Next Article in Journal
Microbial Translocation Disorders: Assigning an Etiology to Idiopathic Illnesses
Next Article in Special Issue
The Growth Curve of Microbial Cultures: A Model for a Visionary Reappraisal
Previous Article in Journal
C-, N-, S-, and P-Substrate Spectra in and the Impact of Abiotic Factors on Assessing the Biotechnological Potential of Paracoccus pantotrophus
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Atrazine, Diuron, Fluazifop-P-butyl, Haloxyfop-P-methyl, and Pendimethalin on Soil Microbial Activity and Diversity
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Hydrolytic Enzyme Production and Susceptibility to Antifungal Compounds of Opportunistic Candida parapsilosis Strains Isolated from Cucurbitaceae and Rosaceae Fruits

by
Anna Glushakova
1,2,*,
Aleksey Kachalkin
1,3 and
Evgenia Rodionova
2
1
Soil Science Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 119991 Moscow, Russia
2
I.I. Mechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines and Sera, 105064 Moscow, Russia
3
G.K. Skryabin Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Microorganisms of RAS, 142290 Pushchino, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 3(1), 199-211; https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol3010014
Submission received: 19 December 2022 / Revised: 20 January 2023 / Accepted: 22 January 2023 / Published: 28 January 2023

Abstract

:
Endophytic yeast species were studied in the internal tissues of ripe cultivated vegetables and fruits. A total of 19 yeast species, 11 ascomycete species, and 8 basidiomycete species were observed in the internal tissues of all fruits examined. The opportunistic yeast Candida parapsilosis was present in all plants studied. Several virulence factors (production of hydrolytic enzymes and sensitivity to antifungal agents) were examined in all 107 isolates of C. parapsilosis from the internal tissues of fruits. The most virulent isolates were found in vegetables. C. parapsilosis is widespread in nature and is often isolated from a variety of non-human sources. It is frequently involved in invasive infections that seriously affect human health. This species poses a high risk to immunocompromised individuals, such as HIV patients and surgical patients or children whose immune systems are not sufficiently mature. Since virulent isolates of Candida parapsilosis have been found in vegetables and fruits; their raw consumption may not be safe. Finally, we emphasize the importance of ongoing phenotypic and genetic studies of endophytic isolates of Candida parapsilosis and their comparison with clinical isolates.

1. Introduction

Opportunistic Candida species are present in more than 50% of the human population. Infection caused by Candida, known as candidiasis, remains an important clinical problem, especially in immunocompromised patients [1]. In recent years, opportunistic mycoses caused not only by Candida albicans but also by C. parapsilosis, C. glabrata, and C. tropicalis have become an urgent public health problem and are a common complication of many diseases. There are several reasons for the increasing incidence of fungal infections in the population. The deterioration of environmental conditions decreases the anti-infective resistance of humans, leading to an imbalance between the normal microbiome and the immune response of the body, to a strong activation of opportunistic fungi and, consequently, to an expansion of the spectrum of pathogens causing lesions of the skin and internal organs. The irrational use of antibiotics, cytostatics, hormonal drugs, radiation, and chemical therapies in the fight against the underlying disease also leads to a decrease in immunity and the development of drug-resistant strains of microorganisms [2,3].
Pathogenic and opportunistic species of the genus Candida are increasingly found not only in clinical settings but also in various natural substrates, especially in urban environments, such as urban soils in the area of household waste sites, urban plant substrates, etc. [4,5]. A recent large-scale analysis of endophytic yeasts from internal tissues of 54 types of vegetables, fruits, and nuts from 36 countries in agricultural crops revealed a high occurrence and abundance of the clinically important yeast Candida parapsilosis [6,7] in some internal tissues [8]. The endophytic community of opportunistic yeasts was represented by the C. parapsilosis complex, comprising three distinct species: Candida parapsilosis sensu stricto, Candida orthopsilosis, and Candida metapsilosis [9].
Endophytic yeasts are one of the most promising areas in the study of microbe–plant associations. They serve as an excellent model for the study of a number of current practical questions in agriculture, medicine, ecology, and systems. Endophytic yeasts are predominantly stored or developed in the internal tissues of fruits [10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Unlike filamentous fungi, unicellular yeasts cannot spread by apical growth in the intercellular space. However, yeast cells can enter the plant through stomata, hydatodes, and mechanical micro-injuries of the cuticle and epidermis [17]. Some yeasts can produce exoglucanases that allow yeast cells to invade internal tissues from the surface by local destruction of the cuticle. [18]. In the internal tissues of fruits, endophytic yeasts are mainly represented by ascomycete species from the genera Aureobasidium, Candida, Debaryomyces, Hanseniaspora, Metschnikowia, Meyerozyma, Pichia, Saccharomyces, and Wickerhamomyces [10,13,14,16].
However, under anthropogenic impact, microbial complexes may change to include opportunistic species of the genus Candida in yeast communities. For clinically relevant yeast species, the change in biological properties of isolates toward virulence, i.e., their actual ability to cause disease, is well known [19,20,21,22]. The development of resistance to antifungal drugs can be considered an indicator of the change from “harmless” to “aggressive” behavior [22,23].
The aim of our work was to study the diversity of endophytic yeasts in ripe vegetables and fruits grown in fields near cities and to evaluate the virulence properties of isolated strains of opportunistic species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Location and Sampling

Vegetables and fruits for the study of endophytic yeast diversity in internal tissues were collected in 2021 on the territory of farms in Moscow Region and Vladimir Region. A total of 65 vegetables and fruits were analyzed. Each sample of a ripe fruit, which had no visible damage, was treated separately (Table 1).

2.2. Microbiological Analyses and Species Identification

To study endophytic yeast communities, vegetables and fruits were treated according to the following scheme: 70% ethanol, 30 min; 2% sodium hypochlorite, 30 min; 70% ethanol, 30 s; and washing in sterile distilled water for 10 min [11,24]. After the exocarp was removed with a sterile scalpel, the inner tissue was excised, homogenized, and poured with sterile water to obtain a 1:10 dilution. The suspensions were vortexed on a Multi Reax Vortexer (Heidolph Instruments, Germany) for 15 min at 2000 rpm. Three suspensions were prepared for each vegetable and fruit. The prepared suspensions were plated in four replicates each on glucose–peptone–yeast extract (GPY) agar (20 g/L glucose, 10 g/L peptone, 5 g/L yeast extract, 20 g/L agar) supplemented with chloramphenicol (500 mg/L) to prevent bacterial growth. A total of 780 plates were incubated at 22 °C for 5–7 days. The grown yeast colonies were classified into morphological types using a dissecting microscope (MSP-2 (LOMO, Russia)) and the number of isolates of each type was counted. From 5 to 7 isolates of each morphotype were taken in a pure culture. Purified yeast isolates were cryopreserved in 10% (v/v) glycerol in water solution at −80 °C in the yeast collection of the Soil Biology Department at Lomonosov Moscow State University (WDCM 1173).
Identification of yeast species was based on the ITS rDNA nucleotide sequence. DNA isolation and PCR were performed according to the procedure described previously [8,15]. DNA sequencing was performed using the Big Dye Terminator V3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, MA, USA) with subsequent analysis of the reaction products on an Applied Biosystems 3130xl Genetic Analyzer at the facilities of Evrogen (Moscow). For sequencing, the ITS5 primer (5′-GGA AGT AAA AGT CGT AAC AAG G) was used [8]. For species identification, nucleotide sequences were compared with those in public databases, using the BLAST NCBI (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (accessed on 27 November 2022)) and the MycoID (www.mycobank.org (accessed on 29 November 2022)) tools. The ITS regions of the strains studied were 99.5–100% similar to the type strains. Sequences obtained for yeast species in the present study were deposited in GenBank database (OQ238753-OQ238770 and OM038460). All Candida parapsilosis isolates were further identified by growth on chromagar (HiCrome Candida Differential Agar Base, HiMedia Laboratories) and some of the strains were sequenced (supplementary data).

