How Yeast Antifungal Resistance Gene Analysis Is Essential to Validate Antifungal Susceptibility Testing Systems.
CLSI
EUCAST
MICRONAUT-AM
Sensititre TM YeastOne TM
antifungal susceptibility
diagnostic test
resistance genes
Journal
Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology
ISSN: 2235-2988
Titre abrégé: Front Cell Infect Microbiol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101585359
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
21
01
2022
accepted:
14
03
2022
entrez:
23
5
2022
pubmed:
24
5
2022
medline:
25
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) of yeast pathogen alerts clinicians about the potential emergence of resistance. In this study, we compared two commercial microdilution AFST methods: Sensititre YeastOne read visually (YO) and MICRONAUT-AM read visually (MN) or spectrophotometrically (MNV), interpreted with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute and European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing criteria, respectively. Overall, 97 strains from 19 yeast species were measured for nine antifungal drugs including a total of 873 observations. First, the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) was compared between YO and MNV, and between MNV and MN, either directly or by assigning them to five susceptibility categories. Those categories were based on the number of MIC dilutions around the breakpoint or epidemiological cut-off reference values (ECOFFs or ECVs). Second, YO and MNV methods were evaluated for their ability to detect the elevation of MICs due to mutation in antifungal resistance genes, thanks to pairs or triplets of isogenic strains isolated from a single patient along a treatment previously analyzed for antifungal resistance gene mutations. Reproducibility measurement was evaluated, thanks to three quality control (QC) strains. YO and MNV direct MIC comparisons obtained a global agreement of 67%. Performing susceptibility category comparisons, only 22% and 49% of the MICs could be assigned to categories using breakpoints and ECOFFs/ECVs, respectively, and 40% could not be assigned due to the lack of criteria in both consortia. The YO and MN susceptibility categories gave accuracies as low as 50%, revealing the difficulty to implement this method of comparison. In contrast, using the antifungal resistance gene sequences as a gold standard, we demonstrated that both methods (YO and MN) were equally able to detect the acquisition of resistance in the This study demonstrates the valuable use of both commercial microdilution AFST methods to detect antifungal resistance due to point mutations in antifungal resistance genes. We highlighted the difficulty to conduct conclusive analyses without antifungal gene sequence data as a gold standard. Indeed, MIC comparisons taking into account the consortia criteria of interpretation remain difficult even after the effort of harmonization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35601096
doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.859439
pmc: PMC9114767
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antifungal Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
859439Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Pellaton, Sanglard, Lamoth and Coste.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. All MICRONAUT materials have been provided by MERLIN Gesellschaft fuer mikrobiologische Diagnostika mbH as stated in our research agreement contract.
Références
Bioorg Chem. 2020 Nov;104:104240
pubmed: 32906036
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012 Aug;56(8):4223-32
pubmed: 22615281
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018 Nov;24(11):1214.e1-1214.e4
pubmed: 29909005
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020 Jun;18(6):319-331
pubmed: 32047294
J Fungi (Basel). 2021 Jan 18;7(1):
pubmed: 33477533
mBio. 2019 Dec 24;10(6):
pubmed: 31874914
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003 Sep;47(9):2717-24
pubmed: 12936965
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Apr;54(4):1476-83
pubmed: 20086148
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(6):3570-3
pubmed: 25779577
J Fungi (Basel). 2021 Sep 15;7(9):
pubmed: 34575798
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 May 21;64(6):
pubmed: 32229492
J Fungi (Basel). 2021 Jul 28;7(8):
pubmed: 34436151
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 Sep 23;60(10):6173-8
pubmed: 27480850
Front Mol Biosci. 2020 Sep 25;7:586540
pubmed: 33102531
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010 Apr;66(4):373-84
pubmed: 20226328
Drug Resist Updat. 2010 Dec;13(6):180-95
pubmed: 21050800
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Oct 24;61(11):
pubmed: 28807920
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2021 Feb 22;:
pubmed: 33619054
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015 Dec;59(12):7882-7
pubmed: 26438489
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 Jan 1;73(suppl_1):i4-i13
pubmed: 29304207
Front Microbiol. 2020 Jan 14;10:3000
pubmed: 32010083
FEMS Yeast Res. 2009 Oct;9(7):1029-50
pubmed: 19799636
J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2020 Sep;22:685-688
pubmed: 32653725
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008 Sep;52(9):3092-8
pubmed: 18591282
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Jul 25;61(8):
pubmed: 28559257
Int J Microbiol. 2012;2012:713687
pubmed: 22187560
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2012 Mar;36(2):288-305
pubmed: 21569057
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 Apr 1;73(4):891-899
pubmed: 29325167
Mol Gen Genet. 1984;198(2):179-82
pubmed: 6394964
PLoS Pathog. 2009 Jan;5(1):e1000268
pubmed: 19148266
Front Microbiol. 2019 Nov 29;10:2788
pubmed: 31849919
Eukaryot Cell. 2007 Oct;6(10):1889-904
pubmed: 17693596
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;79(2):198-204
pubmed: 24736096
Infection. 2020 Oct;48(5):761-766
pubmed: 32661647
J Fungi (Basel). 2021 May 01;7(5):
pubmed: 34062848
Mycoses. 2004 Oct;47(9-10):397-401
pubmed: 15504123