lackner, M. Pan-azole-resistant Candida tropicalis carrying homozygous erg11 mutations at position K143R: A new emerging superbug? J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 72, 988–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Forastiero, A.; Mesa-Arango, A.C.; Alastruey-Izquierdo, A.; Alcazar-Fuoli, L.; Bernal-Martinez, L.; Pelaez, T.; Lopez, J.F.; Grimalt, J.O.; Gomez-Lopez, A.; Cuesta, I.; et al. Candida tropicalis antifungal cross-resistance is related to different azole target (Erg11p) modifications. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013, 57, 4769–4781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiang, C.; Ni, Q.; Dong, D.; Zhang, L.; Li, Z.; Tian, Y.; Peng, Y. The Role of UPC2 Gene in Azole-Resistant Candida tropicalis. Mycopathologia 2016, 181, 833–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khalifa, H.O.; Watanabe, A.; Kamei, K. Azole and echinocandin resistance mechanisms and genotyping of Candida tropicalis in Japan: Cross-boundary dissemination and animal–human transmission of C. tropicalis infection. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2022, 28, 302.e5–302.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, S.; Shaw, D.; Joshi, H.; Singh, S.; Chakrabarti, A.; Rudramurthy, S.M.; Ghosh, A.K. Mechanisms of azole antifungal resistance in clinical isolates of Candida tropicalis. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0269721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandeputte, P.; Larcher, G.; Bergès, T.; Renier, G.; Chabasse, D.; Bouchara, J.-P. Mechanisms of azole resistance in a clinical isolate of Candida tropicalis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 4608–4615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1.
Flowchart of the study (Abbreviation: FLU-R, fluconazole-resistant; FLU-SDD, fluconazole susceptible-dose dependent; FLU-S, fluconazole-susceptible).
Figure 1.
Flowchart of the study (Abbreviation: FLU-R, fluconazole-resistant; FLU-SDD, fluconazole susceptible-dose dependent; FLU-S, fluconazole-susceptible).
Figure 2.
(A–C) The relative expression level of ERG11, MDR1, and CDR1 genes of fluconazole resistant isolates; FLU-R, and fluconazole susceptible isolates; FLU-S. (D–F) The relative expression level of ERG11, MDR1, and CDR1 genes comparisons among the resistant isolates with detected mutations; R-WM, the resistant strains without detected mutations; R-WOM, and the susceptible isolates; S. The results were performed in technical triplicates. Values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. * indicates statistically significant (p < 0.05) whereas ns means non-significant difference.
Figure 2.
(A–C) The relative expression level of ERG11, MDR1, and CDR1 genes of fluconazole resistant isolates; FLU-R, and fluconazole susceptible isolates; FLU-S. (D–F) The relative expression level of ERG11, MDR1, and CDR1 genes comparisons among the resistant isolates with detected mutations; R-WM, the resistant strains without detected mutations; R-WOM, and the susceptible isolates; S. The results were performed in technical triplicates. Values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. * indicates statistically significant (p < 0.05) whereas ns means non-significant difference.
Table 1.
Demographic data and clinical characteristics of patients with Candida tropicalis bloodstream infection.
Table 1.
Demographic data and clinical characteristics of patients with Candida tropicalis bloodstream infection.
| Characteristic | Total N = 188, n (%) | Fluconazole Non-Susceptible Isolates n = 76, n (%) | Fluconazole Susceptible Isolates n = 112, n (%) | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic data | ||||
| Age, years ± SD | 58.0 ± 23.6 | 57.9 ± 21.7 | 58.1 ± 25.0 | 0.969 |
| Male sex | 88 (46.8) | 28 (36.8) | 60 (53.6) | 0.024 |
| Intensive care unit admission | 87 (46.3) | 32 (42.1) | 55 (49.1) | 0.345 |
| Comorbidities | ||||
| Myocardial infarction | 23 (12.2) | 8 (10.5) | 15 (13.4) | 0.556 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 15 (18.0) | 3 (3.9) | 12 (10.7) | 0.093 |
| Chronic liver disease | 25 (13.3) | 8 (10.5) | 17 (15.2) | 0.357 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 47 (25.0) | 16 (21.1) | 31 (27.7) | 0.303 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 20 (10.6) | 6 (7.9) | 14 (12.5) | 0.315 |
| Solid tumor | 29 (15.4) | 10 (13.2) | 19 (17.0) | 0.478 |
| Leukemia | 21 (11.2) | 13 (17.1) | 8 (7.1) | 0.033 |
