Biofilm: A Robust and Efficient Barrier to Antifungal Chemotherapy
Souza dos Santos AL1,2*, de Mello TP1, de Souza Ramos L1 and Branquinha MH1
1Laboratório de Investigação de Peptidases, Departamento de Microbiologia Geral, Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes, Brazil
2Programa de Pós-Graduação em Bioquímica, Instituto de Química, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
- Corresponding Author:
- André L.S. Santos
Laboratório de Investigação de Peptidases (LIP)
Departamento de Microbiologia Geral
Instituto de Microbiologia Paulo de Góes (IMPG)
Bloco E - subsolo, sala 05
Centro de Ciências da Saúde (CCS)
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-902, Brazil
Tel: +55 21 3938 6740
E-mail: [email protected]r
Received Date: December 21, 2015; Accepted Date: December 28, 2015; Published Date: December 31, 2015
Citation: dos Santos ALS, de Mello TP, de Souza RL, Branquinha MH (2015) Biofilm: A Robust and Efficient Barrier to Antifungal Chemotherapy. J Antimicro 1:e101. doi:10.4172/2472-1212.1000e101
Copyright: © 2015 dos Santos ALS, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Visit for more related articles at Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
Fungal diseases affect a considerable proportion of the worldwide population, ranging in severity from mild superficial infections to grave invasive diseases [1-7]. The emergence and spread of systemic life-threatening fungal infections have increased in the last three decades, causing a major and alarming global concern [1-7]. The more widespread provision of new medical practices (e.g., immunosuppressive therapy, use of broad spectrum antibiotics and invasive surgical procedures such as solid organ and bone marrow transplantation) and the greater number of people suffering from predisposing conditions (e.g., immunocompromising status such as neutropenia, diabetes and human immunodeficiency virus infection, low-birth-weight newborns, burns, patients with cancer and critically ill patients requiring implanted medical devices or grafts) are the main factors that have been implicated in the augmented number of fungal infections [8-12] (Figure 1).
Figure 1: The fungal disease is the consequence of the direct interaction among fungi, host and environment. In this context, the ability of fungal cells to produce numerous (↓) attributes of virulence during the infection of an immunosuppressed host (↓), for example, attended at a hospital setting (e.g., interned at intensive therapy unit) culminates in the establishment of successful fungal disease.
The high morbidity and mortality associated with fungal infections is compounded by the limited therapeutic options and the emergence of drug-resistant fungi [13-17]. Timely and adequate interventions are necessary to maximize favorable outcomes, culminating in a successful treatment. Improved antifungal strategies are therefore urgently required [13-17]. In this context, the anti-virulence strategy is in vogue and is a light at the end of the tunnel considering the limited antifungal armamentarium [18-20]. In theory, the anti-virulence therapy prevents the emergence of resistance against a particular drug, since it inhibits the expression of virulence attribute(s) that are essential for the development of infection, without inhibiting the microbial proliferation [18-20]. Fungi are able to produce an arsenal of virulence factors [21-24], including the ability to form biofilm in both biotic (e.g., host tissues such as the oral cavity, respiratory, gastrointestinal and urinary tracts) and abiotic surfaces (e.g., implanted medical devices such as venous catheters, cannulation, pacemakers, endotracheal tubes, ventriculoperitoneal shunts, prosthetic joints, breast implants, contact or intraocular lenses, stents, intrauterine contraceptive devices and dentures) [24-27]. Alarming statistics on this theme corroborate the relevance of biofilm-related diseases: (i) the National Institutes of Health (NIH, USA) estimated that microbial biofilms (including both bacterial and fungal biofilms) were responsible for over 80% of all infections in USA , (ii) approximately 500,000 intravascular device-related bloodstream infections occur in USA each year , (iii) the majority of bloodstream infections are caused by infected central venous catheters, which is correlated with prolongation of hospital stay and added costs to the health care system, resulting in an estimated cost of US$ 11 billion annually [30-32].