2.3. Production of Hydrolytic Enzymesн

Enzymatic activities were measured by plate method. Aliquots (10 µL) of 48 h old cultured fungal cells (107) were spotted onto the surface of each agar medium (see below) and then incubated for 7 days at 37 °C. Colony diameter (a) and colony plus precipitation zone diameter (b) were measured using a digital paquimeter, and enzymatic activities were expressed as Pz values (Pz = a/b) as described by Price et al. [25]. According to this definition, low Pz values indicate high enzyme production and, inversely, high Pz values indicate low enzyme production. The Pz value was divided into four categories:
Pz = 1, no enzymatic activity; 0.999 ≥ Pz ≥ 0.700, low enzymatic activity; 0.699 ≥ Pz ≥ 0.400, medium enzymatic activity; Pz ≤ 0.399, high enzymatic activity [17].

2.3.1. Phospholipase Activity

Phospholipase activity was measured using an egg yolk agar plate (1 M NaCl, 5 mM CaCl2, and 8% sterile egg yolk emulsion, pH 7.0) according to Price et al. [25]. The hydrolysis of lipid substrates present in egg yolk resulted in the formation of a calcium complex with fatty acids released by the action of the secreted enzymes, resulting in a precipitation zone around the colony. For strains in which phospholipase activity was detected, a more precise diagnosis of phospholipase A2 activity was performed. Twenty-four h cultures of Candida parapsilosis strains were used. Phospholipase A2 activity was determined by a modified titrometric method. To two test tubes (experiment and control), 1 mL of the initial concentration of yeast was added and placed in the thermostat at 60 °C for 15 min. Then, a 0.3% trypsin solution was added to both test tubes and placed in the refrigerator at 4 °C for one hour. Then, the lecithin solution was added to the experimental test tube, 0.6% calcium chloride was added to both samples, and the sample was placed in the thermostat at 37 °C for two hours. After this time, lecithin was added to the control sample and 10% calcium chloride was added to both test tubes to stop the reaction. A 0.1% alcoholic solution of phenolphthalein was added to the contents of the test tubes and titrated with a freshly prepared solution of 0.002 M sodium hydroxide solution until it turned faintly pink staining. The volume of solution used for titration of the control and experimental samples was recorded. Enzyme activity was calculated using the following formula: A= Vo−Vk (Vo and Vk are the volumes of alkali solution used for titration of the experimental and control samples, respectively; A was the enzyme activity expressed in mmol/L). The studies were performed over the course of a day with an interval of 8 h.

2.3.2. Protease Activity

Determination of protease production was assayed using the albumin agar plate (1.17% yeast carbon base (YCB) medium supplemented with 0.2% BSA, pH 4.0) as previously described by Rьchel et al. [26]. The protease activity resulted in a clear zone around the colony, which corresponded to the hydrolysis of the BSA present in the medium.

2.3.3. Hemolytic Activity

The determination of hemolysis was performed using the blood agar plate. The medium was prepared by adding 7 mL of fresh sheep blood to 100 mL of Sabouraud dextrose agar containing 3% glucose, as previously described by Luo et al. [27]. The presence of a distinct translucent halo around the inoculum site in transmitted light indicated positive hemolytic activity.

2.4. Antimycotic sensitivity of Endophytic Candida parapsilosis Strains

Antimycotic susceptibility of C. parapsilosis strains was tested using Mueller–Hinton agar (HiMedia Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., India), which is a standard medium for the disk diffusion method [28]. Disks with two widely applicated antifungal drugs (HiMedia Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., India): Amphotericin B 100 (µg/disk) (AMO) and Fluconazole 25 (µg/disk), were used. As a control, the reference strain of C. parapsilosis ATCC 22019 was taken (CLSI QC strain for Disk Diffusion and MIC determination). A total of 107 endophytic isolates of C. parapsilosis were tested. Each of the 107 strains was tested in six plate replicates for both antimicrobial drugs.

2.5. Data Analyses

Statistical data processing and graphical presentation of the obtained results were carried out using Excel 2010 (Microsoft, Albuquerque, NM, USA) and Statistica 8.0 (StatSoft, USA) programs. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out for group comparisons. Statistical significance was judged at the level of p < 0.05. The number of yeast colonies was used to calculate the abundance of yeast cells (CFU) in each type of sample per dry weight. The relative abundances of the species were calculated as the proportion (%) of colonies that appeared on the plates.

3. Results

3.1. Abundance and Diversity of Endophytic Yeast Complexes in Vegetables and Fruits

The abundance of endophytic yeasts in the internal tissues of ripe fruits ranged from a minimum of 1.78 lg (CFU/g) in Cucurbita pepo (variety “Zorka”) to a maximum of 5.89 lg (CFU/g) in Malus domestica (variety “Bessemianka Michurinskaya”) (Table 2). A total of 19 yeast species, 11 ascomycete species, and 8 basidiomycete species were detected in the internal tissues of all examined fruits (Table 2). In most of the ripe fruits studied, the diversity of the ascomycete yeast species was higher than that of the basidiomycete species. The ratio of ascomycete yeasts to basidiomycete was particularly high in Prunus domestica, being 10 to 3.
Typical eurytopes (Aureobasidium pullulans, Rhodotorula mucilaginosa) were found in the internal tissues of all plants examined, as was the ascomycete yeast Metschnikowia pulcherrima. M. pulcherrima is regularly found in nutrient-rich plant material that serves as a feeding and breeding habitat for a variety of insects. These habitats include tree sap fluxes, flowers, and fruits [29]. Strains of M. pulcherrima are known to exhibit strong antagonistic activity against postharvest pathogens and are used as biocontrol agents [30,31]. The yeast species Debaryomyces hansenii was detected in all fruits tested except Cucurbita pepo (variety winter table pumpkin). Yeasts of the genus Debaryomyces include species isolated from various natural habitats, man-made environments, and clinical material [32,33]. The ascomycete species Hanseniaspora uvarum was observed in apples, plums, and a zucchini. H. uvarum is a widely distributed yeast species most commonly isolated from soil, insects, various ripe fruits, and fermenting musts [29]. It has also been collected from marine and freshwater ecosystems [34] and from medical samples [35]. Among the basidiomycete yeasts, the typical epiphytic species Papiliotrema flavescens and Filobasidium magnum [36,37,38,39] and the cold-adapted yeast species Cystofilobasidium infirmominiatum [40,41] were present in the endophytic communities.
The opportunistic yeast species Candida parapsilosis was detected in the internal tissues of all vegetables and fruits studied. This species, along with C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. tropicalis, is one of the most common species involved in invasive fungal infections [6,42]. Previously, we observed this opportunistic yeast species in plant substrates in urban environments with high anthropogenic impact (along highways): on pollen of wind-pollinated plants [5], in the internal tissues of M. domestica and p. communis fruits [15] (Table 2).

