30Nov 2017

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ANTIFUNGAL SUSCEPTIBILITY OF KERATITIS ASSOCIATED FUNGAL BIOFILM AND PLANKTONIC CULTURES.

  • Cornea and Refractive Services, Priyamvada Birla Aravind Eye Hospital, Kolkata, India.
  • Dept of Botany and Forestry, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore, India.
  • Central Research Facility, Indian institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Biofilm are considered as the most important developmental characteristics in ocular infections. Biofilm eradication is a major challenge today to overcome the incidence of drug resistance and treatment failures in cases of fungal keratitis. This report demonstrates the in vitro ability of biofilm formation by three common keratitis-associated fungal pathogens, namely, Aspergillus fumigatus, Fusarium solani, and Candida albicans. Antifungal sensitivity testing performed for both planktonic cells and biofilm revealed the sessile phenotype to be resistant at MIC levels for the planktonic cells and also at higher concentrations. Antifungal susceptibility testing following re-suspension of the sessile form into a planktonic mode demonstrated an intermediate MIC value with development of resistance compared to the original planktonic state. This demonstrates that antifungal resistance acquired by biofilms is permanent and transferred to subsequent generations thereby converting a sensitive phenotype into a resistant form.

  1. Anil S, Ellepola AN, Samaranayake LP. The impact of polyene, azole, and DNA analogue antimycotics on the cell surface hydrophobicity of Candida albicans and Candida tropicalis in HIV infection. Mycopathologia. 2002; 153: 179-185.
  2. Chang DC, Grant GB, O?Donnell K, Wannemuehler KA, Noble-Wang J, Rao CY, et al. Multistate outbreak of Fusarium keratitis associated with use of a contact lens solution. JAMA. 2006; 296: 953?63.
  3. Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, Korber DR,?Lappin-Scott HM. Microbial biofilms. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1995; 49:711?745.
  4. Cuenca-Estrella M, Moore CB, Barchiesi F, Bille J, Chryssanthou E, Denning DW, Donnelly J P, Dromer F, Dupont B, Rex J H, Richardson M D, Sancak B, Verweij P E, Rodr?guez-Tudela J L, the AFST Subcommittee of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Multicenter evaluation of the reproducibility of the proposed antifungal susceptibility testing method for fermentative yeasts of the Antifungal Susceptibility Testing Subcommittee of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (AFST-EUCAST). Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2003; 9: 467-474.
  5. Donlan RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 2002; 15:167?93.
  6. Imamura Y, Chandra J, Mukherjee PK, Lattif AA,?Szczotka-Flynn LB,?Pearlman E,?Lass JH,?O'Donnell K,?Ghannoum MA.. Fusarium and Candida albicans biofilms on soft contact lenses: model development, influence of lens type, and susceptibility to lens care solutions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008; 52:171?182.
  7. Jabra-Rizk MA, Falkler WA, Meiller TF. Fungal biofilms and drug resistance. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:14?19.
  8. Kuhn DM, George T, Chandra J, Mukherjee P K, Ghannoum MA Antifungal Susceptibility of Candida Biofilms: Unique Efficacy of Amphotericin B Lipid Formulations and Echinocandins Antimicrobial Agents Chemothery.2002; 46:1773-1780.
  9. Kuhn DM, Ghannoum MA. Candida biofilms: antifungal resistance and emerging therapeutic options Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2004; 5:186?197.
  10. Kumamoto CA. Candida biofilms. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2002; 5:608?611.
  11. Lalitha P, Shapiro BL, Srinivasan M, Prajna NV, Acharya NR, et al.Antimicrobial susceptibility of Fusarium, Aspergillus, and otherfilamentous fungi isolated from keratitis. Arch Ophthalmol (2007) 125: 789-793.
  12. Mowat E, Lang S, Williams C, McCulloch E, Jones B, Ramage G. Phase-dependent antifungal activity against Aspergillus fumigatus developing multicellular filamentous biofilms. J. Antimicrob. Chemother.2008; 62: 1281-1284.
  13. Ramage G, Rajendran R, Gutierrez-Correa M, Jones B, Williams C. Aspergillus biofilms: clinical and industrial significance. FEMS Microbiology letter.2011; 332:89?97.
  14. Ramage G, Rajendran R, Sherry L, Williams C. Fungal Biofilm Resistance. International Journal of Microbiology.2012.
  15. Saha S, Banerjee D, Khetan A, Sengupta J. Epidemiological profile of fungal keratitis in urban population of West Bengal, India. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2009; 3:114-118.
  16. Sengupta J, Khetan A, Saha S, Banerjee D, Gangopadhyay N, Pal D. Candida Keratitis: emerging problem in India. Cornea. 2012; 31:371-5.
  17. Sengupta J, Saha S, Khetan A, Sarkar SK, Mandal SM. Effects of lactoferricin B against keratitis-associated fungal biofilms. J Infect Chemother. 2012 ;18(5):698-703.
  18. Shimizu K, Kobayakawa S, Tsuji A, Tochikubo T. Biofilm formation on hydrophilic intraocular lens material Curr Eye Res. 2006; 31:989-997.
  19. Srinivasan M, Gonzales CA, George C, et al. Epidemiology and aetiological diagnosis of corneal ulceration in Madurai, South India. British Journal of Ophthalmology 1997; 81:965-971.
  20. Sun RL, Jones DB, Wilhelmus KR. Clinical characteristics and outcome of Candida keratitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 143:1043?1045.
  21. Whitcher, JP.,Srinivasan. M.,Upadhyay, M. P. Corneal blindness: a global perspective. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2001; 79:214-221.
  22. Xu KD, McFeters GA, Stewart PS. Biofilm resistance to antimicrobial agent Microbiology.2000; 146 :547-549.
?

[Jayangshu Sengupta, Suman Saha, Debdulal Banerjee and Santi M Mandal. (2017); A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ANTIFUNGAL SUSCEPTIBILITY OF KERATITIS ASSOCIATED FUNGAL BIOFILM AND PLANKTONIC CULTURES. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 5 (Nov). 1248-1252] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Jayangshu Sengupta
Priyamvada Birla Aravind Eye Hospital

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/5892      
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/5892

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 22 | No. of Views: 92