Next Article in Journal
A Novel Monoclonal Antibody 1D2 That Broadly Inhibits Clinically Important Aspergillus Species
Next Article in Special Issue
An Increase in Specialist Treatment for Onychomycosis: An Unexplained Tendency. A Retrospective Study of Patients Treated for Onychomycosis in Danish Hospitals from 1994 to 2018
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of Candidate Ice Nucleation Activity (INA) Genes in Fusarium avenaceum by Combining Phenotypic Characterization with Comparative Genomics and Transcriptomics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Synergism between the Antidepressant Sertraline and Caspofungin as an Approach to Minimise the Virulence and Resistance in the Dermatophyte Trichophyton rubrum
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 8
Issue 9
10.3390/jof8090959
jof-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

In Vitro Assessment of Azole and Amphotericin B Susceptibilities of Malassezia spp. Isolated from Healthy and Lesioned Skin

by
Wissal Chebil
1,
Najoua Haouas
1,
Elja Eskes
2,
Paul Vandecruys
2,
Sameh Belgacem
3,
Hichem Belhadj Ali
4,
Hamouda Babba
1 and
Patrick Van Dijck
2,*
1
Laboratory of Medical and Molecular Parasitology-Mycology (LR12ES08), Department of Clinical Biology B, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Monastir, Monastir 5000, Tunisia
2
Laboratory of Molecular Cell Biology, Institute of Botany and Microbiology, Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences, KU Leuven, Heverlee, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
3
Laboratory of Parasitology-Mycology, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital, Monastir 5000, Tunisia
4
Dermatology Department, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital, Monastir 5000, Tunisia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2022, 8(9), 959; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8090959
Submission received: 11 August 2022 / Revised: 6 September 2022 / Accepted: 10 September 2022 / Published: 13 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Perspectives for Superficial Fungal Infections)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Malassezia yeasts have recently gained medical importance as emerging pathogens associated with a wide range of dermatological and systemic infections. Since standardized methods for in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing have not yet been established for Malassezia spp., related diseases are always treated empirically. As a result, a high rate of recurrence and decreased antifungal susceptibility have appeared. Thus, the aims of the study were to assess and analyze the in vitro susceptibility of Malassezia isolated from pityriasis versicolor (PV) lesions and healthy controls. A total of 58 Malassezia strains isolated from PV patients and healthy controls were tested. In vitro antifungal susceptibility testing was conducted using the CLSI broth microdilution with some modifications. Candida spp. criteria established in accordance with CLSI guidelines were used for data interpretation. Ketoconazole and posaconazole seemed to be the most effective molecules against Malassezia species. However, considerable percentages of itraconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B ‘‘resistant’’ strains (27.6%, 29.3%, and 43.1%, respectively) were revealed in this study. Malassezia furfur, M. sympodialis, and M. globosa showed different susceptibility profiles to the drugs tested. These results emphasize the importance of accurately identifying and evaluating the antifungal susceptibility of Malassezia species in order to guide a specific and effective treatment regimen.

1. Introduction

Lipophilic yeasts of the genus Malassezia have been recognized as commensals of the normal skin of humans and warm-blooded animals [1], but species of this genus have become emerging pathogens associated with a wide range of dermatological diseases, such as Pityriasis versicolor (PV), Malassezia folliculitis, seborrheic dermatitis/dandruff, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis [1,2]. PV is the prototypical skin disease etiologically connected to these fungi and is one of the most common superficial mycoses in humans worldwide [3]. This is also the case in Tunisia, with M. globosa, M. sympodialis, and M. furfur the most common species [4,5]. Apart from these superficial infections, Malassezia spp. have also been linked to a rising number of severe systemic infections, particularly in immunocompromised patients receiving parenteral nutrition and in premature neonates [6]. More recently, Malassezia species have been reported to be associated with gastrointestinal diseases, including inflammatory bowel diseases, gastric and colorectal cancer, as well as with neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease [7,8,9].
Despite many attempts to control yeast infections with topical and systemic antifungals, recurrence is often noticed, especially in the case of skin diseases [6]. Moreover, the occurrence of drug resistance phenomena has been suggested by many authors. Indeed, the induction of in vitro fluconazole (FLZ) resistance was described in M. pachydermatis [10,11]. In addition, there is clinical evidence of treatment failure with terbinafine in patients with PV, and with ketoconazole (KTZ) in dogs with otitis [12,13,14], and with FLZ or posaconazole (POS) in preventing M. furfur fungemia in humans [15,16,17,18]. In addition to the probable acquired resistance, the increased incidence of invasive infections emphasizes the need to study the susceptibility profile of these yeasts in order to choose a specific and accurate treatment [19]. However, due to Malassezia yeasts’ slow growth, lipid dependency, and tendency to form clusters, standardized methods for the in vitro evaluation of antifungal susceptibility are lacking, resulting in variable susceptibility profiles and the lack of clinical breakpoints [20]. Recently, it was suggested that the modified Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution (CLSI BMD) method using Sabouraud dextrose broth (SDB) added with 1% Tween 80 might be optimal for testing azole susceptibility, mainly for M. furfur [20,21]. Moreover, compared with RPMI and Christensen’s urea broth, SDB was the only medium able to identify isolates with high FLZ minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) [21]. However, data on the antifungal susceptibility profiles of Malassezia spp. coming from healthy and diseased human skin are scarce. Thus, this study aims to (i) assess the in vitro susceptibility of Malassezia isolated from PV lesions and healthy controls to FLZ, KTZ, itraconazole (ITZ), POS, and amphotericin B (AMB) using the modified CLSI BMD method, and (ii) analyze the in vitro susceptibility profiles according to clinical origin and species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Malassezia Strains