3.2. Production of Hydrolytic Enzymes and Antimycotic Susceptibility of Candida parapsilosis Endophytic Strains

During the study, a total of 107 endophytic strains of Candida parapsilosis were isolated. All isolated endophytic Candida parapsilosis strains were evaluated for some virulence properties: hydrolytic activity (Table 3 and Table 5) and sensitivity to antifungal drugs (Table 4 and Table 5).
Phospholipase activity was observed only in the two endophytic strains tested. Both strains were isolated from vegetable products (Table 3). High proteolytic activity was observed in all isolated strains (Table 3). Low hemolytic activity was observed in all strains isolated from vegetables. No hemolytic activity was detected in 4 of 22 strains isolated from apples, and low hemolytic activity was detected in the other strains. Two of the eighteen strains isolated from plums also showed no hemolytic activity, and the others showed low activity (Table 3). Most strains showed sensitivity to antifungal drugs (Table 4). Fluconazole-resistant strains were isolated from all tested products. Only some strains from vegetables showed resistance to amphotericin B. Strains resistant to both antibiotics were isolated only from vegetable products (Figure 1).

4. Discussion

Of course, not all yeasts found in fruits in this study can be classified as true or obligate endophytes that develop asymptomatically and only in internal tissues. We should consider the groups of yeasts that can live endophytically and consider the contaminated species separately. Yeasts with an endophytic lifestyle probably include typical epiphytic and eurytopic yeasts, for which the transition to an endophytic lifestyle in internal tissues is a strategy to avoid unfavorable environmental factors (solar radiation, desiccation, etc.).
Another, more complicated situation arises when considering the contaminating species [43]. Most likely, it is the opportunistic yeast Candida parapsilosis, which was found in the internal tissues of all samples examined.
Candida parapsilosis can be observed in domestic animals, insects, soil, marine environment, etc. [7,44]. In addition, C. parapsilosis is a commensal yeast of humans that frequently colonizes the skin. However, it can become pathogenic when host defense mechanisms change [6,20,22]. Due to its ability to adapt to different host niches, it can cause systemic infections in immunocompromised patients [45,46].
Recently, it has been shown that environmentally occurring strains of Candida parapsilosis isolated from urban topsoil can be resistant to common antifungal drugs [23,47,48].
Our study of endophytic strains isolated from vegetable and fruit products has shown that among endophytic strains of opportunistic Candida parapsilosis, there are those that possess virulence characteristics (produce active hydrolytic enzymes), such as clinical isolates [22], and are resistant to antifungals. A large proportion of these strains has been isolated from ripe vegetables. Consumption of such raw produce may not be safe, especially for immunocompromised individuals who are genetically predisposed to the development of fungal diseases and mycogenic allergies.
C. albicans remains one of the most important fungal pathogens; although, there is an increasing shift to non-albicans Candida spp. (NACS), particularly C. parapsilosis and C. glabrata [49]. They can cause a variety of health disorders in humans, ranging from allergic syndromes and mucosal infections to life-threatening invasive diseases. The extensive use of antifungal drugs, both prophylactic and therapeutic, is considered to be one of the main causes of Candida parapsilosis resistance worldwide, and its occurrence poses a major challenge for treatment [50,51,52,53]. Thus, opportunistic microflora in the internal tissues of fruits is a serious problem. Therefore, further research on the extent and nature of the dissemination of resistant isolates of opportunistic Candida in food and the mode and mechanism of contamination of plant tissues is extremely important.