Biofilm is the predominant growth lifestyle of many microorganisms, including several human opportunistic fungal pathogens (e.g., Candida albicans, non-albicans Candida species, Cryptococcus neoformans, Cryptococcus gatti, Trichosporon asahii, Rhodotorula spp., Aspergillus fumigatus, Malassezia pachydermatis, Histoplasma capsulatum, Coccidioides immitis, Pneumocystis spp., Fusarium spp. and many others), and is defined as a community of microorganisms encapsulated in a self-produced extracellular polymeric substance (or extracellular matrix) attached to a surface [33-36]. The biofilm extracellular matrix is mainly composed by polysaccharides, proteins, lipids and DNA, which form a robust shelter that offers a protected and nutritionally rich environment, contributing to survival, molecule exchanges and proliferation . The analysis of the A. fumigatus biofilm extracellular matrixby solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy revealed approximately 43% polysaccharide, 40% protein, 14% lipid and 3% aromatic-containing components . The formation of a microbial biofilm can be didactically summarized in five sequential steps: (i) adherence of cells to a surface, (ii) initial formation of colonies, (iii) secretion of extracellular polymeric substances, (iv) maturation in a three-dimensional structure and (v) cell dispersion .
Taking into account the clinical perspective, biofilms are intrinsically resistant to (i) conventional antifungal drugs, (ii) host immune responses and (iii) several environmental stress conditions, making biofilm-based infections a significant clinical challenge due to the fungal persistence in the host and, consequently, the establishment of a chronic disease [33,40-44] (Figure 2). Positive correlations have been demonstrated between severity of candidiasis and a biofilm phenotype [45,46]. In this way, medical devices provide a reservoir for fungal biofilm development. For example, catheter-related candidemia has been reported to be present in 20-70% of patients diagnosed with this fungal infection. Moreover, C. albicans cells forming biofilm can display 1,000-fold greater minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) to certain classical antifungal drugs compared to planktonic counterparts under laboratory conditions . Corroborating this finding, our research group reported that the biofilm-forming clinical strains of both Candida parapsilosis sensu stricto and Candida orthopsilosis presented a considerable resistance to different antifungal classes, especially regarding azole (e.g., fluconazole, itraconazole and voriconazole), polyene (e.g., amphotericin B) and echinocandin (e.g., caspofungin) drugs, for which biofilm MICs were determined to be several-fold higher than their corresponding planktonic MICs . Recently, similar results were reported by Candida nivariensis .
Figure 2: Biofilms formed on implanted medical devices are notorious clinical challenges due to recalcitrant feature, since they confer to fungal cells the ability to resist to different classes of drugs (e.g., antifungals, disinfectants and several others), environment stresses (e.g., ultraviolet radiation and dehydration) and host immune responses (e.g., antibody, complement system, and immune effector cells), culminating in the fungal infection persistence.
The dispersion of cells from a mature biofilm is another important step in the fungal biofilm development cycle, which can induce devastating consequences for the patient, including either bloodstream or invasive fungal infections, with high risks of mortality [14-16,19,26,30-33,40-42]. For instance, the biofilm-detached C. albicans cells were more cytotoxic than their planktonic free-living cells and significantly more virulent in a murine model of infection . As expected, removal of the implanted device from patients with candidemia is associated with decreased mortality and duration of the infection; however, this medical practice usually requires a costly and painful surgical procedure for the patients [51,52].
The mechanisms of biofilm resistance to antifungal agents are not fully elucidated; however, multiple interacting mechanisms appear to operate in a coordinated way, including (i) the different physiological state of biofilm development, (ii) limited penetration of drugs through the biofilm extracellular matrix; (iii) modulated expression of drug targets (e.g., membrane sterol composition of biofilm cells contains a significantly lower concentration of ergosterol, especially during the later phases of biofilm growth, compared to the planktonic cells, as observed in C. albicans), (iv) distinct growth and metabolic rates, different cell cycle phases and distinctive fungal morphologies within biofilm (e.g., fungal cells that are deeper in a biofilm grow more slowly owing to a lack of nutrients, and are subsequently more resistant to antifungal drugs that rely on cell growth for their effects), (v) expression of numerous resistance genes induced by contact with a surface, particularly those encoding efflux pumps and transporter proteins, and (vi) presence of a small subpopulation of drug-resistant cells that spontaneously enter in a dormant and non-dividing state, which is called persister cells [53-59].