In this study, 58 Malassezia strains were tested, including M. furfur (n = 38), M. sympodialis (n = 11), and M. globosa (n = 9). Malassezia strains were isolated from Pityriasis versicolor patients (Group 1: n = 40) and from the skin of healthy controls (Group 2: n = 18) at the laboratory of Parasitology-Mycology of the university hospital Fattouma Bourguiba (Monastir, Tunisia). All the isolates were pre-identified phenotypically (i.e., macroscopically, microscopically, and physiologically), as previously reported by Guého et al. [22], and molecularly using the PCR multiplex of the Internal Transcribed Spacer ITS region [23]. Briefly, DNA amplification was carried out in a 50 µL reaction volume, with 5 µL of 10x PCR buffer, 100 µmol/L of each of the four dNTPs, 2.5 U of Taq DNA polymerase, and 0.5 mol/L of each oligonucleotide. For all strains, the phenotypic characterization and the PCR analysis was consistent. After the identification step, strains were conserved at −80 °C. Prior to testing, each isolate was sub-cultured at least twice onto modified Dixon agar to ensure purity and viability.

2.2. In Vitro Susceptibility Testing

The testing of the antifungal susceptibility of Malassezia strains was performed using the reference CLSI BMD M27-A3 protocol [24,25] with some modifications. Specifically, Sabouraud dextrose broth (Biolife, Milano, Italy) containing 1% Tween 80 (Sigma Co., Milano, Italy) was used instead of RPMI 1640 medium as previously reported [11,21]. Stock inoculum suspensions were prepared from 4-day-old colonies on modified Dixon agar at 32 °C. Cluster formation was avoided while preparing the inoculum suspension by using sterile glass beads and vortexing. The final concentration of the stock inoculum in sterile distilled water was adjusted to an optical density of 0.4 at 660 nm (2.4 McFarland using a turbidimeter), which is equivalent to 1–5 × 106 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL, as inferred by quantitative plate counts of CFU on Dixon agar. Subsequently, two dilutions (1:100 and 1:20) of the inoculum in the SDB medium were performed, and a total of 100 µL of the final dilution was transferred into a 96-well microtiter plate containing 100 µL of each drug dilution. Duplicates of each strain were incubated for 72 h at 32 °C together with a negative control (medium only).
The following antifungal drugs were supplied by the manufacturers as pure standard compounds: FLZ, KTZ, AMB, POS, and ITZ (all from Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Fluconazole was dissolved in sterile water, whereas the remaining drugs were solubilized in DMSO (1%) (Sigma-Aldrich) and stored at −20 °C until they were used. The concentration of each antifungal drug ranged from 0.016 to 16 mg/L, except for FLZ (i.e., from 0.06 to 64 mg/L). The visual reading of plates was performed after 48 and 72 h of incubation at 32 °C. MICs were defined as the lowest concentration of antifungal drug which visually inhibited 50% of fungal growth for azole antifungals and 100% for AMB as compared with the control wells with no antifungal drug. Quality control strains (Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019 and Candida krusei ATCC 6258; American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA, USA) were included to assess the accuracy of the drug dilutions and the reproducibility of the results.

2.3. Data Interpretation

The data that were obtained are reported as the mean MIC (mMIC), the MIC at which 50% of the isolated were inhibited (MIC50), and the MIC at which 90% of the isolates were inhibited (MIC90). Since breakpoints to classify strains as susceptible (S), susceptible dependent upon dose (SDD), or resistant (R) are lacking for Malassezia genus, Candida spp. criteria (i.e., KTZ: S ≤ 8 mg/L, R ≥ 16 mg/L; ITZ: S ≤ 0.125 mg/L, SDD 0.25–0.5 mg/L, R ≥ 1 mg/L; FLZ: S ≤ 8 mg/L, SDD 16–32 mg/L, R ≥ 64 mg/L) established in accordance with CLSI guidelines [24,25] were used in the present study. Since breakpoints for AMB and the triazole POS have not yet been established, the breakpoints for voriconazole (S ≤ 1 mg/L, SDD 2 mg/L, R ≥ 4 mg/L) were used for POS, whereas AMB isolates were considered susceptible when MIC was ≤1 mg/L [26].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were statistically analyzed using Statistical Package For Social Sciences Software (SPSS for Windows, version 20.0. IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to evaluate the differences among mMIC values within the different groups and species, respectively. The Chi-squared test was employed to compare the prevalence of Malassezia strains S, SDD, and R to the antifungal drugs tested. A value of p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

All quality control MIC values for C. parapsilosis determined after 48 h were within the ranges established by the CLSI (0.5–4 for AMB; 1–4 for FLZ; 0.125–0.5 for ITZ; 0.06–0.5 for KTZ; and 0.06–0.25 for POS). For C. krusei, the MIC values were 1–4 for AMB; 16–128 for FLZ; 0.25–1 for ITZ and KTZ; and 0.125–1 for POS within 48 h [24]. A good growth of M. furfur and M. sympodialis was observed in SDB (after 72 h), but for M. globosa, we extended the reading time to 5 days because of slow growth (data not shown).