5. Conclusions

This study has shown that fruits of agricultural crops may not meet microbiological safety criteria. We have detected virulent isolates of C. parapsilosis resistant to fluconazole and amphotericin B in the internal tissues of ripe fruits. There is no doubt that further extensive research efforts addressing the distribution of virulent isolates of Candida parapsilosis in different fruits, pathogenic properties, antimicrobial susceptibility profile, genetic resistance mechanisms, and mechanisms of entry into plant tissues will help prevent infections.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/applmicrobiol3010014/s1, Supplementary data.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K. and A.G.; methodology, A.K., A.G. and E.R.; formal analysis, A.K. and A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K. and A.G.; writing—review and editing, A.K. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education (agreement no. 075-15-2021-1051) and as a part of the Scientific Project of the State Order of the Government of Russian Federation to Lomonosov Moscow State University (no. 121040800174-6).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Collective Usage Center “I.I. Mechnikov NIIVS”, Moscow, Russia, with the financial support of the project by the Russian Federation represented by the Ministry of Science of Russia, Agreement No. 075-15-2021-676 dated 28.07.2021 for providing the scientific equipment to carry the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hibino, K.; Wong, R.W.; Haegg, U.; Samaranayake, L.P. The effects of orthodontic appliances on Candida in the human mouth. Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2009, 19, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Miceli, M.H.; Dнaz, J.A.; Lee, S.A. Emerging opportunistic yeast infections. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2011, 11, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lockhart, S.R.; Guarner, J. Emerging and reemerging fungal infections. Semin. Diagn. Pathol. 2019, 36, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Tepeeva, A.N.; Glushakova, A.M.; Kachalkin, A.V. Yeast communities of the Moscow city soils. Microbiology 2018, 87, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Glushakova, A.M.; Kachalkin, A.V.; Zheltikova, T.M.; Chernov, I.Y. Yeasts associated with wind-pollinated plants—Leading pollen allergens in Central Russia. Microbiology 2015, 84, 722–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. van Asbeck, E.C.; Clemons, K.V.; Stevens, D.A. Candida parapsilosis: A review of its epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical aspects, typing and antimicrobial susceptibility. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 35, 283–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Silva, S.; Negri, M.; Henriques, M.; Oliveira, R.; Williams, D.W.; Azeredo, J. Candida glabrata, Candida parapsilosis and Candida tropicalis: Biology, epidemiology, pathogenicity and antifungal resistance. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2012, 36, 288–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Kachalkin, A.V.; Glushakova, A.M.; Venzhik, A.S. Presence of clinically significant endophytic yeasts in agricultural crops: Monitoring and ecological safety assessment. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 723, 042005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Branco, J.; Miranda, I.M.; Rodrigues, A.G. Candida parapsilosis virulence and antifungal resistance mechanisms: A comprehensive review of key determinants. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chand-Goyal, T.; Spotts, R. Enumeration of bacterial and yeast colonists of apple fruits and identification of epiphytic yeasts on pear fruits in the Pacific Northwest United States. Microbiol. Res. 1996, 158, 427–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Isaeva, O.; Glushakova, A.; Yurkov, A.; Chernov, I.Y. The yeast Candida railenensis in the fruits of English oak (Quercus robur L.). Microbiology 2009, 78, 355–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Isaeva, O.V.; Glushakova, A.M.; Garbuz, S.A.; Kachalkin, A.V.; Chernov, I.Y. Endophytic yeast fungi in plant storage tissues. Biol. Bull. 2010, 37, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vadkertiovб, R.; Molnбrovб, J.; Vrбnovб, D.; Slбvikovб, E. Yeasts and yeast-like organisms associated with fruits and blossoms of different fruit trees. Can. J. Microbiol. 2012, 58, 1344–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Doty, S.L. Endophytic Yeasts: Biology and Applications. In Symbiotic Endophytes; Aroca, R., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 335–343. [Google Scholar]
  15. Glushakova, A.M.; Kachalkin, A.V. Endophytic yeasts in Malus domestica and Pyrus communis fruits under anthropogenic impact. Microbiology 2017, 86, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ling, L.; Tu, Y.; Ma, W.; Feng, S.; Yang, C.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, N.; Li, Z.; Lu, L.; Zhang, J. A potentially important resource: Endophytic yeasts. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 36, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Morris, C. Phyllosphere. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  18. Infante, E.D.P.; Marquнnez, X.; Moreno, G. Tomato peel (Solanum lycopersicum L.) colonization by the endophyte yeast Candida guilliermondii (Castellani) Langeron et Guerra. Agron. Colomb. 2012, 30, 388–394. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ruiz-Herrera, J.; Elorza, M.V.; Valentнn, E.; Sentandreu, R. Molecular organization of the cell wall of Candida albicans and its relation to pathogenicity. FEMS Yeast Res. 2006, 6, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Nosek, J.; Holesova, Z.; Kosa, P.; Gacser, A.; Tomaska, L. Biology and genetics of the pathogenic yeast Candida parapsilosis. Curr. Genet. 