The extracellular matrix, which holds the biofilm strongly cohesive, has a primordial role in the tolerance to drugs, since it acts as a physical barrier that prevents the access of antifungals to the cells embedded in the biofilm community . The amount and nature of the extracellular matrix as well as the physicochemical properties of the drug will govern the battle between biofilm and antifungals . For instance, soluble β-(1,3)-glucan released from the fungal cell wall of C. albicans and A. fumigatus is a key component of the biofilm extracellular matrix, being able to sequester antifungal molecules, especially azole and polyene drugs, which prevents their access to biofilm cells, and as such do not reach their intracellular targets, and also block the elicitation of host immune responses [62-64]. Supporting this hypothesis, echinocandins (e.g., caspofungin) that target β-(1,3)-glucan synthase, a enzyme responsible for the synthesis of cell wall β-(1,3)-glucans, are able to inhibit the biofilm development in C. albicans . Extracellular DNA (eDNA), released by autolysis of fungal cells, decisively participates in the maintenance of structural and architectural integrity of biofilms as well as it contributes with the enhanced levels of antifungal resistance [66,67]. Furthermore, a variety of host components are also able to modulate the biofilm formation. Serum and its components (e.g., fetuin) were able to induce the biofilm formation in A. fumigatus, notably promoting a considerable increase in the extracellular matrix thickness, a phenomenon directly related to its virulence and antifungal resistance [68,69].
For all the reasons raised here, biofilm represents high value targets, especially the extracellular matrix components that act as a drug sponge, for the development of novel antifungal agents . Considering this new antifungal strategy, both inhibition of biofilm formation and disruption of mature biofilm are plausible approaches to combat biofilm-associated fungal infections [19,71-72]. Several groups around the globe are looking for and testing new and repurposing old compounds in order to find potent anti-biofilm drugs (Table 1). With no doubt, it comprises a currently area of very active research . Finally, the authors really hope that all these findings together arouse the curiosity and the enthusiasm of other researchers in order to search novel compounds presenting anti-biofilm activity.
||HIV aspartic peptidase inhibitor
||Overcome drug resistance
||Overcome drug resistance
||C. albicans and A. fumigatus
||Improve the anti-biofilm action of some classical antifungals
|EDTA, EGTA, 1,10-phenanthroline
||C. albicans and C. neoformans
||Inhibition of the biofilm formation
Table 1: Examples of compounds with biological activity against fungal biofilm.
- Schelenz S, Barnes RA, Barton RC, Cleverley JR, Lucas SB, et al. (2015) British Society for Medical Mycology best practice recommendations for the diagnosis of serious fungal diseases. Lancet Infect Dis 15: 461-474.
- Köhler JR, Casadevall A, Perfect J (2014) The spectrum of fungi that infects humans.Cold Spring HarbPerspect Med 5: a019273.
- Badiee P, Hashemizadeh Z (2014) Opportunistic invasive fungal infections: diagnosis & clinical management.Indian J Med Res 139: 195-204.
- Azie N, Neofytos D, Pfaller M, Meier-Kriesche HU, Quan SP, et al. (2012) The PATH (Prospective Antifungal Therapy) Alliance® registry and invasive fungal infections: update 2012.DiagnMicrobiol Infect Dis 73: 293-300.
- Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ (2010) Epidemiology of invasive mycoses in North America.Crit Rev Microbiol 36: 1-53.
- Kullberg BJ, Arendrup MC (2015) Invasive Candidiasis.N Engl J Med 373: 1445-1456.
- Desoubeaux G, Bailly É, Chandenier J (2014) Diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: updates and recommendations.Med Mal Infect 44: 89-101.
- De Pascale G, Tumbarello M (2015) Fungal infections in the ICU: advances in treatment and diagnosis.CurrOpinCrit Care 21: 421-429.
- Farmakiotis D, Kontoyiannis DP (2015) Emerging issues with diagnosis and management of fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients.Am J Transplant 15: 1141-1147.
- Perfect JR, Hachem R, Wingard JR (2014) Update on epidemiology of and preventive strategies for invasive fungal infections in cancer patients.Clin Infect Dis 59 Suppl 5: S352-355.
- Armstrong-James D, Meintjes G, Brown GD (2014) A neglected epidemic: fungal infections in HIV/AIDS.Trends Microbiol 22: 120-127.