3.1. In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Assessment According to the Clinical Origin

The MIC range, mean MIC, MIC50, and MIC90 values obtained for the five antifungal drugs included in this investigation are summarized in Table 1 according to patient group. Overall, FLZ MICs were higher than those observed for other azole drugs and ranged from 32 to >64 mg/L and from 8 to >64 mg/L for isolates from the patient group and control group, respectively. However, POS and ITZ displayed the lowest mMIC, MIC50, and MIC90 values regardless of the clinical origin. In the origin group, the mMICs of FLZ and KTZ were higher in the patient group than in the healthy control group with no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.13 and p = 0.81, respectively). However, significantly higher mMICs were reported in the patient group with the triazole ITZ (p = 0.008). On the other hand, the mMICs of POS and AMB were significantly higher in the control group (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively).

3.2. In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Assessment According to the Species

Malassezia furfur displayed the highest mean MICs and MIC90 values to FLZ and ITZ. Malassezia globosa showed wide-ranging and higher mean MICs, MIC50, and MIC90 against KTZ, POS, and AMB. M. sympodialis seems to be the most susceptible species, especially for FLZ, KTZ, ITZ, and AMB. However, no significant difference in each antifungal activity was noted between the different species (Table 2).

3.3. Interpretive Antifungal Susceptibility

Of all the tested isolates, 100% and 98.3% were susceptible to KTZ and POS, respectively, while 43.1%, 29.3%, and 27.6% of strains were found to be resistant to AMB, FLZ, and ITZ, respectively. Regarding the clinical origin, isolates from both origins were susceptible to KTZ and POS (~100%). However, they were less susceptible to FLZ, ITZ, and AMB. The frequency of resistant strains to ITZ and AMB seemed to be higher within healthy skin isolates (44.5% and 66.6% vs. 20% and 30%, respectively). The differences were significant, with p = 0.02 and p = 0.04 (Table 3).
Regarding the species, 42.1% of M. furfur had MICs ≥ 2 mg/L for AMB, 34.2% showed MICs ≥ 64 mg/L for FLZ, and 28.9% had MICs ≥ 1 mg/L for ITZ. Likewise, 33.3% of M. globosa had MICs ≥ 2 mg/L for AMB, 33.3% showed MICs ≥ 64 mg/L for FLZ, and 44.5% had MICs ≥ 1 mg/L for ITZ. Of the M. sympodialis strains, 45.4% showed MICs ≥ 2 mg/L for AMB. Considering the standards established by the CLSI for Candida spp., these isolates would be categorized as resistant (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Our findings showed variable in vitro activity for the most used drugs (FLZ, KTZ, ITZ, POS, and AMB) for treating Malassezia-related diseases. All the azoles tested showed good antifungal activity except FLZ, which exhibited high mMICs, MIC 50, and MIC90 regardless of the species and the clinical origin of Malassezia isolates. The lower antifungal activity of FLZ observed was in agreement with previous studies using similar or different culture media [20,27,28,29,30]. A considerable percentage of FLZ-resistant strains (29.3%) was also revealed in this study. A higher level of FLZ resistance was previously reported using the same methodology [11,21], thus indicating that SDB might be useful for detecting FLZ-resistant isolates. Yet, it is noteworthy that FLZ mMICs from Malassezia bloodstream infections (BSI) were higher (demonstrated by wide ranges) than those from human skin [21,27,28]. This finding may imply that BSI isolates developed antifungal resistance as a result of biofilm formation, as previously demonstrated for M. pachydermatis [31,32]. Additionally, five M. furfur strains showed high FLZ, AMB, and ITZ mMICs (>64, ≥2, and ≥1 mg/L, respectively), six had high AMB and ITZ mMICs (≥2 and ≥1 mg/L, respectively), and two exhibited high FLZ and AMB mMICs (>64 and ≥2mg/L, respectively). This finding is in favor of a cross-resistance phenomenon. Although this event was well documented in M. pachydermatis [10,16,27,33,34], this is the second report describing such phenomenon in M. furfur. This might explain the poor clinical outcome for some M. furfur fungemia [18,21,35,36]. Detailed investigations into resistance mechanisms in human Malassezia isolates are needed in order to understand the emergence of new resistant strains. So far, and similar to other fungal species, mutations in ERG11, encoding an enzyme in ergosterol biosynthesis and genomic duplications of drug efflux pumps, have been described [37,38,39].
In this study, MIC values obtained for KTZ, POS, and ITZ were considerably lower than those for FLZ. This finding was in line with other studies using different methodologies [19,21,27,40]. However, KTZ and POS seem to be the most active molecules against Malassezia spp. In fact, 100% and 98.3% of strains were found to be susceptible, respectively. This higher activity of KTZ was reported by many authors in different studies [19,27,41,42,43]. Ketoconazole is likely the most extensively studied azole compound with good in vitro activity, making it an excellent choice for the topical treatment of Malassezia-related conditions [27]. However, this azole is no longer recommended as first-line treatment because of its toxicity [19]. Thus, POS and ITZ could be effective alternative options, as shown in previous studies using the CLSI protocol [20,27,28]. Nevertheless, a sizable percentage of ITZ-resistant isolates (27.6%) was reported in this study. Thus, POS might be used as an optimal antifungal agent for the management of pityriasis versicolor and other skin diseases.