2009, 55, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Selmecki, A.; Forche, A.; Judith Berman, J. Genomic plasticity of the human fungal pathogen Candida albicans. ASM J. Eukaryot. Cell 2010, 9, EC.00060-10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Abi-chacra, E.A.; Souza, L.O.P.; Cruz, L.P.; Braga-Silva, L.A.; Gonзalves, D.S.; Sodrй, C.L.; Ribeiro, M.D.; Seabra, S.H.; Figueiredo-Carvalho, M.H.G.; Barbedo, L.S.; et al. Phenotypical properties associated with virulence from clinical isolates belonging to the Candida parapsilosis complex. FEMS Yeast Res. 2013, 13, 831–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Glushakova, A.M.; Kachalkin, A.V.; Akhapkina, I.G. The monitoring of sensitivity of natural strains and clinical isolates of yeast fungus to antimycotics. Klin. Lab. Diag. 2017, 62, 296–300. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gai, C.S.; Lacava, P.T.; Maccheroni, W., Jr.; Glienke, C.; Araъjo, W.L.; Miller, T.A.; Azevedo, J.L. Diversity of endophytic yeasts from sweet orange and their localization by scanning electron microscopy. J. Basic Microb. 2009, 49, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Price, M.F.; Wilkinson, I.D.; Gentry, L.O. Plate method for detection of phospholipase activity in Candida albicans. Sabouraudia 1982, 20, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rьchel, J.; Tegeler, R.; Trost, M.A. Comparison of secretory proteinases from different strains of Candida albicans. Sabouraudia 1982, 20, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Luo, G.; Samaranayake, L.P.; Yau, J.Y. Candida species exhibit differential in vitro hemolytic activities. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 2971–2974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Barry, A.L.; Coyle, M.B.; Thornsberry, C.; Gerlach, E.H.; Hawkinson, R.W. Methods of measuring zones of inhibition with the Bauer-Kirby disk susceptibility test. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1979, 10, 885–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Kurtzman, C.P.; Fell, J.W.; Boekhout, T. (Eds.) The Yeasts, A Taxonomic Study; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 1–2080. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yang, H.; Wang, L.; Li, S.; Gao, X.; Wu, N.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, W. Control of postharvest grey spot rot of loquat fruit with Metschnikowia pulcherrima E1 and potential mechanisms of action. Biol. Control. 2021, 152, 104406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fernandez-San Millan, A.; Gamir, J.; Farran, I.; Larraya, L.; Veramendi, J. Identification of new antifungal metabolites produced by the yeast Metschnikowia pulcherrima involved in the biocontrol of postharvest plant pathogenic fungi. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2022, 192, 111995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Michбn, C.; Martнnez, J.L.; Alvarez, M.C.; Turk, M.; Sychrova, H.; Ramos, J. Salt and oxidative stress tolerance in Debaryomyces hansenii and Debaryomyces fabryi. FEMS Yeast Res. 2013, 13, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Tafer, H.; Sterflinger, K.; Lopandic, K. Draft genome of Debaryomyces fabryi CBS 789T, isolated from a human interdigital mycotic lesion. Genome Announc. 2016, 4, e01580-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. de Araujo, F.V.; Soares, C.A.G.; Hagler, A.N.; Mendonзa-Hagler, L.C. Ascomycetous yeast communities of marine invertebrates in a Southeast Brazilian mangrove ecosystem. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1995, 68, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Garcнa-Martos, P.; Hernбndez-Molina, J.M.; Galбn, F.; Ruiz-Henestrosa, J.R.; Garcнa-Agudo, R.; Palomo, M.J.; Mira, J. Isolation of Hanseniaspora uvarum (Kloeckera apiculata) in humans. Mycopathologia 1999, 144, 73–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Fonseca, Б.; Inбcio, J. Phylloplane Yeasts. In Biodiversity and Ecophysiology of Yeasts; Pйter, G., Rosa, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 263–301. [Google Scholar]
  37. Glushakova, A.M.; Chernov, I.Y. Seasonal dynamics of the structure of epiphytic yeast communities. Microbiology 2010, 79, 830–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kemler, M.; Witfeld, F.; Begerow, D.; Yurkov, A. Phylloplane yeasts in temperate climates. In Yeasts in Natural Ecosystems: Diversity; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 171–197. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gouka, L.; Raaijmakers, J.M.; Cordovez, V. Ecology and functional potential of phyllosphere yeasts. Trends Plant Sci. 2022, 27, 1109–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cavello, I.; Albanesi, A.; Fratebianchi, D.; Garmedia, G.; Vero, S.; Cavalitto, S. Pectinolytic yeasts from cold environments: Novel findings of Guehomyces pullulans, Cystofilobasidium infirmominiatum and Cryptococcus adeliensis producing pectinases. Extremophiles 2017, 21, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Glushakova, A.M.; Lysak, L.V.; Kachalkin, A.V.; Ivanova, A.E.; Umarova, A.B.; Abramyan, I.A.; Maksimova, I.A. Transformation of microbial complexes in components of soil constructions of different origin (soil, peat, sand) during freezing-thawing processes. Microbiology 2021, 90, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tуth, R.; Nosek, J.; Mora-Montes, H.M.; Gabaldon, T.; Bliss, J.M.; Nosanchuk, J.D.; Turner, S.A.; Butler, G.; Vбgvцlgyi, C.; Gбcser, A. Candida parapsilosis: From Genes to the Bedside. ASM J. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2019, 32, e00111-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Hagler, A.N. Yeasts as indicators of environmental quality. In Biodiversity and Ecophysiology of Yeasts; The Yeast Handbook; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 515–532. [Google Scholar]