- Donnelly JP (2013) A multidisciplinary approach to managing invasive fungal disease. Introduction and aims.J AntimicrobChemother 68 Suppl 3: iii3-4.
- Muñoz P, Valerio M (2015) Antifungal stewardship in daily practice and health economic implications.Mycoses 58 Suppl 2: 14-25.
- Alcazar-Fuoli L, Mellado E (2014) Current status of antifungal resistance and its impact on clinical practice.Br J Haematol 166: 471-484.
- Roemer T, Krysan DJ (2014) Antifungal drug development: challenges, unmet clinical needs, and new approaches.Cold Spring HarbPerspect Med 4.
- Pappas PG (2014) Antifungal clinical trials and guidelines: what we know and do not know.Cold Spring HarbPerspect Med 4: a019745.
- Xie JL, Polvi EJ, Shekhar-Guturja T, Cowen LE (2014) Elucidating drug resistance in human fungal pathogens.Future Microbiol 9: 523-542.
- Beckham KS, Roe AJ (2014) From screen to target: insights and approaches for the development of anti-virulence compounds.Front Cell Infect Microbiol 4: 139.
- Pierce CG, Lopez-Ribot JL (2013) Candidiasis drug discovery and development: new approaches targeting virulence for discovering and identifying new drugs.Expert Opin Drug Discov 8: 1117-1126.
- Escaich S (2010) Novel agents to inhibit microbial virulence and pathogenicity.Expert OpinTher Pat 20: 1401-1418.
- Ene IV, Brunke S, Brown AJ, Hube B (2014) Metabolism in fungal pathogenesis.Cold Spring HarbPerspect Med 4: a019695.
- Sheppard DC, Filler SG (2014) Host cell invasion by medically important fungi.Cold Spring HarbPerspect Med 5: a019687.
- Chotirmall SH, Mirkovic B, Lavelle GM, McElvaney NG (2014) ImmunoevasiveAspergillus virulence factors.Mycopathologia 178: 363-370.
- Polke M, Hube B, Jacobsen ID (2015) Candida survival strategies.AdvApplMicrobiol 91: 139-235.
- Nobile CJ, Johnson A (2015) Candida albicans Biofilms and Human Disease.Annu Rev Microbiol 69: 71-92.
- Yousif A, Jamal MA, Raad I (2015) Biofilm-based central line-associated bloodstream infections.AdvExp Med Biol 830: 157-179.
- Kojic EM, Darouiche RO (2004) Candida infections of medical devices.Clin Microbiol Rev 17: 255-267.
- Fox EP, Nobile CJ (2012) A sticky situation: untangling the transcriptional network controlling biofilm development in Candida albicans. Transcription 3: 315-322.
- Crnich CJ, Maki DG (2005) APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. (2ndedn) D.C: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology; Infections caused by intravascular devices: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment, Washington.
- Pittet D, Tarara D, Wenzel RP (1994) Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality.JAMA 271: 1598-1601.
- Orsi GB, Di Stefano L, Noah N (2002) Hospital-acquired, laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection: increased hospital stay and direct costs. Infect Control HospEpidemiol 23: 190-197.
- Schierholz JM, Beuth J (2001) Implant infections: a haven for opportunistic bacteria.J Hosp Infect 49: 87-93.
- Donlan RM, Costerton JW (2002) Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms.Clin Microbiol Rev 15: 167-193.
- Kolter R, Greenberg EP (2006) Microbial sciences: the superficial life of microbes.Nature 441: 300-302.
- López D, Vlamakis H, Kolter R (2010) Biofilms.Cold Spring HarbPerspectBiol 2: a000398.
- Fanning S, Mitchell AP (2012) Fungal biofilms.PLoSPathog 8: e1002585.
- Flemming HC, Wingender J (2010) The biofilm matrix.Nat Rev Microbiol 8: 623-633.
- Reichhardt C, Ferreira JA, Joubert LM, Clemons KV, Stevens DA, Cegelski L (2015) Analysis of the Aspergillusfumigatus biofilm extracellular matrix by solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Eukaryot Cell 14: 1064-1072.
- Stoodley P, Sauer K, Davies DG, Costerton JW (2002) Biofilms as complex differentiated communities.Annu Rev Microbiol 56: 187-209.
- Beauvais A, Latgé JP (2015) Aspergillus Biofilm In Vitro and In Vivo.MicrobiolSpectr 3.
- SardiJde C, PitanguiNde S, Rodríguez-Arellanes G, Taylor ML, Fusco-Almeida AM, et al. (2014) Highlights in pathogenic fungal biofilms.Rev IberoamMicol 31: 22-29.
- Desai JV, Mitchell AP, Andes DR (2014) Fungal biofilms, drug resistance, and recurrent infection.Cold Spring HarbPerspect Med 4.
- Mathé L, Van Dijck P (2013) Recent insights into Candida albicans biofilm resistance mechanisms.Curr Genet 59: 251-264.
- Taff HT, Mitchell KF, Edward JA, Andes DR (2013) Mechanisms of Candida biofilm drug resistance.Future Microbiol 8: 1325-1337.
- Ramage G, Tomsett K, Wickes BL, López-Ribot JL, Redding SW (2004) Denture stomatitis: a role for Candida biofilms.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod 98: 53-59.
- Ramage G, Coco B, Sherry L, Bagg J, Lappin DF (2012) In vitro Candida albicans biofilm induced proteinase activity and SAP8 expression correlates with in vivo denture stomatitis severity. Mycopathologia 174: 11-19.
- Lewis RE, Kontoyiannis DP, Darouiche RO, Raad II, Prince RA (2002) Antifungal activity of amphotericin B, fluconazole, and voriconazole in an in vitro model of Candida catheter-related bloodstream infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 46: 3499-3505.
- Ziccardia M, Souza LOP, Gandra RM, Galdino ACM, Baptista ARS, Nunes APF, Ribeiro MA, Branquinha MH, Santos ALS (2015) Candida parapsilosis (sensulato) isolated from hospitals located in the Southeast of Brazil: species distribution, antifungal susceptibility and virulence attributes. Int J Med Microbiol 305: 848-859.
- Figueiredo-Carvalho MH, Ramos LS, Barbedo LS, Chaves ALS, Muramoto I, Santos ALS, Almeida-Paes R, Zancopé-Oliveira RM (2016) First description of Candida nivariensis in Brazil: antifungal susceptibility profile and potential virulence attributes. MemInstOswaldo Cruz, in press.
- Uppuluri P, Chaturvedi AK, Srinivasan A, Banerjee M, Ramasubramaniam AK, et al. (2010) Dispersion as an important step in the Candida albicans biofilm developmental cycle.PLoSPathog 6: e1000828.
- Cornely OA, Bassetti M, Calandra T, Garbino J, Kullberg BJ, et al. (2012) ESCMID Fungal Infection Study Group. ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: non-neutropenic adult patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 7: 19-37.
- Andes DR, Safdar N, Baddley JW, Playford G, Reboli AC, et al. (2012) Impact of treatment strategy on outcomes in patients with candidemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis: a patient-level quantitative review of randomized trials. Clin Infect Dis 54: 1110-1122.
- LaFleur MD, Kumamoto CA, Lewis K (2006) Candida albicans biofilms produce antifungal-tolerant persister cells.Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50: 3839-3846.
- Perlin DS, Shor E, Zhao Y (2015) Update on Antifungal Drug Resistance.Curr Clin Microbiol Rep 2: 84-95.
- Bonhomme J, d'Enfert C (2013) Candida albicans biofilms: building a heterogeneous, drug-tolerant environment.CurrOpinMicrobiol 16: 398-403.
- Soto SM (2013) Role of efflux pumps in the antibiotic resistance of bacteria embedded in a biofilm.Virulence 4: 223-229.
- Kaur, Singh S (2014) Biofilm formation by Aspergillusfumigatus.Med Mycol 52: 2-9.
- Mukherjee PK, Chandra J, Kuhn DM, Ghannoum MA (2003) Mechanism of fluconazole resistance in Candida albicans biofilms: phase-specific role of efflux pumps and membrane sterols. Infect Immun 71: 4333-4340.
- Kumamoto CA (2002) Candida biofilms.CurrOpinMicrobiol 5: 608-611.
- de Groot PW, Bader O, de Boer AD, Weig M, Chauhan N (2013) Adhesins in human fungal pathogens: glue with plenty of stick.Eukaryot Cell 12: 470-481.
- Tobudic S, Kratzer C, Lassnigg A, Presterl E (2012) Antifungal susceptibility of Candida albicans in biofilms.Mycoses 55: 199-204.
- Nett J, Lincoln L, Marchillo K, Massey R, Holoyda K, et al. (2007) Putative role of beta-1,3 glucans in Candida albicans biofilm resistance.Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51: 510-520.
- Nett JE, Sanchez H, Cain MT, Andes DR (2010) Genetic basis of Candida biofilm resistance due to drug-sequestering matrix glucan.J Infect Dis 202: 171-175.
- Kuhn DM, George T, Chandra J, Mukherjee PK, Ghannoum MA (2002) Antifungal susceptibility of Candida biofilms: unique efficacy of amphotericin B lipid formulations and echinocandins. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 46: 1773-1780.
- Nett JE, Crawford K, Marchillo K, Andes DR (2010) Role of Fks1p and matrix glucan in Candida albicans biofilm resistance to an echinocandin, pyrimidine, and polyene.Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54: 3505-3508.
- Rajendran R, Williams C, Lappin DF, Millington O, Martins M, et al. (2013) Extracellular DNA release acts as an antifungal resistance mechanism in mature Aspergillusfumigatus biofilms.Eukaryot Cell 12: 420-429.
- Martins M, Uppuluri P, Thomas DP, Cleary IA, Henriques M, et al. (2010) Presence of extracellular DNA in the Candida albicans biofilm matrix and its contribution to biofilms.Mycopathologia 169: 323-331.
- Wuren T, Toyotome T, Yamaguchi M, Takahashi-Nakaguchi A, Muraosa Y, et al. (2014) Effect of serum components on biofilm formation by Aspergillusfumigatus and other Aspergillus species. Jpn J Infect Dis 67: 172-179.
- Toyotome T, Yamaguchi M, Iwasaki A, Watanabe A, Taguchi H, et al. (2012) Fetuin A, a serum component, promotes growth and biofilm formation by Aspergillusfumigatus.Int J Med Microbiol 302: 108-116.
- Ramage G, Robertson SN, Williams C (2014) Strength in numbers: antifungal strategies against fungal biofilms.Int J Antimicrob Agents 43: 114-120.
- Nett JE (2014) Future directions for anti-biofilm therapeutics targeting Candida.Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 12: 375-382.
- Sardi JC, Scorzoni L, Bernardi T, Fusco-Almeida AM, Mendes Giannini MJ (2013) Candida species: current epidemiology, pathogenicity, biofilm formation, natural antifungal products and new therapeutic options. J Med Microbiol 62: 10-24.
- Taraszkiewicz A, Fila G, Grinholc M, Nakonieczna J (2013) Innovative strategies to overcome biofilm resistance.Biomed Res Int 2013: 150653.
- Braga-Silva LA, Mogami SS, Valle RS, Silva-Neto ID, Santos ALS (2010) Multiple effects of amprenavir against Candida albicans.FEMS Yeast Res 10: 221-224.
- Uppuluri P, Nett J, Heitman J, Andes D (2008) Synergistic effect of calcineurin inhibitors and fluconazole against Candida albicans biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52: 1127-1132.
- Robbins N, Uppuluri P, Nett J, Rajendran R, Ramage G, et al. (2011) Hsp90 governs dispersion and drug resistance of fungal biofilms.PLoSPathog 7: e1002257.
- Martins M, Henriques M, Lopez-Ribot JL, Oliveira R (2012) Addition of DNase improves the in vitro activity of antifungal drugs against Candida albicans biofilms.Mycoses 55: 80-85.
- Santos ALS, Sodré CL, Valle RS, Silva BA, Abi-chacra EA, et al. (2012) Antimicrobial action of chelating agents: repercussions on the microorganism development, virulence and pathogenesis. Curr Med Chem 19: 2715-2737.
- Ramage G, Saville SP, Wickes BL, López-Ribot JL (2002) Inhibition of Candida albicans biofilm formation by farnesol, a quorum-sensing molecule.Appl Environ Microbiol 68: 5459-5463.