Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37746188›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in fungal biology2022

Antifungal Exposure and Resistance Development: Defining Minimal Selective Antifungal Concentrations and Testing Methodologies.

Emily M Stevenson, William H Gaze, Neil A R Gow, Alwyn Hart, Wiebke Schmidt, Jane Usher, Adilia Warris, Helen Wilkinson, Aimee K Murray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in fungal biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Emily M StevensonEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Cornwall, United Kingdom.
William H GazeEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Cornwall, United Kingdom.
Neil A R GowMedical Research Council Centre for Medical Mycology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Alwyn HartChief Scientist's Group, Environment Agency, Horizon House, Bristol, England, United Kingdom.
Wiebke SchmidtChief Scientist's Group, Environment Agency, Horizon House, Bristol, England, United Kingdom.
Jane UsherMedical Research Council Centre for Medical Mycology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Adilia WarrisMedical Research Council Centre for Medical Mycology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Helen WilkinsonChief Scientist's Group, Environment Agency, Horizon House, Bristol, England, United Kingdom.
Aimee K MurrayEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Cornwall, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N006364/2Medical Research Council MR/V033417/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review aims to summarise the current understanding of selection for antifungal resistance (AFR) and to compare and contrast this with selection for antibacterial resistance, which has received more research attention. AFR is an emerging global threat to human health, associated with high mortality rates, absence of effective surveillance systems and with few alternative treatment options available. Clinical AFR is well documented, with additional settings increasingly being recognised to play a role in the evolution and spread of AFR. The environment, for example, harbours diverse fungal communities that are regularly exposed to antifungal micropollutants, potentially increasing AFR selection risk. The direct application of effect concentrations of azole fungicides to agricultural crops and the incomplete removal of pharmaceutical antifungals in wastewater treatment systems are of particular concern. Currently, environmental risk assessment (ERA) guidelines do not require assessment of antifungal agents in terms of their ability to drive AFR development, and there are no established experimental tools to determine antifungal selective concentrations. Without data to interpret the selective risk of antifungals, our ability to effectively inform safe environmental thresholds is severely limited. In this review, potential methods to generate antifungal selective concentration data are proposed, informed by approaches used to determine antibacterial minimal selective concentrations. Such data can be considered in the development of regulatory guidelines that aim to reduce selection for AFR.

Indexed as

antifungal resistanceantifungalsantimicrobial resistanceexperimental evolutionfungiminimal selective concentrationselection

Identifiers

PMID37746188
PMCPMC10512330

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.