  44. Trofa, D.; Gacser, A.; Nosanchuk, J.D. Candida parapsilosis, an emerging fungal pathogen. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2008, 21, 606–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Eggimann, P.; Garbino, J.; Pittet, D. Epidemiology of Candida species infections in critically ill non-immunosuppressed patients. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2003, 3, 685–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sardi, J.C.O.; Scorzoni, L.; Bernardi, T. Candida species: Current epidemiology, pathogenicity, biofilm formation, natural antifungal products and new therapeutic options. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 62, 10–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Akhapkina, I.G.; Glushakova, A.M.; Rodionova, E.N.; Kachalkin, A.V. Colonization activity of Candida clinical isolates and their antibiotic sensitivity. J. Microbiol. Epidemiol. Immunobiol. 2020, 97, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Akhapkina, I.G.; Glushakova, A.M.; Rodionova, E.N.; Kachalkin, A.V. The effectiveness of antifungal agents against yeasts of Candida genus isolated in Moscow region. Antibiot. Chemother. 2020, 65, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Friedman, D.Z.P.; Schwartz, I.S. Emerging fungal infections: New patients, new patterns, and new pathogens. J. Fungi. 2019, 5, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Magobo, R.E.; Lockhart, S.R.; Govender, N.P. Fluconazole-resistant Candida parapsilosis strains with a Y132F substitution in the ERG11 gene causing invasive infections in a neonatal unit, South Africa. Mycoses 2020, 63, 471–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Branco, J.; Ryan, A.P.; Silva, A.P.; Butler, G.; Miranda, I.M.; Rodrigues, A.G. Clinical azole cross-resistance in Candida parapsilosis is related to a novel MRR1 gain-of-function mutation. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2022, 28, 1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Martini, C.; Torelli, R.; de Groot, T.; De Carolis, E.; Morandotti, G.A.; De Angelis, G.; Posteraro, B.; Meis, J.F.; Sanguinetti, M. Prevalence and Clonal Distribution of Azole-Resistant Candida parapsilosis Isolates Causing Bloodstream Infections in a Large Italian Hospital. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fekkar, A.; Blaize, M.; Bougle, A.; Normand, A.C.; Raoelina, A.; Kornblum, D.; Kamus, L.; Piarroux, R.; Imbert, S. Hospital outbreak of fluconazole-resistant Candida parapsilosis: Arguments for clonal transmission and long-term persistence. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2021, 65, e02036-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Share of endophytic strains of Candida parapsilosis isolated from ripe vegetables and fruits resistant to Amphotericin B, Fluconazole, and both antifungal drugs.
Figure 1. Share of endophytic strains of Candida parapsilosis isolated from ripe vegetables and fruits resistant to Amphotericin B, Fluconazole, and both antifungal drugs.
Applmicrobiol 03 00014 g001
Table 1. Vegetables and fruits studied and their locations.
Table 1. Vegetables and fruits studied and their locations.
Names of Vegetables and FruitsSamplesLocation
Cucurbita pepo (variety “Zorka”)8Vladimir Region
Cucurbita pepo (variety winter table pumpkin)7Vladimir Region
Cucurbita zucchini (variety “Black Beauty”)9Vladimir Region
Malus domestica (variety “Cinnamon Stripe”)12Moscow Region
Malus domestica (variety “Bessemianka Michurinskaya”) 12Vladimir Region
Prunus domestica17Moscow Region
Table 2. Diversity of endophytic yeasts obtained from ripe vegetables and fruits (relative abundance with standard errors).
Table 2. Diversity of endophytic yeasts obtained from ripe vegetables and fruits (relative abundance with standard errors).
Yeast SpeciesCucurbita pepo (Variety “Zorka”)Cucurbita pepo (Variety Winter Table Pumpkin)Cucurbita zucchiniMalus domestica (Variety “Cinnamon Stripe”)Malus domestica (Variety “Bessemianka Michurinskaya”)Prunus domestica
Ascomycetes
Aureobasidium pullulans24.72 ± 0.2121.44 ± 0.5117.26 ± 0.2111.23 ± 1.0110.98 ± 0.1210.81 ± 0.2
Barnettozyma californica6.22 ± 0.235.11 ± 0120.13 ± 0.045.87 ± 0.71
Candida parapsilosis6.01 ± 0,678.41 ± 0.096.12 ± 0.232.09 ± 0.94.26 ± 0.021.91 ± 0,22
Candida saitoana– *2.17 ± 0.022.85 ± 0.21
Candida sake2.41 ± 0.113.02 ± 0.041.45 ± 0.31.14 ± 076
Candida santamariae9.01 ± 0.17
Debaryomyces hansenii3.19 ± 0.561.17 ± 0.026.54 ± 0.1111.28 ± 0.237.19 ± 1.1
Hanseniaspora uvarum5.04 ± 0.1111.67 ± 0.4516.44 ± 0.3614.84 ± 0.1
Metschnikowia pulcherrima9.16 ± 0.3412.44 ± 0.077.67 ± 0.1219.41 ± 0.1621.42 ± 0.7724.08 ± 0.8
Pichia membranifaciens2.11 ± 0.92
Starmerella sp. 0.31 ± 0.02
Basidiomycetes
Cystofilobasidium infirmominiatum21.55 ± 0.5517.64 ± 0.219.24 ± 0.2
Filobasidium magnum2.11 ± 0.3117.44 ± 0.4515.12 ± 0.020.61 ± 0.01
Leucosporidium egoroviorum23.47 ± 0.16
Papiliotrema flavescens11.23 ± 0.1218.06 ± 0.20.24 ± 0.012.11 ± 0.172.97 ± 0.16
Pseudohyphozyma pustula4.02 ± 0.13
Rhodotorula babjevae0.77 ± 0.011.21 ± 0.50.91 ± 0.071.12 ± 0.11
Rhodotorula mucilaginosa15.81 ± 0.8116.13 ± 1.0124.83 ± 0,3410.38 ± 0.3114.96 ± 0.6227.53 ± 0.8
Vishniacozyma victoriae1.21 ± 0.020.75 ± 0.01
Average abundance, lg (CFU/g)1.782.013.125.625.893.54
Total species number9813131013
Ascomycete yeast species/
Basidiomycete yeast species
5/44/47/68/56/410/3
* “–” not found.
Table 3. Hydrolytic enzyme production by endophytic strains belonging to Candida parapsilosis and isolated from ripe vegetables and fruits (mean values with standard errors).
Table 3. Hydrolytic enzyme production by endophytic strains belonging to Candida parapsilosis and isolated from ripe vegetables and fruits (mean values with standard errors).
CodeSubstratePhospholipase †Phospholipase A2 (mmol/L)Protease † Hemolysis †
ATCC 22019control1 0.35 ± 0.020.84 ± 0.05
CPE-01Cucurbita pepo1 0.32 ± 0.050.71 ± 0.01
CPE-02Cucurbita pepo1 0.28 ± 0.050.83 ± 0.01
CPE-03Cucurbita pepo1 0.28 ± 0.080.80 ± 0.05
CPE-04Cucurbita pepo1 0.35 ± 0.110.84 ± 0.01
CPE-05Cucurbita pepo0.51 ± 0.0213.81 ± 0.030.34 ± 0.010.84 ± 0.05
CPE-06Cucurbita pepo1 0.22 ± 0.090.86 ± 0.02
CPE-07Cucurbita pepo1 0.15 ± 0.020.74 ± 0.05
CPE-08Cucurbita pepo1 0.30 ± 0.020.91 ± 0.10
CPE-09Cucurbita pepo1 0.32 ± 0.040.72 ± 0.03
CPE-10Cucurbita pepo1 0.36 ± 0.050.88 ± 0.05
CPE-11Cucurbita pepo1 0.31 ± 0.050.84 ± 0.11