| Lymphoma | 37 (19.7) | 20 (26.3) | 17 (15.2) | 0.059 |
| CCI 1, mean ± SD | 4.5 ± 2.6 | 4.5 ± 2.7 | 4.5 ± 2.6 | 0.963 |
| Predisposing factors 2 | ||||
| Corticosteroid administration | 51 (27.1) | 22 (28.9) | 29 (25.9) | 0.644 |
| Chemotherapy administration | 49 (26.1) | 26 (34.2) | 23 (20.5) | 0.036 |
| Parenteral nutrition | 91 (48.4) | 34 (44.7) | 57 (50.9) | 0.407 |
| Transplantation | 6 (3.2) | 4 (5.3) | 2 (1.8) | 0.224 |
| Antibacterial agents use 2 | ||||
| Penicillin | 114 (60.6) | 47 (61.8) | 67 (59.8) | 0.781 |
| Cephalosporin | 71 (37.8) | 25 (32.9) | 46 (41.1) | 0.256 |
| Carbapenem | 153 (81.4) | 67 (88.2) | 86 (76.8) | 0.049 |
| Fluoroquinolone | 76 (40.4) | 32 (42.1) | 44 (39.3) | 0.699 |
| Metronidazole | 38 (20.2) | 17 (22.4) | 21 (18.8) | 0.544 |
| Glycopeptide | 90 (47.9) | 40 (52.6) | 50 (44.6) | 0.282 |
| Colistin | 46 (24.5) | 18 (23.7) | 28 (25.0) | 0.837 |
| Antifungal agents use 2 | ||||
| Echinocandins | 9 (4.8) | 3 (3.9) | 6 (5.4) | 0.741 |
| Amphotericin B | 6 (3.2) | 4 (5.3) | 2 (1.8) | 0.224 |
| Azoles | 32 (17.0) | 25 (32.9) | 7 (6.3) | <0.001 |
| Severity at onset | ||||
| Sepsis | 169 (89.9) | 69 (90.8) | 100 (89.3) | 0.737 |
| SOFA score, mean ± SD | 7.7 ± 4.6 | 7.5 ± 4.4 | 7.8 ± 4.8 | 0.570 |
| Septic shock | 60 (31.9) | 21 (27.6) | 39 (34.8) | 0.299 |
| Neutropenia | 49 (26.1) | 25 (32.9) | 24 (21.4) | 0.079 |
| Mechanical ventilation use | 106 (56.4) | 40 (52.6) | 66 (58.9) | 0.393 |
| CVC 3 in place | 111 (59.0) | 47 (61.8) | 64 (57.1) | 0.520 |
| Source | ||||
| Primary | 110 (58.5) | 46 (60.5) | 64 (57.1) | 0.644 |
| CRBSI 4 | 68 (36.2) | 27 (35.5) | 41 (36.6) | 0.880 |
| Abdomen | 3 (1.6) | 2 (2.6) | 1 (0.9) | 0.567 |
1 CCI, Charlson’s comorbidity index. 2 Within 30 days before the onset of candidemia. 3 CVC, central venous catheter. 4 CRBSI, catheter-related bloodstream infection.
Table 2.
Univariate and multivariate regression analyses of factors associated with fluconazole non-susceptible C. tropicalis blood isolates.
Table 2.
Univariate and multivariate regression analyses of factors associated with fluconazole non-susceptible C. tropicalis blood isolates.
| Factors | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude OR 1 | 95% CI | p-Value | Adjusted OR 1 | 95% CI | p-Value | |
| Male sex | 0.51 | 0.28–0.92 | 0.025 | 0.38 | 0.19–0.77 | 0.007 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 0.11 | 0.09–1.26 | 0.106 | 0.22 | 0.04–1.12 | 0.068 |
| Leukemia | 2.68 | 1.05–6.83 | 0.039 | 3.15 | 1.03–9.63 | 0.044 |
| Lymphoma | 2.00 | 0.97–4.13 | 0.062 | 1.77 | 0.77–4.06 | 0.177 |
| Recent chemotherapy administration 2 | 2.01 | 1.04–3.89 | 0.038 | |||
| Recent carbapenems use 2 | 2.25 | 0.99–5.12 | 0.053 | 2.44 | 0.94–6.35 | 0.068 |
| Recent azoles use 2 | 7.35 | 2.98–18.13 | <0.001 | 10.56 | 3.56–31.32 | <0.001 |
| Neutropenia at onset | 1.80 | 0.93–3.47 | 0.081 | |||
1 OR, odds ratio. 2 Within 30 days before the onset of candidemia.
Table 3.
Missense mutations in the ERG11 gene in resistant strains.
| Amino Acid Substitutions | Nucleotide Mutation | Number of Isolates (%) | MIC of Fluconazole (mg/L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | MIC50 | MIC90 | |||
| Y132F, S154F | A395T, A461T | 28 (52.8%) | 32 to >256 | >256 | >256 |
| A395W 1, A461Y | 13 (24.5%) | 8 to >256 | 32 | 128 | |
| Y132F, S154F, Y257H | A395W, A461Y, T769Y | 1 (1.9%) | 128–128 | 128 | 128 |
| K143R | A428G | 2 (3.8%) | 64–64 | 64 | 64 |
1 Underline letters represent heterozygous mutation.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Leepattarakit, T.; Tulyaprawat, O.; Ngamskulrungroj, P. The Risk Factors and Mechanisms of Azole Resistance of Candida tropicalis Blood Isolates in Thailand: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 983. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8100983
AMA Style
Leepattarakit T, Tulyaprawat O, Ngamskulrungroj P. The Risk Factors and Mechanisms of Azole Resistance of Candida tropicalis Blood Isolates in Thailand: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(10):983. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8100983
Chicago/Turabian StyleLeepattarakit, Teera, Orawan Tulyaprawat, and Popchai Ngamskulrungroj. 2022. "The Risk Factors and Mechanisms of Azole Resistance of Candida tropicalis Blood Isolates in Thailand: A Retrospective Cohort Study" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 10: 983. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8100983
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
