Next Article in Journal
Comprehensive Taxonomical Analysis of Trichophyton mentagrophytes/interdigitale Complex of Human and Animal Origin from India
Next Article in Special Issue
Essential Role of CgErg6p in Maintaining Oxidative Stress Tolerance and Iron Homeostasis in Candida glabrata
Previous Article in Journal
Interactions between Entomopathogenic Fungi and Insects and Prospects with Glycans
Previous Article in Special Issue
Trichoderma spp.-Related Pneumonia: A Case Report in Heart–Lung Transplantation Recipient and a Systematic Literature Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 9
Issue 5
10.3390/jof9050576
jof-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Zerumbone Disturbs the Extracellular Matrix of Fluconazole-Resistant Candida albicans Biofilms

by
César Augusto Abreu-Pereira
,
Ana Luiza Gorayb-Pereira
,
João Vinícius Menezes Noveletto
,
Cláudia Carolina Jordão
and
Ana Cláudia Pavarina
*
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Araraquara 14801-385, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2023, 9(5), 576; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9050576
Submission received: 28 February 2023 / Revised: 28 April 2023 / Accepted: 11 May 2023 / Published: 16 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungal Infections: New Challenges and Opportunities)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study assessed the effect of zerumbone (ZER) against fluconazole-resistant (CaR) and -susceptible Candida albicans (CaS) biofilms and verified the influence of ZER on extracellular matrix components. Initially, to determine the treatment conditions, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), the minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) and the survival curve were evaluated. Biofilms were formed for 48 h and exposed to ZER at concentrations of 128 and 256 µg/mL for 5, 10 and 20 min (n = 12). One group of biofilms did not receive the treatment in order to monitor the effects. The biofilms were evaluated to determine the microbial population (CFU/mL), and the extracellular matrix components (water-soluble polysaccharides (WSP), alkali-soluble polysaccharides (ASPs), proteins and extracellular DNA (eDNA), as well as the biomass (total and insoluble) were quantified. The MIC value of ZER for CaS was 256 μg/mL, and for CaR, it was 64 μg/mL. The survival curve and the MFC value coincided for CaS (256 μg/mL) and CaR (128 μg/mL). ZER reduced the cellular viability by 38.51% for CaS and by 36.99% for CaR. ZER at 256 µg/mL also reduced the total biomass (57%), insoluble biomass (45%), WSP (65%), proteins (18%) and eDNA (78%) of CaS biofilms. In addition, a reduction in insoluble biomass (13%), proteins (18%), WSP (65%), ASP (10%) and eDNA (23%) was also observed in the CaR biofilms. ZER was effective against fluconazole-resistant and -susceptible C. albicans biofilms and disturbed the extracellular matrix.

1. Introduction

Fungi are associated with several human diseases, ranging from superficial cutaneous and mucous infections to life-threatening systemic infections, depending on the host’s immunologic conditions [1]. Candida albicans was the most prevalent species in critically ill COVID-19 patients with oral candidiasis [2]. C. albicans may live in a mutualistic relationship with the host. However, this equilibrium can be lost under certain conditions, causing Candida-associated diseases [3,4]. In addition, the augmented resistance of Candida species to antifungal drugs is a serious healthcare issue, making research into alternative strategies against oral biofilms extremely relevant to public wellbeing [4,5].
Most C. albicans infections are associated with biofilm establishment on either biotic or abiotic surfaces, such as in protheses, catheters and implants [5]. Biofilms are complex microbial communities of adhered cells covered by an extracellular matrix that contributes to their preservation and to the maintenance of cells, surfaces and environmental interactions, hindering the action of conventional drugs [6,7]. The extracellular matrix of fungal biofilms is composed of polymers and extracellular DNA responsible for the biofilm structure’s maintenance [8]. Extracellular DNA plays a function in promoting the attachment of biofilm to the substrate [7,8]. Another important component present in the extracellular matrix is β-1,3-glucan, which plays a fundamental role in a biofilm’s resistance to conventional antifungals, since it prevents antifungal contact with target cells, resulting in the persistence or progression of the infection [9,10]. Therefore, one of the main challenges is treating infections caused by C. albicans biofilms since they present reduced susceptibility to conventional antifungals derived from azoles and polyenes [11,12]. In view of the increasing problem of drug resistance, essential oils can be considered a valuable resource due to their antimicrobial properties [11,13,14,15].
Essential oils are known for their analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antioxidant, anticancer, immunomodulatory, antibacterial and antifungal properties [15]. Essential oils inhibit both the development and activity of C. albicans more efficiently than clotrimazole, and the damage caused by essential oils at the cellular level is stronger than that induced by antifungals [15]. Essential oils can affect the cell membranes of bacteria and fungi and can make them more permeable [16,17]. In general, antimicrobial properties are related to the interaction of essential oils and the cell system, especially against the plasma membrane and in the disturbance of mitochondrial functions [18].
Zerumbone (ZER) is a monocyclic sesquiterpene compound derived from the essential oil of Zingiber zerumbet Smith, which possesses several pharmacological properties, including antineoplastic, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antipyretic, antibacterial and antifungal properties [19,20,21,22,23,24]. ZER exhibits antimicrobial activity against C. albicans, Candida tropicalis, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Bacteroides fragilis, Acinetobacter baumannii and Escherichia coli [24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. In addition, ZER ointment has a potent wound-healing capacity [25]. ZER inhibits the development of C. albicans biofilm by hindering hyphal growth, causing morphologic cell alterations [24] or ergosterol content reductions in fungal cell membranes [26].
Although the antimicrobial action of ZER against susceptible C. albicans has been evaluated previously [24,27,28], at this moment, there is no information about its effect on extracellular biofilm matrix components. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the efficacy of ZER on biofilms of fluconazole-resistant (CaR) and -susceptible C. albicans (CaS). In addition, we evaluated the influence of ZER on extracellular matrix components: proteins, polysaccharides and eDNA.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. ZER Solution Preparation

Stock solutions containing ZER (zerumbone, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) were prepared prior to each experiment. ZER crystals were dissolved in 1% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO—Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) to achieve a final concentration of between 4 and 1024 µg/mL [24].