CPE-12Cucurbita pepo1 0.26 ± 0.100.93 ± 0.01
CPE-13Cucurbita pepo1 0.33 ± 0.030.74 ± 0.05
CPE-14Cucurbita pepo1 0.36 ± 0.060.96 ± 0.06
CPE-15Cucurbita pepo1 0.34 ± 0.040.91 ± 0.11
CPE-16Cucurbita pepo1 0.30 ± 0.020.84 ± 0.03
CPE-17Cucurbita pepo1 0.31 ± 0.020.80 ± 0.12
CPE-18Cucurbita pepo1 0.34 ± 0.060.72 ± 0.21
CPE-19Cucurbita pepo1 0.41 ± 0.110.89 ± 0.01
CPE-20Cucurbita pepo1 0.35 ± 0.090.84 ± 0.04
CPE-21Cucurbita pepo1 0.32 ± 0.020.90 ± 0.04
CPE-22Cucurbita pepo1 0.31 ± 0.020.97 ± 0.05
CPE-23Cucurbita pepo1 0.45 ± 0.110.86 ± 0.02
CPE-24Cucurbita pepo1 0.30 ± 0.070.87 ± 0.01
CPE-25Cucurbita pepo1 0.32 ± 0.040.90 ± 0.01
CPE-26Cucurbita pepo1 0.32 ± 0.040.94 ± 0.03
CPE-27Cucurbita pepo1 0.38 ± 0.020.84 ± 0.05
CPE-28Cucurbita pepo1 0.34 ± 0.030.84 ± 0.16
CPE-29Cucurbita pepo1 0.25 ± 0.020.88 ± 0.01
CPE-30Cucurbita pepo1 0.29 ± 0.020.81 ± 0.01
CPE-31Cucurbita pepo1 0.35 ± 0.010.92 ± 0.09
CPE-32Cucurbita pepo1 0.34 ± 0.060.84 ± 0.10
CPE-33Cucurbita pepo1 0.34 ± 0.160.98 ± 0.02
CPE-34Cucurbita pepo1 0.31 ± 0.020.81 ± 0.02
CPE-35Cucurbita pepo1 0.30 ± 0.010.82 ± 0.02
CPE-36Cucurbita pepo1 0.30 ± 0.090.80 ± 0.11
CPE-37Cucurbita pepo1 0.37 ± 0.110.98 ± 0.06
CPE-38Cucurbita pepo1 0.35 ± 0.110.84 ± 0.02
CPE-39Cucurbita pepo1 0.38 ± 0.020.82 ± 0.02
CPE-40Cucurbita zucchini1 0.31 ± 0.020.81 ± 0.11
CPE-41Cucurbita zucchini1 0.38 ± 0.010.74 ± 0.23
CPE-42Cucurbita zucchini1 0.40 ± 0.020.80 ± 0.05
CPE-43Cucurbita zucchini1 0.65 ± 0.050.80 ± 0.02
CPE-44Cucurbita zucchini1 0.21 ± 0.050.94 ± 0.04
CPE-45Cucurbita zucchini1 0.33 ± 0.010.87 ± 0.04
CPE-46Cucurbita zucchini1 0.32 ± 0.080.82 ± 0.05
CPE-47Cucurbita zucchini1 0.32 ± 0.110.80 ± 0.01
CPE-48Cucurbita zucchini1 0.35 ± 0.050.73 ± 0.02
CPE-49Cucurbita zucchini1 0.33 ± 0.040.88 ± 0.02
CPE-50Cucurbita zucchini1 0.34 ± 0.040.90 ± 0.01
CPE-51Cucurbita zucchini1 0.34 ± 0.010.90 ± 0.01
CPE-52Cucurbita zucchini1 0.15 ± 0.020.91 ± 0.16
CPE-53Cucurbita zucchini1 0.30 ± 0.020.94 ± 0.41
CPE-54Cucurbita zucchini1 0.39 ± 0.060.82 ± 0.04
CPE-55Cucurbita zucchini1 0.26 ± 0.120.82 ± 0.04
CPE-56Cucurbita zucchini1 0.21 ± 0.070.81 ± 0.01
CPE-57Cucurbita zucchini1 0.30 ± 0.160.82 ± 0.01
CPE-58Cucurbita zucchini1 0.34 ± 0.010.84 ± 0.02
CPE-59Cucurbita zucchini1 0.34 ± 0.010.86 ± 0.02
CPE-60Cucurbita zucchini1 0.30 ± 0.050.88 ± 0.22
CPE-61Cucurbita zucchini1 0.31 ± 0.010.88 ± 0.13
CPE-62Cucurbita zucchini1 0.38 ± 0.040.81 ± 0.05
CPE-63Cucurbita zucchini0.54 ± 0.1016.11 ± 0.050.11 ± 0.020.94 ± 0.01
CPE-64Cucurbita zucchini1 0.30 ± 0.110.74 ± 0.12
CPE-65Cucurbita zucchini1 0.30 ± 0.090.84 ± 0.01
CPE-66Cucurbita zucchini1 0.31 ± 0.050.74 ± 0.04
CPE-67Cucurbita zucchini1 0.29 ± 0.060.84 ± 0.04
CPE-68Malus domestica1 0.32 ± 0.120.94 ± 0.02
CPE-69Malus domestica1 0.38 ± 0.010.94 ± 0.01
CPE-70Malus domestica1 0.38 ± 0.020.94 ± 0.12
CPE-71Malus domestica1 0.36 ± 0.050.90 ± 0.01
CPE-72Malus domestica1 0.41 ± 0.061
CPE-73Malus domestica1 0.45 ± 0.050.84 ± 0.44
CPE-74Malus domestica1 0.32 ± 0.010.84 ± 0.06
CPE-75Malus domestica1 0.37 ± 0.070.84 ± 0.05
CPE-76Malus domestica1 0.36 ± 0.011
CPE-77Malus domestica1 0.30 ± 0.161
CPE-78Malus domestica1 0.39 ± 0.060.84 ± 0.05
CPE-79Malus domestica1 0.44 ± 0.060.82 ± 0.02
CPE-80Malus domestica1 0.33 ± 0.050.90 ± 0.02
CPE-81Malus domestica1 0.34 ± 0.010.90 ± 0.01
CPE-82Malus domestica1 0.35 ± 0.020.91 ± 0.02
CPE-83Malus domestica1 0.36 ± 0.030.86 ± 0.11
CPE-84Malus domestica1 0.37 ± 0.090.84 ± 0.07
CPE-85Malus domestica1 0.30 ± 0.110.82 ± 0.21
CPE-86Malus domestica1 0.42 ± 0.070.84 ± 0.01
CPE-87Malus domestica1 0.31 ± 0.010.89 ± 0.05
CPE-88Malus domestica1 0.30 ± 0.010.82 ± 0.05
CPE-89Malus domestica1 0.35 ± 0.021
CPE90Prunus domestica1 0.36 ± 0.040.89 ± 0.01
CPE91Prunus domestica1 0.35 ± 0.020.81 ± 0.03
CPE92Prunus domestica1 0.45 ± 0.220.82 ± 0.05
CPE93Prunus domestica1 0.44 ± 0.080.92 ± 0.04
CPE94Prunus domestica1 0.38 ± 0.010.84 ± 0.12
CPE95Prunus domestica1 0.31 ± 0.020.86 ± 0.18
CPE96Prunus domestica1 0.30 ± 0.020.86 ± 0.05
CPE97Prunus domestica1 0.39 ± 0.040.80 ± 0.01
CPE98Prunus domestica1 0.32 ± 0.010.81 ± 0.05
CPE99Prunus domestica1 0.34 ± 0.010.83 ± 0.05
CPE100Prunus domestica1 0.37 ± 0.011
CPE101Prunus domestica1 0.36 ± 0.040.82 ± 0.10
CPE102Prunus domestica1 0.33 ± 0.060.80 ± 0.06
CPE103Prunus domestica1 0.33 ± 0.131
CPE104Prunus domestica1 0.28 ± 0.010.96 ± 0.01
CPE105Prunus domestica1 0.38 ± 0.010.94 ± 0.04
CPE106Prunus domestica1 0.47 ± 0.020.81 ± 0.04
CPE107Prunus domestica1 0.32 ± 0.010.94 ± 0.01
† The protease, phospholipase, and hemolysis activities were measured by the formation of a clear halo around the colony and expressed as Pz value. Pz value was scored into four categories: Pz = 1, no enzymatic activity; 0.999 ≥ Pz ≥ 0.700, low enzymatic activity; 0.699 ≥ Pz ≥ 0.400, medium enzymatic activity; Pz ≤ 0.399, high enzymatic activity.
Table 4. Endophytic strains of Candida parapsilosis isolated from ripe vegetables and fruits with antimycotic susceptibility (retarded growth with standard errors, mm).
Table 4. Endophytic strains of Candida parapsilosis isolated from ripe vegetables and fruits with antimycotic susceptibility (retarded growth with standard errors, mm).
Amphotericin BFluconazole
CodeSubstrate13–1727–33
ATCC 22019control17.9 ± 0.0127.6 ± 0.02
CPE-01Cucurbita pepo17.1 ± 0.0127.1 ± 0.05
CPE-02Cucurbita pepo17.1 ± 0.0627.1 ± 0.11
CPE-03Cucurbita pepo16.2 ± 0.0527.0 ± 0.04
CPE-04 †Cucurbita pepo19.2 ± 0.0526.6 ± 0.01
CPE-05Cucurbita pepo12.5 ± 0.0326.1 ± 0.01
CPE-06Cucurbita pepo18.6 ± 0.427.2 ± 0.11
CPE-07Cucurbita pepo17.6 ± 0.1627.1 ± 0.03
CPE-08Cucurbita pepo14.2 ± 0.0727.2 ± 0.11
CPE-09Cucurbita pepo17.9 ± 0.0127.6 ± 0.11
CPE-10Cucurbita pepo17.2 ± 0.0527.2 ± 0.10
CPE-11Cucurbita pepo16.9 ± 0.1228.1 ± 0.05
CPE-12Cucurbita pepo17.2 ± 0.1121.2 ± 0.05
CPE-13Cucurbita pepo18.2 ± 0.0527.2 ± 0.05
CPE-14Cucurbita pepo15.7 ± 0.1127.1 ± 0.02
CPE-15Cucurbita pepo17.3 ± 0.0127.0 ± 0.33
CPE-16Cucurbita pepo17.0 ± 0.4227.0 ± 0.01
CPE-17Cucurbita pepo17.1 ± 0.0327.4 ± 0.04
CPE-18Cucurbita pepo16.8 ± 0.1127.4 ± 0.02
CPE-19Cucurbita pepo17.5 ± 0.1027.0 ± 0.02
CPE-20Cucurbita pepo16.1 ± 0.0527.1 ± 0.10
CPE-21Cucurbita pepo14.5 ± 0.1227.1 ± 0.12
