Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36735743›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Pandemic Response Box® library as a source of antifungal drugs against Scedosporium and Lomentospora species.

Rodrigo Rollin-Pinheiro, Mariana Ingrid Dutra da Silva Xisto, Yuri de Castro-Almeida, Victor Pereira Rochetti, Luana Pereira Borba-Santos, Yasmin da Silva Fontes, Antonio Ferreira-Pereira, Sonia Rozental, Eliana Barreto-Bergter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Antifungal activity of β-lapachone against a fluconazole-resistant Candida auris strain.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rodrigo Rollin-PinheiroLaboratório de Química Biológica de Microrganismos, Departamento de Microbiologia Geral, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Mariana Ingrid Dutra da Silva XistoLaboratório de Química Biológica de Microrganismos, Departamento de Microbiologia Geral, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1803-6381
Yuri de Castro-AlmeidaLaboratório de Química Biológica de Microrganismos, Departamento de Microbiologia Geral, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Victor Pereira RochettiLaboratório de Química Biológica de Microrganismos, Departamento de Microbiologia Geral, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Luana Pereira Borba-SantosPrograma de Biologia Celular e Parasitologia, Instituto de Biofísica Carlos Chagas Filho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-6576-6646
Yasmin da Silva FontesLaboratório de Bioquímica Microbiana, Departamento de Microbiologia Geral, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8938-9267
Antonio Ferreira-PereiraLaboratório de Bioquímica Microbiana, Departamento de Microbiologia Geral, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Sonia RozentalPrograma de Biologia Celular e Parasitologia, Instituto de Biofísica Carlos Chagas Filho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Eliana Barreto-BergterLaboratório de Química Biológica de Microrganismos, Departamento de Microbiologia Geral, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8944-9415
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scedosporium and Lomentospora species are opportunistic filamentous fungi that cause localized and disseminated infections in immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients. These species are considered resistant fungi due to their low susceptibility to most current antifungal agents used in healthcare settings. The search for new compounds that could work as promising candidate antifungal drugs is an increasing field of interest. In this context, in the present study we screened the Pandemic Response Box® library (Medicines for Malaria Venture [MMV], Switzerland) to identify compounds with antifungal activity against Scedosporium and Lomentospora species. An initial screening of the drugs from this collection at 5 μM was performed using a clinical Scedosporium aurantiacum isolate according to the EUCAST protocol. Compounds with activity against this fungus were also tested against four other species (S. boydii¸ S. dehoogii, S. apiospermum and L. prolificans) at concentrations ranging from 0.078 to 10 μM. Seven compounds inhibited more than 80% of S. aurantiacum growth, three of them (alexidine, amorolfine and olorofim) were selected due to their differences in mechanism of action, especially when compared to drugs from the azole class. These compounds were more active against biofilm formation than against preformed biofilm in Scedosporium and Lomentospora species, except alexidine, which was able to decrease preformed biofilm about 50%. Analysis of the potential synergism of these compounds with voriconazole and caspofungin was performed by the checkerboard method for S. aurantiacum. The analysis by Bliss methodology revealed synergistic effects among selected drugs with caspofungin. When these drugs were combined with voriconazole, only alexidine and amorolfine showed a synergistic effect, whereas olorofim showed an antagonistic effect. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that alexidine induces morphology alterations in S. aurantiacum biofilm grown on a catheter surface. Reactive oxygen species production, mitochondrial activity and surface components were analyzed by fluorescent probes when S. aurantiacum was treated with selected drugs and revealed that some cell parameters are altered by these compounds. In conclusion, alexidine, amorolfine and olorofim were identified as promising compounds to be studied against scedosporiosis and lomentosporiosis.

Indexed as

Antifungal AgentsAscomycotaScedosporiumAcetamidesBiguanidesCaspofunginHumansPiperazinesPyrimidinesPyrrolesVoriconazoleAcetamidesalexidineAntifungal AgentsBiguanidesCaspofunginolorofimPiperazinesPyrimidinesPyrrolesVoriconazole

Identifiers

PMID36735743
PMCPMC9897528
OpenAlexW4319062286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.