As for AMB, the M27-A3 document states that Candida species with MICs ≥ 2 mg/L are likely resistant. Accordingly, we recorded high mean AMB mMICs, MIC50, and MIC90 and wide MIC ranges, particularly within M. furfur and M. globosa. In addition, 43.1% of the isolates showed MIC > 1 mg/L. The low in vitro efficacy of AMB registered herein is concordant with other previous findings [19,21,28,30,41]. Since standard methods for determining the antifungal susceptibility of Malassezia spp. have not been validated by a consensus procedure, these data need to be confirmed by assessing the clinical outcome of this drug.
According to the clinical origin, significantly higher mMICs with the triazole ITZ were reported within the patient group. On the other hand, POS and AMB MIC data were surprisingly higher from healthy skin than lesional skin. In addition, the percentages of resistant strains to ITZ and AMB found within controls were significantly higher than those reported within PV patients (p = 0.02 and 0.04, respectively), which was not expected. To our knowledge, studies evaluating the in vitro susceptibility of Malassezia from healthy and lesioned skin are scant, making strong statements about our findings difficult. In fact, the sole study comparing the in vitro susceptibility of M. pachydermatis isolated from healthy and lesioned skins was carried out on a canine population. That study revealed higher MIC50 for KTZ and POS in skin lesions than in healthy skin [44]. In addition, the small number of Malassezia isolated from healthy controls (i.e., n = 18) used in the current study and the lack of prior investigations on the subject prevent us from drawing an evidence-based conclusion about the relationship between the occurrence of lesions and the antifungal profile. This topic requires further investigation. Studying the antifungal susceptibility profiles of Malassezia isolates coming from skin and bloodstream infections might also be interesting in order to assess the impact of the clinical origin on the antifungal profiles of these yeast species.
Regarding the species, the highest MICs with the widest ranges for all drugs tested, especially FLZ, KTZ, and ITZ, were for M. furfur. In addition, 42.1%, 34.2%, and 28.9% of strains would be categorized as resistant for AMB, FLZ, and KTZ, respectively. Similar results were obtained by others using modified microdilution methods [19,27]. In contrast, POS was the most active drug against this species, with low MICs and limited variation in susceptibility among different isolates.
Malassezia globosa also exhibited high MICs, particularly to FLZ, KTZ, POS, and AMB. In contrast, all isolates of M. globosa tested were susceptible in vitro to KTZ (MIC ≤ 8 mg/L). These findings are comparable with those of Rojas et al. [19]. According to previous research [19,27,41,42,43,45], M. globosa is one of the least susceptible species to antifungal drugs. Indeed, in the current study, two isolates of M. globosa exhibited high MICs for FLZ, ITZ, and AMB (64 mg/L, ≥1mg/L, and ≥4 mg/L, respectively), thus suggesting a possible cross-resistance in M. globosa as well. Rojas et al. previously reported the presence of M. globosa isolates showing high MICs for FLZ, MCZ, and AMB [19]. In addition, Miranda et al. described a similar case of one isolate showing low susceptibility to ITZ, VCZ, and FLZ [43].
Comparably, M. sympodialis had almost the lowest MICs and the lowest intraspecies variation. Ketoconazole, ITZ, and AMB were the most active drugs against this species. This observation is in line with previous studies considering M. sympodialis one of the most susceptible species to all antifungals [19,27,45].
The differences observed between Malassezia furfur, M. sympodialis, and M. globosa emphasize the importance of accurately identifying and evaluating the antifungal susceptibility of the three major pathogenic Malassezia species in human diseases [19]. Finally, in the absence of clinical break points, experts recently agreed that epidemiological cut-off values (ECVs) could be beneficial for differentiating susceptible (i.e., wild-type (WT)) and resistant (i.e., non-WT) isolates, and are thus useful for monitoring the emergence of isolates with decreased susceptibilities [20,46,47,48]. However, “tentative” azole ECVs were solely established for M. pachydermatis and M. furfur isolated from human bloodstream infections [20]. Hence, additional and multicenter studies are needed to set epidemiological and clinical susceptibility breakpoints for this genus.
In conclusion, regardless of the species, Malassezia yeasts are susceptible to POS, ITZ, and KTZ but less so to FLZ and AMB. Although FLZ, ITZ, and AMB are among the most commonly used antifungal agents worldwide, our results showed higher MICs and higher percentages of ‘‘resistant” strains than for other molecules. This study may constitute an alarm for the scientific community regarding rising resistance in clinical Malassezia isolates. Nonetheless, the interspecies variability of the MIC distribution highlights the importance of defining each species’ susceptibility profile in order to obtain reliable information for implementing an effective treatment regimen against Malassezia-related diseases [20].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.C., N.H. and H.B.; data curation, W.C., S.B. and H.B.A.; methodology, W.C., E.E., P.V. and S.B.; supervision, N.H., H.B. and P.V.D.; validation, H.B. and P.V.D.; visualization, N.H.; writing—original draft, W.C.; writing—review and editing, N.H. and P.V.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Tunisia. W.C. received a 3-month fellowship from the University of Monastir to carry out the current study in collaboration with the Laboratory of Molecular Cell Biology, Institute of Botany and Microbiology, KU Leuven.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine (University of Monastir, Tunisia (IRB log number IORG 0009738 N15/OMB 0990-0279). All patients or their legal representatives signed a specific written informed consent for the study involved.

Data Availability Statement

All original data can be obtained from the authors.

Acknowledgments

All members of the Parasitology-Mycology Laboratory of both Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital and the Faculty of Pharmacy deserve our heartfelt gratitude for their great support. We also thank all the MCB laboratory members for their help and support, especially Anna Rita Pinto, Martine De Jonge, and Celia Lobo Romero.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Theelen, B.; Cafarchia, C.; Gaitanis, G.; Bassukas, I.D.; Boekhout, T.; Dawson, T.L.J. Malassezia ecology, pathophysiology, and treatment. Med. Mycol. 2018, 56 (Suppl. S1), S10–S25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jagielski, T.; Rup, E.; Ziółkowska, A.; Roeske, K.; Macura, A.B.; Bielecki, J. Distribution of Malassezia species on the skin of patients with atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and healthy volunteers assessed by conventional and molecular identification methods. BMC Dermatol. 2014, 14, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Crespo-Erchiga, V.; Florencio, V.D. Malassezia yeasts and pityriasis versicolor. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2006, 19, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Prohić, A.; Jovović Sadiković, T.; Kuskunović-Vlahovljak, S.; Baljić, R. Distribution of Malassezia species in patients with different dermatological disorders and healthy individuals. Acta Dermatovenerol. Croat. 2016, 24, 274–281. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chebil, W.; Haouas, N.; Chaâbane-Banaoues, R.; remadi, L.; Chargui, N.; M’rad, S.; Belgacem, S.; Salah, A.B.; Ali, H.B.; Chemli, Z.; et al. Epidemiology of Pityriasis versicolor in Tunisia: Clinical features and characterization of Malassezia species. J. Mycol. Med. 2022, 32, 101246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rhimi, W.; Theelen, B.; Boekhout, T.; Aneke, C.I.; Otranto, D.; Cafarchia, C. Conventional therapy and new antifungal drugs against Malassezia infections. Med. Mycol. 2021, 59, 215–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Abdillah, A.; Ranque, S. Chronic diseases assciated with Malassezia yeast. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yang, P.; Zhang, X.; Xu, R.; Adeel, K.; Lu, X.; Chen, M.; Shen, H.; Li, Z.; Xu, Z. Fungal microbiota dysbiosis and ecological alterations in gastric cancer. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 889694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Underhill, D.M.; Braun, J. Fungal microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: A critical assessment. J. Clin. Invest. 2022, 132, e155786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jesus, F.P.; Lautert, C.; Zanette, R.A.; Mahl, D.L.; Azevedo, M.I.; Machado, M.L.S.; Botton, S.A.; Alves, S.H.; Santurio, J.M. In vitro susceptibility of fluconazole-susceptible and -resistant isolates of Malassezia pachydermatis against azoles. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 152, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cafarchia, C.; Figueredo, L.A.; Favuzzi, V.; Surico, M.R.; Colao, V.; Iatta, R.; Montagna, M.T.; Otranto, D. Assessment of the antifungal susceptibility of Malassezia pachydermatis in various media using a CLSI protocol. Vet. Microbiol. 2012, 159, 536–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kim, N.Y.; Pandya, A.G. Pigmentary diseases. Med. Clin. N. Am. 1998, 82, 1185–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, M.; Cho, Y.J.; Park, M.; Choi, Y.; Hwang, S.Y.; Jung, W.H. Genomic tandem quadruplication is associated with ketoconazole resistance in Malassezia pachydermatis. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 28, 1937–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gupta, P.; Chakrabarti, A.; Singhi, S.; Kumar, P.; Honnavar, P.; Rudramurthy, S.M. Skin colonization by Malassezia spp. in hospitalized neonates and infants in a tertiary care centre in North India. Mycopathologia 2014, 178, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Choudhury, S.; Marte, R.L. Malassezia pachydermatis fungaemia in an adult on posaconazole prophylaxis for acute myeloid leukaemia. Pathology 2014, 46, 466–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Iatta, R.; Cafarchia, C.; Cuna, T.; Montagna, O.; Laforgia, N.; Gentile, O.; Rizzo, A.; Boekhout, T.; Otranto, D.; Montagna, M.T. Bloodstream infections by Malassezia and Candida species in critical care. Med. Mycol. 2014, 52, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pedrosa, A.F.; Lisboa, C.; Rodrigues, A.G. Malassezia infections with systemic involvement: Figures and facts. J. Dermatol. 2018, 45, 1278–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, I.T.; Chen, C.C.; Huang, H.C.; Kuo, K.C. Malassezia furfur emergance and candidemia trends in a neonatal intensive care unit during 10 years: The experience of fluconazole prophylaxis in a single hospital. Adv. Neonatal. Care 2020, 20, E3–E8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rojas, F.D.; Sosa, M.d.A.; Fernández, M.S.; Cattana, M.E.; Córdoba, S.B.; Giusiano, G.E. Antifungal susceptibility of Malassezia furfur, Malassezia sympodialis, and Malassezia globosa to azole drugs and amphortericin B evaluated using a broth microdilution method. Med. Mycol. 2014, 52, 641–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cafarchia, C.; Iatta, R.; Immediato, D.; Puttilli, M.R.; Otranto, D. Azole susceptibility of Malassezia pachydermatis and Malassezia furfur and tentative epidemiological cut-off values. Med. Mycol. 2015, 53, 743–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Iatta, R.; Figueredo, L.A.; Montagna, M.T.; Otranto, D.; Cafarchia, C. In vitro antifungal susceptibility of Malassezia furfur from bloodstream infections. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014, 63 Pt 11, 1467–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Guého, E.; Midgley, G.; Guillot, J. The genus Malassezia with description of four new species. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 1996, 69, 337–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Vuran, E.; Karaarslan, A.; Karasartova, D.; Turegun, B.; Sahin, F. Identification of Malassezia species from pityriasis versicolor lesions with a new multiplex PCR method. Mycopathologia 2014, 177, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. CLSI document M27-A3; Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeast; Approved Standard-Third Edition. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2008.
  25. CLSI document M27-S4; Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts. Fourth Informational Supplement. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2012.
  26. Diekema, D.J.; Messer, S.A.; Boyken, L.B.; Hollis, R.J.; Kroeger, J.; Tendolkar, S.; Pfaller, M.A. In vitro activity of seven systemically active antifungal agents against a large global collection of rare Candida species as determined by CLSI broth microdilution methods. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009, 47, 3170–3177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Carrillo-Muñoz, A.J.; Rojas, F.; Tur-Tur, C.; de Los Ángeles Sosa, M.; Diez, G.O.; Espada, C.M.; Payá, M.J.; Giusano, G. In vitro antifungal activity of topical and systemic antifungal drugs against Malassezia species. Mycoses 2013, 56, 571–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rhimi, W.; Inyang Aneke, C.; Mosca, A.; Otranto, D.; Cafarchia, C. In vitro azole and amphotericin B susceptibilities of Malasezia furfur from bloodstream infections using E-test and CLSI broth microdilution methods. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Leong, C.; Buttafuoco, A.; Glatz, M.; Bosshard, P.P. Antifungal susceptibility testing of Malassezia spp. with an optimized colorimetric broth microdilution method. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 55, 1883–1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rojas, F.D.; Córdoba, S.B.; de Los Ángeles Sosa, M.; Zalazar, L.C.; Fernández, M.S.; Cattana, M.E.; Alegre, L.R.; Carrillo-Muñoz, A.J.; Giusano, G. Antifungal susceptibility testing of Malassezia yeast: Comparison of two different methodologies. Mycoses 2017, 60, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Figueredo, L.A.; Cafarchia, C.; Desantis, S.; Otranto, D. Biofilm formation of Malassezia pachydermatis from dogs. Vet. Microbiol. 2012, 160, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Figueredo, L.A.; Cafarchia, C.; Otranto, D. Antifungal susceptibility of Malassezia pachydermatis biofilm. Med. Mycol. 2013, 51, 863–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cafarchia, C.; Figueredo, L.A.; Iatta, R.; Montagna, M.T.; Otranto, D. In vitro antifungal susceptibility of Malassezia pachydermatis from dogs with and without skin lesions. Vet. Microbiol. 2012, 155, 395–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Nijima, M.; Kano, R.; Nagata, M.; Hasegawa, A.; Kamata, H. An azole-resistant isolate of Malassezia pachydermatis. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 149, 288–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Al-Sweih, N.; Ahmad, S.; Joseph, L.; Khan, S.; Khan, Z. Malasseizia pachydermatis fungemia in a preterm neonate resistant to fluconazole and flucytosine. Med. Mycol. Case Rep. 2014, 5, 9–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Angileri, M.; Pasquetti, M.; De Lucia, M.; Peano, A. Azole resistance of Malassezia pachydermatis causing treatment failure in a dog. Med. Mycol. Case Rep. 2018, 23, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kano, R.; Murayama, N. Rapid molecular detection of antifungal-resistant strains of Malassezia pachydermatis. Med. Mycol. J. 2022, 63, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Park, M.; Cho, Y.J.; Lee, Y.W.; Jung, W.H. genomic mutiplication and drug efflux influence ketoconazole resistance in Malassezia restricta. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Leong, C.; Kit, J.C.W.; Lee, S.M.; Lam, Y.I.; Goh, J.P.Z.; Ianiri, G.; Dawson, T.L.J. Azole resistance mechanisms in pathogenic M. furfur. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2021, 65, e01975-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hammer, K.A.; Carson, C.F.; Riley, T.V. In vitro activities of ketoconazole, econazole, miconazole, and Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil against Malassezia species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000, 44, 467–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Velegraki, A.; Alexopoulos, E.C.; Kritikou, S.; Gaitanis, G. Use of fatty acid RPMI 1640 media for testing susceptibilities of eight Malassezia species to the new triazole posaconazole and to six established antifungal agents by a modified NCCLS M27-A microdilution method and Etest. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2004, 42, 3589–3593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rincón, S.; Cepero de Garcia, M.C.; Espinel-Ingroff, A. A modified Christensen’s urea and CLSI broth microdilution method for testing susceptibilities of six Malassezia species to voriconazole, itraconazole, and ketoconazole. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 3429–3431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Miranda, K.C.; de Araujo, C.R.; Costa, C.R.; Passos, X.S.; de Fátima Lisboa Fernandes, O.; do Rosário Rodrigues Silva, M. Antifungal activiities of azole agents against the Malassezia species. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2007, 29, 281–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Cafarchia, C.; Figueredo, L.A.; Iatta, R.; Colao, V.; Montagna, M.T.; Otranto, D. In vitro evaluation of Malassezia pachydermatis susceptibility to azole compounds using E-test and CLSI micrdilution methods. Med. Mycol. 2012, 50, 795–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nakamura, Y.; Kano, R.; Murai, T.; Watanabe, S.; Hasegawa, A. Susceptibility testing of I species using the urea broth microdilution method. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000, 44, 2185–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Rojas, F.D.; Sosa, M.d.A.; Latorre, W.; Mussin, J.; Alegre, L.; Giusano, G. Malassezia species: The need to establish epidemiological cutoff values. Med. Mycol. 2022, 60, myac048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Espinel-Ingroff, A. Commercial methods for antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts: Strengths and limitations as predictors of resistance. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Pfaller, M.A.; Castanheira, M.; Diekema, D.J.; Messer, S.A.; Jones, R.N. Triazole and echinocandin MIC distributions with epidemiological cutoff values for differentiation of wild-type strains from non-wild-type strains of six uncommon species of Candida. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2011, 49, 3800–3804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Fluconazole (FLZ), ketoconazole (KTC), itraconazole (ITZ), posaconazole (POS), and amphotericin B (AMB) minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC, mg/L) data, standard deviation (SD), MIC range, MIC50, and MIC90 of Malassezia spp. according to the clinical origin.
Table 1. Fluconazole (FLZ), ketoconazole (KTC), itraconazole (ITZ), posaconazole (POS), and amphotericin B (AMB) minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC, mg/L) data, standard deviation (SD), MIC range, MIC50, and MIC90 of Malassezia spp. according to the clinical origin.
Malassezia Species OriginFluconazoleKetoconazoleItraconazolePosaconazoleAmphotericin B
RangeMean
MIC
(SD)		MIC50MIC90RangeMean
MIC
(SD)		MIC50MIC90RangeMean
MIC
(SD)		MIC50MIC90RangeMean
MIC
(SD)		MIC50MIC90RangeMean
MIC
(SD)		MIC50MIC90
Group 1
(40 isolates)		32->6440.1
(16.2)		32640.125–81.72
(2.4)		0.540.06–80.95 *
(2.16)		0.12510.06–20.22 * (0.34)0.1250.250.25–81.79 * (2.08)14
Group 2
(18 isolates)		4->6435.6
(21.2)		32640.06–40.91
(0.89)		0.510.06–20.61 *
(0.37)		0.510.125–10.35 * (0.26)0.250.50.5–42.42 * (1.39)24