CPE-22Cucurbita pepo17.2 ± 0.0727.2 ± 0.06
CPE-23Cucurbita pepo11.9 ± 0.527.0 ± 0.05
CPE-24Cucurbita pepo17.9 ± 0.0727.6 ± 0.23
CPE-25Cucurbita pepo17.9 ± 0.1227.1 ± 0.01
CPE-26Cucurbita pepo16.9 ± 0.1228.6 ± 0.02
CPE-27Cucurbita pepo17.1 ± 0.0328.2 ± 0.02
CPE-28Cucurbita pepo17.0 ± 0.0527.1 ± 0.13
CPE-29Cucurbita pepo17.2 ± 0.0527.1 ± 0.04
CPE-30Cucurbita pepo17.2 ± 0.3727.5 ± 0.02
CPE-31Cucurbita pepo17.4 ± 0.0526.9 ± 0.01
CPE-32Cucurbita pepo16.9 ± 0.1027.1 ± 0.54
CPE-33Cucurbita pepo17,2 ± 0.0827.0 ± 0.11
CPE-34Cucurbita pepo17.1 ± 0.0127.1 ± 0.02
CPE-35Cucurbita pepo16.9 ± 0.0127.2 ± 0.55
CPE-36Cucurbita pepo15.4 ± 0.0527.0 ± 0.2
CPE-37Cucurbita pepo16. 9 ± 0.2127.0 ± 0.03
CPE-38Cucurbita pepo17.0 ± 0.1627.2 ± 0.01
CPE-39Cucurbita pepo15.9 ± 0.0527.1 ± 0.16
CPE-40Cucurbita zucchini14.9 ± 0.1127.0 ± 0.12
CPE-41Cucurbita zucchini15.1 ± 0.1227.4 ± 0.11
CPE-42Cucurbita zucchini17.0 ± 0.0926.6 ± 0.11
CPE-43Cucurbita zucchini17.0 ± 0.4027.6 ± 0.11
CPE-44Cucurbita zucchini13.6 ± 0.0527.1 ± 0.09
CPE-45Cucurbita zucchini13.1 ± 0.0127.0 ± 0.14
CPE-46Cucurbita zucchini14.9 ± 0.0529.2 ± 0.11
CPE-47Cucurbita zucchini13.9 ± 0.1127.0 ± 0.07
CPE-48Cucurbita zucchini12.9 ± 0.0426.0 ± 0.05
CPE-49Cucurbita zucchini12.9 ± 0.1126.2 ± 0.02
CPE-50Cucurbita zucchini17.1 ± 0.0527.2 ± 0.15
CPE-51Cucurbita zucchini15.1 ± 0.0127.2 ± 0.02
CPE-52Cucurbita zucchini14.9 ± 0.1727.0 ± 0.06
CPE-53Cucurbita zucchini16.9 ± 0.1127.0 ± 0.12
CPE-54Cucurbita zucchini16.9 ± 0.0428.2 ± 0.20
CPE-55Cucurbita zucchini17.1 ± 0.0129.0 ± 0.42
CPE-56Cucurbita zucchini13.8 ± 0.1327.8 ± 0.04
CPE-57Cucurbita zucchini13.9 ± 0.3027.0 ± 0.12
CPE-58Cucurbita zucchini14.9 ± 0.0527.0 ± 0.05
CPE-59Cucurbita zucchini15.9 ± 0.4427.0 ± 0.05
CPE-60Cucurbita zucchini17.1 ± 0.0527.1 ± 0.11
CPE-61Cucurbita zucchini13.9 ± 0.0127.9 ± 0.01
CPE-62Cucurbita zucchini13.5 ± 0.0227.1 ± 0.05
CPE-63Cucurbita zucchini12.1 ± 0.0426.9 ± 0.01
CPE-64Cucurbita zucchini15.9 ± 0.1227.2 ± 0.44
CPE-65Cucurbita zucchini15.5 ± 0.0127.6 ± 0.02
CPE-66Cucurbita zucchini17.2 ± 0.0527.8 ± 0.01
CPE-67Cucurbita zucchini15.9 ± 0.1827.5 ± 0.12
CPE-68Malus domestica17.9 ± 0.0327.0 ± 0.01
CPE-69Malus domestica18.2 ± 0.1027.0 ± 0.72
CPE-70Malus domestica18.6 ± 0.0527.1 ± 0.12
CPE-71Malus domestica17.1 ± 0.3727.9 ± 0.05
CPE-72Malus domestica17.5 ± 0.0527.1 ± 0.11
CPE-73Malus domestica18.1 ± 0.0728.2 ± 0.02
CPE-74Malus domestica17.1 ± 0.1227.0 ± 0.23
CPE-75Malus domestica17.1 ± 0.0527.0 ± 0.09
CPE-76Malus domestica19,9 ± 0.0627.0 ± 0.05
CPE-77Malus domestica18.1 ± 0.0127.8 ± 0.01
CPE-78Malus domestica16.9 ± 0.1127.0 ± 0.11
CPE-79Malus domestica17.1 ± 0.0226.6 ± 0.13
CPE-80Malus domestica17.1 ± 0.0527.6 ± 0.04
CPE-81Malus domestica18,2 ± 0.1226.8 ± 0.09
CPE-82Malus domestica16.8 ± 0.0327.5 ± 0.11
CPE-83Malus domestica17.1 ± 0.4027.0 ± 0.09
CPE-84Malus domestica17.0 ± 0.2227.0 ± 0.23
CPE-85Malus domestica17.2 ± 0.0127.0 ± 0.04
CPE-86Malus domestica17.2 ± 0.0927.1 ± 0.05
CPE-87Malus domestica17.0 ± 0.1127.9 ± 0.16
CPE-88Malus domestica17,6 ± 0.0527.2 ± 0.07
CPE-89Malus domestica19.1 ± 0.2127.0 ± 0.02
CPE-90Prunus domestica17.2 ± 0.0327.0 ± 0.10
CPE-91Prunus domestica17.1 ± 0.4427.1 ± 0.03
CPE-92Prunus domestica16.5 ± 0.1327.1 ± 0.01
CPE-93Prunus domestica17.2 ± 0.0225.6 ± 0.30
CPE-94Prunus domestica17.0 ± 0.0227.0 ± 0.22
CPE-95Prunus domestica17.0 ± 0.0427.0 ± 0.01
CPE-96Prunus domestica17.2 ± 0.1827.1 ± 0.05
CPE-97Prunus domestica16.9 ± 0.0527.0 ± 0.02
CPE-98Prunus domestica17.1 ± 0.0127.5 ± 0.02
CPE-99Prunus domestica17.1 ± 0.1127.2 ± 0.02
CPE-100Prunus domestica17.2 ± 0.0327.6 ± 0.05
CPE-101Prunus domestica15.8 ± 0.5527.0 ± 0.11
CPE-102Prunus domestica17.2 ± 0.1627.0 ± 0.45
CPE-103Prunus domestica16.9 ± 0.4427.3 ± 0.13
CPE-104Prunus domestica17.0 ± 0.0527.1 ± 0.03
CPE-105Prunus domestica17.0 ± 0.0127.0 ± 0.01
CPE-106Prunus domestica17.4 ± 0.1227.0 ± 0.17
CPE-107Prunus domestica17.2 ± 0.0227.2 ± 0.02
†—Values below the reference values are highlighted in gray.
Table 5. Mean Pz value of hydrolytic enzymes and growth retardation zone (mm) for endophytic strains of Candida parapsilosis isolated from ripe vegetables and fruits.
Table 5. Mean Pz value of hydrolytic enzymes and growth retardation zone (mm) for endophytic strains of Candida parapsilosis isolated from ripe vegetables and fruits.
PhospholipaseProteaseHemolysisAmphotericin BFluconazole
Cucurbita pepo0.99 ± 0.00050.32 ± 0.050.85 ± 0.0716.74 ± 0.1127.06 ± 0.09
Cucurbita zucchini0.98 ± 0.0040.32 ± 0.050.84 ± 0.0715.10 ± 0.1027.31 ± 0.1
Malus domestica– †0.36 ± 0.050.89 ± 0.0617.63 ± 0.1427.22 ± 0.12
Prunus domestica0.36 ± 0.040.76 ± 0.0516.83 ± 0.1427.04 ± 0.09
†—not observed.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Glushakova, A.; Kachalkin, A.; Rodionova, E. Hydrolytic Enzyme Production and Susceptibility to Antifungal Compounds of Opportunistic Candida parapsilosis Strains Isolated from Cucurbitaceae and Rosaceae Fruits. Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 3, 199-211. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol3010014

AMA Style

Glushakova A, Kachalkin A, Rodionova E. Hydrolytic Enzyme Production and Susceptibility to Antifungal Compounds of Opportunistic Candida parapsilosis Strains Isolated from Cucurbitaceae and Rosaceae Fruits. Applied Microbiology. 2023; 3(1):199-211. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol3010014

Chicago/Turabian Style

Glushakova, Anna, Aleksey Kachalkin, and Evgenia Rodionova. 2023. "Hydrolytic Enzyme Production and Susceptibility to Antifungal Compounds of Opportunistic Candida parapsilosis Strains Isolated from Cucurbitaceae and Rosaceae Fruits" Applied Microbiology 3, no. 1: 199-211. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol3010014

APA Style

Glushakova, A., Kachalkin, A., & Rodionova, E. (2023). Hydrolytic Enzyme Production and Susceptibility to Antifungal Compounds of Opportunistic Candida parapsilosis Strains Isolated from Cucurbitaceae and Rosaceae Fruits. Applied Microbiology, 3(1), 199-211. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol3010014

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop