Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24436013›Full record

ArticleMycopathologia2014

In vitro effect of amphotericin B on Candida albicans, Candida glabrata and Candida parapsilosis biofilm formation.

Małgorzata Prażyńska, Eugenia Gospodarek

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Mycopathologia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol ModulatesJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  4. Global Prevalence of Antifungal-ResistantTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022
    Review
  5. Anti-Pharmaceutics · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Lack of efficacy of echinocandins against high metabolic activity biofilms of Candida parapsilosis clinical isolates.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Małgorzata PrażyńskaDepartment of Microbiology, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, 9 Maria Skłodowska-Curie Street, 85-094, Bydgoszcz, Poland, malgorzata_szabelska@wp.pl.
Eugenia Gospodarek
Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Candida spp. biofilm is considered highly resistant to conventional antifungals. The aim of this study was to investigate the in vitro effect of amphotericin B on Candida spp. biofilms at different stages of maturation. We investigated the activity of amphotericin B against 78 clinical isolates of Candida spp., representing three species, growing as planktonic and sessile cells, by a widely accepted broth microdilution method. The in vitro effect on sessile cell viability was evaluated by MTT reduction assay. All examined strains were susceptible to amphotericin B when grown as free-living cells. At the early stages of biofilm maturation 96.7-100.0 % strains, depending on species, displayed amphotericin B sessile minimal inhibitory concentration (SMIC) ≤ 1 μg/mL. Mature Candida spp. biofilm of 32.1-90.0 % strains displayed amphotericin B SMIC ≤ 1 μg/mL. Based on these results, amphotericin B displays species- and strain-depending activity against Candida spp. biofilms.

Indexed as

Amphotericin BAntifungal AgentsBiofilmsCandida albicansCandida glabrataCell AdhesionHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSpecies SpecificityAmphotericin BAntifungal Agents

Identifiers

PMID24436013
OpenAlexW1969131286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.