Total4->6438
(17.7)		32640.06–81.60
(2.3)		0.540.06–80.90
(1.8)		0.2520.06–20.26
(0.3)		0.1250.50.25–82.02
(1.9)		14
* The difference is statistically significant with p value < 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Fluconazole (FLZ), ketoconazole (KTC), itraconazole (ITZ), posaconazole (POS), and amphotericin B (AMB) minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC, mg/L) data, standard deviation (SD), MIC range, MIC50, and MIC90 of Malassezia isolates according to the species.
Table 2. Fluconazole (FLZ), ketoconazole (KTC), itraconazole (ITZ), posaconazole (POS), and amphotericin B (AMB) minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC, mg/L) data, standard deviation (SD), MIC range, MIC50, and MIC90 of Malassezia isolates according to the species.
Malassezia Species FluconazoleKetoconazoleItraconazolePosaconazoleAmphotericin B
RangeMean
MIC
(SD)		MIC50MIC90RangeMean
MIC
(SD)		MIC50MIC90RangeMean
MIC
(SD)		MIC50MIC90RangeMean
MIC
(SD)		MIC50MIC90RangeMean
MIC
(SD)		MIC50MIC90
M. furfur4->6439.9
(18.1)		32640.125–81.91
(2.53)		0.540.06–81.03
(2.19)		0.12520.06–10.22
(0.2)		0.1250.51–82.03
(1.93)		24
M. sympodialis8–6431.2
(14.34)		32320.06–10.43
(0.25)		0.50.50.06–20.62
(0.75)		0.2520.06–10.32
(0.3)		0.1250.50.25–41.75
(1.35)		14
M. globosa8->6437.
7(19.9)		32640.5–81.63
(2.36)		0.520.06–20.6
(0.7)		0.2510.06–20.4
(0.66)		0.1250.50.5–82.3
(2.6)		14
Table
Table 3. Interpretive antifungal susceptibility classification of Malassezia isolates according to the clinical origin into susceptible (S), susceptible dose-dependent (SDD), and resistant (R). Number of isolates (and percentage) by category.
Table 3. Interpretive antifungal susceptibility classification of Malassezia isolates according to the clinical origin into susceptible (S), susceptible dose-dependent (SDD), and resistant (R). Number of isolates (and percentage) by category.
Malassezia Species OriginFluconazoleKetoconazoleItraconazolePosaconazoleAmphotericin B
SSDDRSSDDRSSDDRSSDDRSSDDR
Group 1
(40 isolates)		0 (0)28 (70)12 (30)40 (100)-0 (0)26 (65)6 (15)8 (20)39 (97.5)1 (0.02)0 (0)28 (70)-12 (30)
Group 2
(18 isolates)		5 (27.8)8 (44.4)5 (27.8)18 (100)-0 (0)4 (22.2)6 (33.3)8 (44.5) *18 (100)0 (0)0 (0)6 (33.3)-12 (66.6) *
Total5 (8.6)36 (62.1)17 (29.3)58 (100)-0 (0)30 (51.7)12 (20.7)16 (27.6)57 (98.3)1 (1.7)0 (0)34 (58.6)-24 (41.4)
* The difference is statistically significant with p value < 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Interpretive antifungal susceptibility classification of Malassezia species according to the species into susceptible (S), susceptible dose-dependent (SDD), and resistant (R): number of isolates (and percentage) by category.
Table 4. Interpretive antifungal susceptibility classification of Malassezia species according to the species into susceptible (S), susceptible dose-dependent (SDD), and resistant (R): number of isolates (and percentage) by category.
SpeciesM. furfur (n = 38)M. sympodialis (n = 11)M. globosa (n = 9)
Antifungal
Agent		 SSDDRSSDDRSSDDR
Fluconazole1 (2.6)24 (36.2)13 (34.2)2 (18.2)8 (72.7)1 (9.1)2 (22.2)4 (44.5)3 (33.3)
Ketoconazole38 (100)0 (0)0 (0)11 (100)0 (0)0 (0)9 (100)0 (0)0 (0)
Itraconazole22 (57.9)5 (13.2)11 (28.9)4 (36.4)5 (45.4)2 (18.2)4 (44.5)2 (22.2)3 (33.3)
Posaconazole38 (100)0 (0)0 (0)11 (100)0 (0)0 (0)8 (88.9)1 (11.1)0 (0)
Amphotericin B22 (57.9)0 (0)16 (42.1)6 (54.6)0 (0)5 (45.4)5 (55.5)0 (0)4 (44.5)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chebil, W.; Haouas, N.; Eskes, E.; Vandecruys, P.; Belgacem, S.; Belhadj Ali, H.; Babba, H.; Van Dijck, P. In Vitro Assessment of Azole and Amphotericin B Susceptibilities of Malassezia spp. Isolated from Healthy and Lesioned Skin. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 959. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8090959

AMA Style

Chebil W, Haouas N, Eskes E, Vandecruys P, Belgacem S, Belhadj Ali H, Babba H, Van Dijck P. In Vitro Assessment of Azole and Amphotericin B Susceptibilities of Malassezia spp. Isolated from Healthy and Lesioned Skin. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(9):959. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8090959

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chebil, Wissal, Najoua Haouas, Elja Eskes, Paul Vandecruys, Sameh Belgacem, Hichem Belhadj Ali, Hamouda Babba, and Patrick Van Dijck. 2022. "In Vitro Assessment of Azole and Amphotericin B Susceptibilities of Malassezia spp. Isolated from Healthy and Lesioned Skin" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 9: 959. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8090959

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop