Article

Candida albicans Flu1-Mediated Efflux of Salivary Histatin 5 Reduces Its Cytosolic Concentration and Fungicidal Activity

From the Department of Oral Biology University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14214.
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (Impact Factor: 4.45). 02/2013; 57(4). DOI: 10.1128/AAC.02295-12
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Histatin 5 is a salivary human antimicrobial peptide that is toxic to the opportunistic yeast Candida albicans. Fungicial activity of Hst 5 requires intracellular translocation and accumulation to a threshold concentration for it to disrupt cellular processes. Previously we observed that total cytosolic levels of Hst 5 were gradually reduced from intact cells, suggesting that C. albicans possesses a transport mechanism for efflux of Hst 5. Since we identified C. albicans polyamine transporters responsible for Hst 5 uptake, we hypothesized that one or more polyamine efflux transporters may be involved in the efflux of Hst 5. C. albicans FLU1 and TPO2 were found to be the closest homologs of S. cerevisiae TPO1 that encodes a major spermidine efflux transporter, indicating the products of these two genes may be involved in efflux of Hst 5. We found flu1Δ/Δ cells, but not tpo2Δ/Δ cells, had significant reduction in their rate of Hst 5 efflux, and had significantly higher cytoplasmic Hst 5 and Hst 5 susceptibility compared to wild type. We also found that flu1Δ/Δ cells had reduced biofilm formation compared to wild-type cells in the presence of Hst 5. Transcriptional levels of FLU1 were not altered over the course of treatment with Hst 5; therefore Hst 5 is not likely to induce FLU1 gene over-expression as a potential mechanism of resistance. Thus Flu1, but not Tpo2, mediates efflux of Hst 5 and is responsible for reduction of its toxicity in C. albicans.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Sumant Puri, Jul 02, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
108 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the last years, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) have been the focus of intense research toward the finding of a viable alternative to current antifungal drugs. Defensins are one of the major families of AMPs and the most represented among all eukaryotic groups, providing an important first line of host defense against pathogenic microorganisms. Several of these cysteine-stabilized peptides present a relevant effect against fungi. Defensins are the AMPs with the broader distribution across all eukaryotic kingdoms, namely, Fungi, Plantae, and Animalia, and were recently shown to have an ancestor in a bacterial organism. As a part of the host defense, defensins act as an important vehicle of information between innate and adaptive immune system and have a role in immunomodulation. This multidimensionality represents a powerful host shield, hard for microorganisms to overcome using single approach resistance strategies. Pathogenic fungi resistance to conventional antimycotic drugs is becoming a major problem. Defensins, as other AMPs, have shown to be an effective alternative to the current antimycotic therapies, demonstrating potential as novel therapeutic agents or drug leads. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge on some eukaryotic defensins with antifungal action. An overview of the main targets in the fungal cell and the mechanism of action of these AMPs (namely, the selectivity for some fungal membrane components) are presented. Additionally, recent works on antifungal defensins structure, activity, and cytotoxicity are also reviewed.
    Frontiers in Microbiology 01/2014; 5:97. DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2014.00097 · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Azoles have consistently been recognized as the mainstays of antifungal drugs, amongst which ergosterol prevails as an integral component of fungal plasma membrane. It is most commonly produced via demethylation of lanosterol by the cytochrome P450-dependent enzyme lanosterol 14α-demethylase. Azoles exert their antifungal activities via binding to lanosterol 14 α-demethylase and thereby preventing the demethylation of lanosterol. This leads to the depletion of demethylated lanosterol (ergosterol) with the concomitant accumulation of methylated sterol precursors (lanosterol, 4,14-dimethylzymosterol, and 24-methylenedihydrolanosterol) and deterioration of the membrane integrity, resulting in fungal growth inhibition. Resistance to azoles is a concern, particularly during the long-term treatment of fungus mediated cellular complications. To combat azole resistance and to extend the spectrum of treatable pathogens, the development of novel and more potent azoles, with alteration in active sites has attracted worldwide scientific attention. With such an insight, this review focuses on antifungal potentials of azole compounds with an emphasis on the corresponding drug resistance episodes complemented with novel strategies for the development of new generation of azole compounds.
    01/2014; 4(2). DOI:10.2174/221031550402141009100455
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Like other microorganisms, free-living Candida albicans is mainly present in a three-dimensional multicellular structure, which is called a biofilm, rather than in a planktonic form. Candida albicans biofilms can be isolated from both abiotic and biotic surfaces at various locations within the host. As the number of abiotic implants, mainly bloodstream and urinary catheters, has been increasing, the number of biofilm-associated bloodstream or urogenital tract infections is also strongly increasing resulting in a raise in mortality. Cells within a biofilm structure show a reduced susceptibility to specific commonly used antifungals and, in addition, it has recently been shown that such cells are less sensitive to killing by components of our immune system. In this review, we summarize the most important insights in the mechanisms underlying biofilm-associated antifungal drug resistance and immune evasion strategies, focusing on the most recent advances in this area of research.
    Current Genetics 08/2013; 59(4). DOI:10.1007/s00294-013-0400-3 · 1.71 Impact Factor