2.2. Culture of Microorganisms

Candida albicans strains (ATCC—American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, MD, USA) susceptible (ATCC 90028; CaS) and resistant (ATCC 96901; CaR) to fluconazole, which were stored in a −80 °C freezer, were thawed and reactivated on Petri plates containing Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA—DIFCO Laboratories, Detroit, MI, USA) with chloramphenicol (50 mg/L), and then incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. To form the starter cultures, about five colonies of each strain were relocated to tubes containing 5 mL of yeast nitrogen base (YNB—DIFCO, Detroit, MI, USA) with glucose (100 mM) and incubated again at 37 °C for 16 h (pre-inoculum). At that time, 0.5 mL of pre-inoculum for each strain was transferred to correspondent tubes containing 9.5 mL of YNB in a 1:20 dilution. The inoculum was incubated at 37°C until it reached the optical density (OD) corresponding to the middle of the exponential growth phase (mid-log phase). The OD was determined at 540 nm: OD540 nm: 0.55 ± 0.08. Then, the CaS and CaR cultures were adjusted to obtain a microbial density of 107 CFU/mL by washing the cells via centrifugation (4000× g for 5 min) and rinsing with PBS solution [31]. These procedures were performed three times.

2.3. Minimum Inhibition Concentration (MIC), Minimum Fungicidal Concentration (MFC) and Survival Curve

Testing susceptibility to ZER was achieved using minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal fungicidal concentration (MFC) procedures. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute microdilution method [32] was performed, with some changes, to evaluate the MIC. For control without C. albicans, 100 μL RPMI 1640 (2× concentrated) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was used, buffered with MOPS (3-(N-morpholino) propanesulfonic acid) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and 100 μL ultrapure sterile water. For growth control, CaS and CaR suspensions were evaluated without ZER. Minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal fungicidal concentration (MFC) evaluations were performed using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute microdilution procedure [32] to determine the concentration of ZER that would be used in the treatment. For this, ZER concentrations ranging from 4 to 1024 µg/mL were diluted in 1% DMSO [32]. For contamination control, 100 µL of RPMI 1640 (2× concentrated) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and 100 µL of PBS were added (without fungal cells or ZER). For the ZER-free control, the inoculum was diluted in 2× concentrated RPMI (0.5 × 103 to 2.5 × 103 colonies forming unities/mL (CFU/mL)). For the positive control group, nystatin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was tested in the range of 4 to 512 µg/mL. For the MIC test, the inoculum (0.5 × 103 to 2.5 × 103 UFC/mL) and the different concentrations of ZER tested (ranging 4–1024 µg/mL) were incubated in 96-well plates (Corning Co., Corning, NY, USA) with C. albicans suspension adjusted to obtain an inoculum concentration corresponding to 0.5 × 103 to 2.5 × 103 CFU/mL in RPMI. After incubation at 37 °C for 24 h, the plates were observed visually (for the presence or absence of growth) [32] and the optical density was measured (OD492 nm) using a plate reader (EZ Read 400 Microplate Reader, Biochrom®, Holliston, MA, USA). The MIC values were considered the lowest ZER concentration that caused a minimum of 50% decrease (MIC50) in growth related to the ZER-free growth control in the reading spectrophotometer of C. albicans culture [32]. These values were recorded in duplicate on three separate occasions.
In addition, plating and colony enumeration were performed to determine the MFC (i.e., the ZER concentration that causes the absence of fungal colony growth on agar plates after 24 h) and the survival curve at different times. For the survival curve, the plates were incubated with different concentrations of ZER for 5, 10, 20 and 30 min and 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 h. Then, plating and colony enumeration were performed to obtain colony-forming units (CFU/mL). The MFC was verified after 24 h of the biofilm’s treatment with ZER. The MIC was based on the growth density, and the lowest concentrations promoted a 50% reduction in the population compared to the ZER-free growth control. The MFC was considered the minimum concentration that resulted in the absence of fungal colony growth on agar plates after 24 h.

2.4. Biofilm Formation and Treatments

For the formation of CaS and CaR biofilms, 1 mL of CaS and Car inoculum was transferred individually to the wells of a 24-well polystyrene plate (K12-024; Kasvi, Sao José dos Pinhais, Paraná, Brazil) and next, 1 mL of Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium (RPMI 1640; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) buffered with morpholine propane sulfonic acid (MOPS; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was added. Plates were incubated at 37 °C under orbital agitation for 90 min (75 rpm) to obtain microorganism adhesion. Following this, the wells were washed twice with 1 mL of PBS solution (8 g NaCl, 0.2 g KCl, 1.44 g Na2HPO4, 0.24 g KH2PO4, pH 7.4) to remove non-adhered cells and 1 mL of buffered RPMI (pH = 7) was added over again in each well and the plates remained in orbital agitation (37 °C/75 rpm). After 24 h of incubation, RPMI medium was removed by aspiration, 1 mL of fresh RPMI was added, and plates were incubated in agitation once again (37 °C/75 rpm) for another 24 h. After 48 h of biofilm formation, RPMI medium was removed, biofilms were washed with PBS twice [31], and the treatments were performed in three different groups: 1—control-group: biofilms did not receive any treatment; 2—ZER-128 group: biofilms were treated with ZER in a concentration of 128 µg/mL; and 3—ZER-256 group: biofilms were treated with ZER in a concentration of 256 µg/mL. In each experimental group, the treatments were performed for 5, 10 and 20 min. The experiments were performed in triplicate and on three different occasions (n = 12).

2.5. Efficacy Evaluation of ZER

At the end of the treatments, the biofilms were washed three times with NaCl (0.89%). After that, 2 mL of NaCl 0.89% was added to each well, and the biofilms were cautiously removed from the bottom of each plate with a pipette tip, transferred to sterilized microtubes, and submitted to sonication (30 s; 7 w; 190 J) [31]. After sonication, an aliquot (0.1 mL) of the suspension was separated into the enumeration of colony-forming units (CFU/mL) and another for total biomass determination (0.1 mL) [33,34]. The residual volume (1.8 mL) was centrifuged (5.500× g; 10 min; 4 °C), and the supernatant (1.8 mL) was divided into three aliquots for the analyses of soluble components of the matrix: water-soluble polysaccharides—WSP (1 mL) [31,35], eDNA (0.650 mL) [31,36] and proteins (0.150 mL) [37,38]. The pellet (insoluble components of extracellular matrix plus fungal cells) resulting from centrifugation was resuspended in Mili-Q water and divided into different aliquots for insoluble biomass quantification (0.8 mL) [31,34] for insoluble protein quantification (0.05 mL) [34,37] and for the determination of alkali-insoluble polysaccharides—ASP (0.95 mL) [31,35].

2.6. Statistical Analyses

The normal distribution and homoscedasticity of data for each matrix component (dependent variable) were analyzed using Shapiro–Wilk and Levene tests, respectively. Then, variance analysis (two-way ANOVA), followed by a Bonferroni post-test, was used in order to verify interactions among the treatment factors (concentration of ZER and time of exposure; independent variables). The significance level adopted was 5% (α = 0.05). The analyses were carried out using SPSS software (IBM® SPSS® Statistics, version 29, Chicago, IL, USA) with a significance level of 5% (α = 0.05).

3. Results

3.1. MIC, MFC and Survival Curve

The MIC50 values of ZER observed in the susceptibility test were 64 µg/mL for CaR and 256 µg/mL for CaS. For the OD492 nm mean value of the control (the ZER-free growth control), the CaS mean was 0.756 ± 0.081, and the CaR mean was 0.686 ± 0.081. A concentration of 256 μg/mL was the lowest concentration of ZER that promoted a 50% reduction (0.318 ± 0.062) in CaS. A concentration of 64 μg/mL promoted a 50% reduction (0.301 ± 0.036) in CaR. For the positive control (nystatin), the MIC values observed were 8 μg/mL (OD492 nm 0.167 ± 0.062) for CaS and 512 μg/mL (OD492 nm = 0.249 ± 0.002) for CaR.
The survival curve demonstrated that 256 µg/mL ZER after 2 h promoted a 99% reduction in viable colonies for CaS and CaR compared to the initial inoculum (Figure 1). For CaR, 128 µg/mL ZER exhibited fungicidal activity after 2 h. The total reduction in fungal growth after 24 h (256 and 128 µg/mL for CaS and CaR, respectively) was equivalent to the ZER concentrations that promoted a reduction in the count of viable colonies as a function of time. The MIC value observed for CaR (64 µg/mL) was not similar to the MFC. At a concentration of 64 µg/mL, a reduction occurred only in the first 10 min (a 55.31% reduction), and after this time, an increase in the number of viable colonies was observed (Figure 1). Thus, the concentration of 128 µg/mL was the choice for the next CaR experiments since it promoted a reduction of more than 99% in the viability of CaR.

3.2. Efficacy of ZER on Biofilm Components

The interactions between the treatment factors are described in Table 1. Means and standard deviations for biofilm components are described in Table 2 and Table 3 for CaS and CaR, respectively.
For the CFU/mL of CaS and CaR, an interaction (p ≤ 0.001) between the time of exposure and the ZER concentrations evaluated was observed (Table 1). For all evaluated times, the ZER-256 group presented the greatest reduction in biofilm viability, being statistically different from the ZER-128 and control groups of CaS (p ≤ 0.009) and CaR (p ≤ 0.001). Evaluating the ZER concentrations during the evaluated times, it could be observed that the ZER-256 group showed no significant differences between 10 and 20 min (p = 1.000) for CaS (Table 2); however, for CaR, a significant reduction in cell viability was observed at 20 min (p ≤ 0.003) (Table 3).
The total dry weight results showed no interaction between the time and concentration evaluated (p ≥ 0.959) (Table 1). Analyzing the treatment factors for CaS separately, there was an interaction with the concentration (p < 0.001). The ZER-256 group presented a significant reduction in total dry weight values and was different from the other groups (p ≤ 0.006) at all evaluated times. The ZER-128 group showed a lower reduction compared to ZER-256; however, it was different from the control group (p < 0.001) (Table 2). The ZER treatment evaluations did not change the total dry weight values of CaR biofilm (p ≥ 0.089) (Table 3).
For insoluble weight, no interaction was observed among the treatment factors for CaS and CaR (p ≥ 0.101). Then, the factors were evaluated separately, and the ZER concentration factor showed some interaction (p < 0.001) (Table 1). For the two evaluated strains, the ZER-256 group presented a significant reduction in dry weight values and was different from the other groups (p ≤ 0.033) at all of the evaluated times. For CaS, the ZER-128 group was statistically different from the control group at 5 and 10 min (p ≤ 0.029) (Table 2). For CaR, the ZER-256 group presented a major reduction in insoluble weight and was different from the other groups (p ≤ 0.001) (Table 3).
The results of soluble proteins showed no interaction among treatment factors for CaS (p = 0.122); however, this interaction was observed for CaR (p ≤ 0.001). Then, the factors were analyzed separately for CaS, and interaction was observed in the time factor (p < 0.001) (Table 1). For CaS, the ZER-256 group was different from the control group (p = 0.004) at 5 min (p = 0.004); however, it behaved similarly to the ZER-128 group (p = 0.747) (Table 2). The groups were statistically similar at 10 and 20 min (p = 1.000). For CaR, the ZER-256 and ZER-128 groups showed significant reductions at 10 and 20 min (p ≤ 0.001) compared with the control group and were statistically similar (p = 1.000) (Table 3).
For insoluble proteins, an interaction was observed among the treatment factors for CaS (p = 0.014) and CaR (p = 0.047) (Table 1). For CaR, no significant difference was observed among the groups when analyzing them separately (p ≥ 0.053). On the other hand, the ZER-256 group presented a significant reduction in insoluble proteins at 20 min compared with the other groups (p ≤ 0.009) (Table 3).
The results of the WSP showed interaction among the treatment factors for both strains (p ≤ 0.040) (Table 1). For CaS, the ZER-128 group showed a significant reduction after 10 min and was different at 5 min (p = 0.012) and similar at 20 min (p = 1.000). The ZER-256 group exhibited a major reduction in WSP compared to the other groups (p ≤ 0.001) and was similar at all evaluated times (p = 1.000). After 10 min of treatment, the ZER-128 group showed a reduction in WSP amount compared to the control group (p < 0.001); however, on a smaller scale than the ZER-256 group (Table 2). For CaR, the ZER-256 group showed a major reduction in WSP levels, which were statistically different from the others (p ≤ 0.001) (Table 3).
The results of ASP showed no interaction among the treatment factors (p = 0.916) for CaS. However, for CaR, an interaction was observed among the treatment factors (p = 0.021) (Table 1). The ZER-256 group presented a reduction in ASP levels at 10 and 20 min, which was statistically different from the control group (p = 0.044 for CaS (Table 2) and p = 0.037 for CaR (Table 3)).
In the eDNA analyses, interaction was observed among the treatment factors for CaS (p = 0.001) and CaR (p = 0.002) (Table 1). For both evaluated strains, the ZER-256 group presented a significant reduction in eDNA values compared to the other groups (p ≤ 0.001 for CaS (Table 2) and p ≤ 0.013 for CaR (Table 3)). In addition, the ZER-128 group was also statistically different from the control group (p < 0.001 for CaS and p < 0.032 for CaR).

4. Discussion

Natural chemical compounds that present activated biomolecules with antimicrobial action have become a promising alternative to the inactivation of microorganisms resistant to conventional antimicrobials [39,40,41,42]. The antioxidant and antibacterial capabilities of essential oils are well documented; however, studies on antifungal activities are still limited. From a health point of view, finding effective and safe antifungal agents to control the growth of Candida spp. is important. Recently, some studies have demonstrated the antibiofilm activities of ZER against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [24,26,27,28,29,30]. However, the effect of ZER on the extracellular matrix components of C. albicans biofilms has not yet been fully elucidated. Thus, this study investigated whether ZER interferes with the extracellular matrix of fluconazole-susceptible and -resistant C. albicans biofilms. The results demonstrated that ZER significantly reduced the cell viability and extracellular matrix components (WSP, ASP, eDNA, proteins) of fluconazole-susceptible and -resistant C. albicans biofilm.
The present study demonstrated strong ZER antifungal activity against CaR and CaS, with MIC of 64 μg/mL and 256 μg/m, respectively. These results corroborate a previous study that detected MIC in the range 64–128 μg/mL for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains (SA1199B, ATCC25923, XU212, RN4220 and EMRSA15) and 250 μg/mL for Streptococcus mutans [42]. In another previous study, fluconazole-resistant (ATCC 96901) and -susceptible C. albicans (ATCC 90028) strains showed fluconazole MIC values of 256 μg/mL and 16 μg/mL, respectively [33]. ZER presents an extensive variety of biological actions, with high therapeutic potential and antimicrobial activity [25,27,43,44,45]. ZER is a monocyclic sesquiterpene that is the major component of Zingiber zerumbet Smith essential oil [46]. Terpenoids act on specific phases of the C. albicans cellular cycle, inhibiting and interfering with cell adhesion [24,28]. These substances promote changes in membrane permeability and fluidity, resulting in cell wall degradation, which also affects fungal adhesion [45]. Moreover, these components act like inhibitors of morphogenesis from yeasts to hyphal, and when they are added to biofilms in the initial phase, they prevent the evolution of biofilms [46].
The cell viability of the CaS and CaR biofilms was reduced by approximately 37% when treated with ZER at concentrations of 256 µg/mL. These biofilms presented a 17% reduction of viability when treated with ZER at concentrations of 128 µg/mL. In a previous study, it was observed that ZER, at a concentration of 256 µg/mL, promoted a more than 50% reduction in the metabolic activity of fluconazole-susceptible C. albicans (CaS) biofilms (ATCC 14053 and two clinical isolates) [24,28]. In addition, ZER inhibited the adhesion of cells to surfaces and the maturation of preformed biofilms in a dose-dependent mode [24,28].
The extracellular matrix of biofilm consists of an extensive array of functional biomolecules such as exopolysaccharides (β-glucans, α-mannans), nucleic acids (eDNA), proteins, lipids and other biomolecules [7]. The extracellular matrix serves as a scaffold for structural support and a dynamic environment that provides varying chemical and physical signals to microbial communities, promoting biofilm existence [7,10,47]. When biofilms are already established, approaches that can reduce extracellular polymeric substances may dismantle the scaffolding/protective matrix, weaken the biofilm’s structure and potentiate antimicrobial killing. Considering the structural organization of the extracellular matrix of biofilm, the results of the present study were very promising since ZER reduced the polysaccharides (WSP and ASP) and extracellular DNA (eDNA) of fluconazole-susceptible and -resistant C. albicans biofilms’ extracellular matrixes. The results showed that CaS and CaR biofilms had their WSP reduced by 60% and 65%, respectively, when treated with ZER at concentrations of 256 µg/mL, regardless of the time of application. In addition, a reduction of approximately 10% in the amount of ASP in both evaluated strains was noticed after 20 min of application. In a previous study, it was observed that sublethal concentrations of Perilla frutescens essential oil also promoted a WSP reduction of approximately 80% from the extracellular matrixes of fungal biofilms [48]. On the other hand, the WSP levels of biofilms from fluconazole-susceptible C. albicans were not affected after treatment with alternative antifungal therapies [31,49].
Candida albicans biofilms are structured by the mannans—glucan complex (MGCx), formed by the interaction between WSPs (α-mannans) and ASPs (β-glucans) [10]. The integrity of the MGCx and its relations are fundamental elements of the antifungal resistance noticed in Candida biofilms [47]. The mannan-1,6-glucan conjugate is the major matrix constituent, while in the cell wall, β-1,3 glucan is the predominant cell wall polysaccharide [50,51]. In addition, the biofilm presents increased β-1,3 glucan content in C. albicans cell walls compared to planktonic organisms, making the biofilm more resistant to conventional antifungal therapies [9,10]. β-1,3-glucan secreted by C. albicans prevents the penetration of antibacterial drugs, providing enhanced antimicrobial protection for S. aureus within mixed biofilms [9,47]. On the other hand, S. mutans glucans surrounding Candida cells directly bind and sequester antifungal agents, reducing drug uptake and enhancing C. albicans tolerance within mixed biofilms [9,50]. This way, the reduction in polysaccharides (WSP and ASP) is a sign that ZER essential oil can actuate, promoting the disorganization of MGCx interactions, favoring antimicrobial activity.
Beyond polysaccharides (ASPs and WSPs), the MGCx also contains extracellular DNA molecules (eDNA) so that these components are interconnected and participate in the structural maintenance of the biofilm [8]. eDNA may interact with diverse extracellular polymeric substances, contributing to the biofilm’s structural organization, serving as a nutrient source, while promoting protection against antimicrobials, horizontal gene transfer and surface adhesion [52]. In C. albicans biofilms, both the polysaccharide matrix (WSP and ASP) and eDNA have demonstrated contributions to antifungal drug tolerance [7,10]. In the present study, ZER reduced the eDNA present in biofilm by approximately 75% for CaS and 23% for CaR. This eDNA reduction, promoted by ZER, may be related to the weakening of the C. albicans biofilm matrix, since the eDNA performs functions essential to biofilm formation, tending to the maintenance of structural integrity and inducing the morphological transition from yeast to hyphal during development [51,52,53].
The total biomass of biofilm consists of cells and the soluble and insoluble components of MEC [31,34]. The results revealed that ZER reduced the total biomass of the CaS biofilms in a dose-dependent manner, showing a reduction of 40% for 128 µg/mL and 55% for 256 µg/mL. On the other hand, the total biomass of the CaR biofilms was not altered by the treatments performed. In a previous study using confocal laser microscopy-specific markers, it was also noticed that 64 µg/mL of ZER promoted a reduction in the total biomass and cellular density of mixed C. albicans (ATCC 14053) and S. aureus (ATCC 14053) biofilms [28]. In addition, 128 µg/mL of ZER led to the mixed biofilm’s structural degradation [28]. CaS and CaR biofilms had their insoluble biomass reduced by approximately 44% and 13%, respectively, when treated with ZER at concentrations of 256 µg/mL for 20 min. Similar results were observed with antifungals (nystatin and amphotericin B), which promoted a dose-dependent reduction in the insoluble biomass of C. albicans biofilms [54].
Proteins are components present on a large scale in biofilm [10,11]. In the present study, no reduction was observed in soluble proteins of CaS and CaR biofilms. On the other hand, the ZER-256 group reduced the insoluble proteins in the CaR and CaS biofilms by approximately 15% after 10 and 20 min, respectively. In a previous study, a reduction in C. albicans biofilm proteins after alternative antifungal therapies was not observed, even with a reduction in cellular viability and other components of the extracellular matrix [31,55]. The reduction in proteins could be an important approach since they play an important role in the biofilm’s dynamic, acting like a digestive microstructure that performs the rupture of extracellular biopolymers in order to obtain energy [51].
The antibiofilm potential of ZER is not restricted to fungal biofilms, since the substance affects other microorganisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus [28], Bacteroides fragilis [29] and Acinetobacter baumannii [28,30]. Furthermore, ZER has also shown low cytotoxicity in mammal cells [56]. Thus, ZER can be considered a promising alternative to the inactivation of mixed biofilms.

5. Conclusions

Extracellular polymeric substances can act as antifungal diffusion-limiting barriers, resulting in restricted drug contact with the cells in the deeper layers of the biofilm [57]. The effect of ZER against vital constituents of the extracellular matrix (WSP, ASP and eDNA) can be considered a very relevant result that can improve the delivery of antifungals and could affect the antifungal resistance of the biofilm. In addition, the exposure of established biofilms to ZER reduced cell viability and decreased the amounts of eDNA, WSPs and the insoluble dry weight of biofilms from fluconazole-resistant C. albicans. This represents a promising alternative approach to antibiofilm therapy that requires further investigation of in vivo models.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C.P. and C.A.A.-P.; methodology, C.A.A.-P., A.L.G.-P., J.V.M.N. and C.C.J.; software, C.A.A.-P.; validation, C.A.A.-P. and A.L.G.-P.; formal analysis, C.A.A.-P. and A.C.P.; investigation, C.A.A.-P. and A.L.G.-P.; resources, A.C.P. and C.A.A.-P.; data curation, C.A.A.-P. and A.C.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.P., C.A.A.-P., C.C.J. and A.L.G.-P.; writing—review and editing, A.C.P., C.A.A.-P., C.C.J. and A.L.G.-P.; visualization, A.C.P. and C.A.A.-P.; supervision, A.C.P.; project administration, A.C.P.; funding acquisition, A.C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation [FAPESP #2013/07276-1 (CePID CePOF)] and scholarship from the Maranhão Research Foundation (FAPEMA-190480/2021-6 for C.A.A.P). Additional financial support was provided by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development—CNPq (#PIBIC-559 to A.L.G.P.).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Additional data are available on request from the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mukaremera, L.; Lee, K.K.; Mora-Montes, H.M.; Gow, N.A.R. Candida albicans yeast, pseudohyphal, and hyphal morphogenesis differentially affects immune recognition. Front. Immunol. 2017, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Seagle, E.E.; Jackson, B.R.; Lockhart, S.R.; Georgacopoulos, O.; Nunnally, N.S.; Roland, J.; Barter, D.M.; Johnston, H.L.; Czaja, C.A.; Kayalioglu, H.; et al. The landscape of candidemia during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2022, 74, 802–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Eggimann, P.; Garbino, J.; Pittet, D. Epidemiology of Candida species infections in critically ill non-immunosuppressed patients. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2003, 3, 685–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Talapko, J.; Juzbašić, M.; Matijević, T.; Pustijanac, E.; Bekić, S.; Kotris, I.; Škrlec, I. Candida albicans—The virulence factors and clinical manifestations of infection. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tsui, C.; Kong, E.F.; Jabra-Rizk, M.A. Pathogenesis of Candida albicans biofilm. Pathog. Dis. 2016, 74, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nobile, C.J.; Schneider, H.A.; Nett, J.E.; Sheppard, D.C.; Filler, S.G.; Andes, D.R.; Mitchell, A.P. Complementary adhesin function in C. albicans biofilm formation. Curr. Biol. CB 2008, 18, 1017–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Flemming, H.C.; Neu, T.R.; Wozniak, D.J. The EPS matrix: The “house of biofilm cells”. J. Bacteriol. 2007, 22, 7945–7947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, W.; Wang, J.J.; Qian, H.; Tan, L.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, H.; Pan, Y.; Zhao, Y. Insights into the role of extracellular DNA and extracellular proteins in biofilm formation of Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Front. Microl. 2020, 11, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nett, J.; Lincoln, L.; Marchillo, K.; Massey, R.; Holoyda, K.; Hoff, B.; VanHandel, M.; Andes, D. Putative role of beta-1,3 glucans in Candida albicans biofilm resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2007, 51, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Taff, H.T.; Nett, J.E.; Zarnowski, R.; Ross, K.M.; Sanchez, H.; Cain, M.T.; Hamaker, J.; Mitchell, A.P.; Andes, D.R. A Candida biofilm-induced pathway for matrix glucan delivery: Implications for drug resistance. PLoS Pathog. 2012, 8, e1002848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pereira, R.; Dos Santos Fontenelle, R.O.; de Brito, E.; de Morais, S.M. Biofilm of Candida albicans: Formation, regulation and resistance. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 131, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Fang, J.; Huang, B.; Ding, Z. Efficacy of antifungal drugs in the treatment of oral candidiasis: A Bayesian network meta-analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 125, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Morad, H.; Wild, A.M.; Wiehr, S.; Davies, G.; Maurer, A.; Pichler, B.J.; Thornton, C.R. Pre-clinical Imaging of Invasive Candidiasis Using ImmunoPET/MR. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Aziz, Z.; Ahmad, A.; Setapar, S.; Karakucuk, A.; Azim, M.M.; Lokhat, D.; Rafatullah, M.; Ganash, M.; Kamal, M.A.; Ashraf, G.M. Essential Oils: Extraction Techniques, Pharmaceutical and Therapeutic Potential—A Review. Cur. Drug. Metab. 2018, 19, 1100–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bona, E.; Cantamessa, S.; Pavan, M.; Novello, G.; Massa, N.; Rocchetti, A.; Berta, G.; Gamalero, E. Sensitivity of Candida albicans to essential oils: Are they an alternative to antifungal agents? J. Appl. Microbiol. 2016, 121, 1530–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Khorshidian, N.; Yousefi, M.; Khanniri, E.; Mortazavian, A.M. Potential application of essential oils as antimicrobial preservatives in cheese. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 45, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Calo, J.R.; Crandall, P.G.; O’Bryan, C.A.; Ricke, S.C. Essential oils as antimicrobials in food systems—A review. Food Control 2015, 54, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Kong, W.; Zhao, G.; Yang, M. Mechanisms of antifungal and anti-aflatoxigenic properties of essential oil derived from turmeric on Aspergillus flavus. Food Chem. 2017, 220, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abdul, A.B.; Abdelwahab, A.S.; Al-Zubairi, A.S.; Elhassan, M.M.; Murali, S.M. Anticancer and Antimicrobial Activities of Zerumbone from the Rhizomes of Zingiber zerumbet. Int. J. Pharmacol. 2008, 4, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sidahmed, H.M.; Hashim, N.M.; Abdulla, M.A.; Ali, H.M.; Mohan, S.; Abdelwahab, S.I.; Taha, M.M.; Fai, L.M.; Vadivelu, J. Antisecretory, gastroprotective, antioxidant and anti-Helicobcter pylori activity of zerumbone from Zingiber zerumbet (L.) Smith. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0121060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sulaiman, M.R.; Mohamad, T.A.S.T.; Mossadeq, W.M.S.; Moin, S.; Yusof, M.; Mokhtar, A.F.; Zakaria, Z.A.; Israf, D.A.; Lajis, N. Antinociceptive activity of the essential oil of Zingiber zerumbet. Planta Med. 2010, 76, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Prakash, R.O.; Kumar, R.K.; Rabinarayan, A.; Kumar, M.S. Pharmacognostical and phytochemical studies of Zingiber zerumbet (L.) Smith rhizome. Int. J. Res. Ayurveda Pharm. 2011, 2, 698–703. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kalantari, K.; Moniri, M.; Boroumand Moghaddam, A.; Abdul Rahim, R.; Bin Ariff, A.; Izadiyan, Z.; Mohamad, R. A Review of the Biomedical Applications of Zerumbone and the Techniques for Its Extraction from Ginger Rhizomes. Molecules 2017, 22, 1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Shin, D.S.; Eom, Y.B. Zerumbone inhibits Candida albicans biofilm formation and hyphal growth. Can. J. Microbiol. 2019, 65, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Liu, W.Y.; Tzeng, T.F.; Liu, I.M. Healing potential of zerumbone ointment on experimental full-thickness excision cutaneous wounds in rat. J. Tissue Viability 2017, 26, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Singh, A.; Chaudhari, A.K.; Das, S.; Dubey, N.K. Zingiber zerumbet L. essential oil-based chitosan nanoemulsion as an efficient green preservative against fungi and aflatoxin B1 contamination. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 149–160. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee, J.H.; Kim, Y.G.; Choi, P.; Ham, J.; Park, J.G.; Lee, J. Antibiofilm and antivirulence activities of 6-Gingerol and 6-Shogaol against Candida albicans due to hyphal inhibition. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shin, D.S.; Eom, Y.B. Efficacy of zerumbone against dual-species biofilms of Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 137, 103768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, H.R.; Rhee, K.J.; Eom, Y.B. Anti-biofilm and antimicrobial effects of zerumbone against Bacteroides fragilis. Anaerobe 2019, 57, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, H.R.; Shin, D.S.; Jang, H.I.; Eom, Y. B Anti-biofilm and anti-virulence effects of zerumbone against Acinetobacter baumannii. Microbiology 2020, 166, 717–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Panariello, B.; Klein, M.I.; Alves, F.; Pavarina, A.C. DNase increases the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy on Candida albicans biofilms. Photodiagn. Photodyn. Ther. 2019, 27, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Arendrup, M.C.; Prakash, A.; Meletiadis, J.; Sharma, C.; Chowdhary, A. Comparison of EUCAST and CLSI reference microdilution MICs of eight antifungal compounds for Candida and associated tentative epidemiological cutoff values. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e00485-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Panariello, B.; Klein, M.I.; Mima, E.; Pavarina, A.C. Fluconazole impacts the extracellular matrix of fluconazole-susceptible and -resistant Candida albicans and Candida glabrata biofilms. J. Oral Microbiol. 2018, 10, 1476644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Panariello, B.H.D.; Klein, M.I.; Pavarina, A.C.; Duarte, S. Inactivation of genes TEC1 and EFG1 in Candida albicans influences extracellular matrix composition and biofilm morphology. J. Oral Microbiol. 2017, 9, 1385372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dubois, M.; Gilles, K.A.; Hamilton, J.K.; Rebers, P.A.; Smith, F. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal. Chem. 1956, 28, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rice, K.C.; Mann, E.E.; Endres, J.L.; Weiss, E.C.; Cassat, J.E.; Smeltzer, M.S.; Bayles, K.W. The cidA murein hydrolase regulator contributes to DNA release and biofilm development in Staphylococcus aureus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 8113–8118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bradford, M.M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 1976, 72, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Paramonova, E.; Krom, B.P.; van der Mei, H.C.; Busscher, H.J.; Sharma, P.K. Hyphal content determines the compression strength of Candida albicans biofilms. Microbiology 2009, 155, 1997–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Haneef, J.; Shaharyar, M.; Husain, A.; Rashid, M.; Mishra, R.; Siddique, N.A.; Pal, M. Analytical methods for the detection of undeclared synthetic drugs in traditional herbal medicines as adulterants. Drug Test. Anal. 2013, 5, 607–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Solimini, R.; Busardò, F.P.; Rotolo, M.C.; Ricci, S.; Mastrobattista, L.; Mortali, C.; Graziano, S.; Pellegrini, M.; di Luca, N.M.; Palmi, I. Hepatotoxicity associated to synthetic cannabinoids use. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2017, 21, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ramsey, J.T.; Shropshire, B.C.; Nagy, T.R.; Chambers, K.D.; Li, Y.; Korach, K.S. Essential Oils and Health. Yale J. Biol. Med. 2020, 93, 291–305. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Kader, M.G.; Habib, M.R.; Nikkon, F.; Yeasmin, T.; Rashid, M.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Gibbons, S. Zederone from the rhizomes of Zingiber zerumbet and its anti-staphylococcal activity. Boletín Latinoam. Caribe Plantas Med. Aromáticas. 2010, 9, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tan, J.W.; Israf, D.A.; Tham, C.L. Major bioactive compounds in essential oils extracted from the rhizomes of Zingiber zerumbet (L) Smith: A mini-review on the anti-allergic and immunomodulatory properties. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Baby, S.; Dan, M.; Thaha, A.R.; Johnson, A.J.; Kurup, R.; Balakrishnapillai, P.; Lim, C.K. High content of zerumbone in volatile oils of Zingiber zerumbet from southern India and Malaysia. Flavour Fragr. J. 2009, 24, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Macros-Arias, C.; Eraso, E.; Madariaga, L.; Quindos, G. In vitro activities of natural products against oral Candida isolates from denture wearers. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2011, 11, 119. [Google Scholar]
  46. Raut, J.S.; Shinde, R.B.; Chauhan, N.M.; Karuppayil, S.M. Terpenoids of plant origin inhibit morphogenesis, adhesion, and biofilm formation by Candida albicans. Biofouling 2013, 29, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nett, J.E.; Andes, D.R. Contributions of the Biofilm Matrix to Candida Pathogenesis. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cattò, C.; de Vincenti, L.; Borgonovo, G.; Bassoli, A.; Marai, S.; Villa, F.; Cappitelli, F.; Saracchi, M. Sub-lethal concentrations of Perilla frutescens essential oils affect phytopathogenic fungal biofilms. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 245, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nunes, T.; Rosa, L.M.; Vega-Chacón, Y.; Mima, E. Fungistatic action of N-Acetylcysteine on Candida albicans biofilms and its interaction with antifungal agents. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sims Jr, K.R.; Maceren, J.P.; Liu, Y.; Rocha, G.R.; Koo, H.; Benoit, D.S. Dual antibacterial drug-loaded nanoparticles synergistically improve treatment of Streptococcus mutans biofilms. Acta Biomater. 2020, 115, 418–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zarnowski, R.; Westler, W.M.; Lacmbouh, G.A.; Marita, J.M.; Bothe, J.R.; Bernhardt, J.; Lounes-Hadj Sahraoui, A.; Fontaine, J.; Sanchez, H.; Hatfield, R.D.; et al. Novel entries in a fungal biofilm matrix encyclopedia. mBio 2014, 5, e01333-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Hirota, K.; Yumoto, H.; Sapaar, B.; Matsuo, T.; Ichikawa, T.; Miyake, Y. Pathogenic factors in Candida biofilm-related infectious diseases. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 122, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Rajendran, R.; Sherry, L.; Lappin, D.F.; Nile, C.J.; Smith, K.; Williams, C.; Munro, C.A.; Ramage, G. Extracellular DNA release confers heterogeneity in Candida albicans biofilm formation. BMC Microbiol. 2014, 14, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Bassi, R.C.; Boriollo, M. Amphotericin B, fluconazole, and nystatin as development inhibitors of Candida albicans biofilms on a dental prosthesis reline material: Analytical models in vitro. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 127, 320–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Abreu-Pereira, C.A.; Klein, M.I.; Lobo, C.; Gorayb-Pereira, A.L.; Jordão, C.C.; Pavarina, A.C. DNase enhances photodynamic therapy against fluconazole-resistant Candida albicans biofilms. Oral Dis. 2022, 29, 1855–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Moreira da Silva, T.; Pinheiro, C.D.; Puccinelli Orlandi, P.; Pinheiro, C.C.; Soares Pontes, G. Zerumbone from Zingiber zerumbet (L.) smith: A potential prophylactic and therapeutic agent against the cariogenic bacterium Streptococcus mutans. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2018, 18, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bowen, W.H.; Burne, R.A.; Wu, H.; Koo, H. Oral biofilms: Pathogens, matrix, and polymicrobial interactions in microenvironments. Trends Microbiol. 2018, 26, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jof 09 00576 g001 550
Figure 1. Survival curve of CaS (A) and CaR (B) after ZER treatment. The data represent the mean values of viable colony count (CFU/mL−1) at different concentrations of ZER and the times evaluated. The nystatin was evaluated as a positive control. The standard deviation (SD) was not higher than 1.71 × 105 and it was not presented in the figure for clearer presentation of the data.
Figure 1. Survival curve of CaS (A) and CaR (B) after ZER treatment. The data represent the mean values of viable colony count (CFU/mL−1) at different concentrations of ZER and the times evaluated. The nystatin was evaluated as a positive control. The standard deviation (SD) was not higher than 1.71 × 105 and it was not presented in the figure for clearer presentation of the data.
Jof 09 00576 g001
Table
Table 1. Summary of the results of the interactions of the two treatment factors (concentration of ZER and time of exposure) for each biofilm component and strain evaluated (CaS and CaR). Significant values are shown in bold (α = 0.05).
Table 1. Summary of the results of the interactions of the two treatment factors (concentration of ZER and time of exposure) for each biofilm component and strain evaluated (CaS and CaR). Significant values are shown in bold (α = 0.05).
ComponentStrainFactorInteration
ConcentrationTimeConcentration versus Time
CFU/mLCaSp < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001
CaRp = 0.004p = 0.012p < 0.001
Dry-Weight (mg)CaSp < 0.001p = 0.092p = 0.959
CaRp = 0.860p = 0.936p = 0.992
Insoluble Dry-weight (mg)CaSp < 0.001p = 0.150p = 0.257
CaRp < 0.001p = 0.013p = 0.101
Soluble proteins (µg)CaSp = 0.081p < 0.001p = 0.122
CaRp < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001
Insoluble proteins (µg)CaSp = 0.089p = 0.078p = 0.014
CaRp = 0.698p = 0.424p = 0.047
WSP (µg)CaSp < 0.001p = 0.089p = 0.040
CaRp < 0.001p = 0.051p = 0.039
ASP (µg)CaSp < 0.001p = 0.737p = 0.916
CaRp < 0.001p = 0.069p = 0.021
eDNA (ng)CaSp < 0.001p = 0.253p = 0.001
CaRp < 0.001p < 0.001p = 0.002
Table
Table 2. Biofilm and extracellular matrix components of CaS biofilms after ZER treatments.
Table 2. Biofilm and extracellular matrix components of CaS biofilms after ZER treatments.
ComponentGroups5 min10 min20 min
MeanStandard DeviationMeanStandard DeviationMeanStandard Deviation
CFU/mLControl8.33 × 105 Aa1.71 × 1051.16 × 106 Ba1.24 × 1052.17 × 106 Ca2.77 × 105
ZER-1281.63 × 105 Ab4.96 × 1042.40 × 105 Bb7.82 × 1044.13 × 105 Cb1.30 × 105
ZER-2561.10 × 105 Ac3.02 × 1041.73 × 105 Bc5.21 × 1041.73 × 105 Bc3.94 × 104
Dry-Weight (mg)Control5.733 Aa0.9395.266 Aa0.6955.566 Aa0.752
ZER-1283.400 Ab0.8983.066 Ab0.5743.383 Ab0.829
ZER-2562.349 Ac0.3832.166 Ac0.3892.450 Ac0.566
Insoluble
Dry-weight (mg)		Control1.200 Aa0.0621.198 Aa0.0531.128 Aa0.115
ZER-1281.119 Ab0.0991.096 Ab0.0851.110 Aa0.055
ZER-2560.663 Ac0.0350.641 Ac0.0690.624 Ab0.060
Soluble proteins (µg)Control0.024 Aa0.0020.022 Ba0.0010.021 Ba0.001
ZER-1280.023 Aab0.0020.022 ABa0.0010.021 Ba0.001
ZER-2560.022 Ab0.0020.022 Aa0.0010.021 Aa0.001
Insoluble proteins (µg)Control0.010 Aa0.0010.010 ABa0.0020.011 Ba0.002
ZER-1280.010 Aa0.0010.010 Aa0.0010.011 Aa0.002
ZER-2560.010 Aa0.0010.010 Aa0.0010.009 Ab0.001
WSP (µg)Control0.090 Aa0.0090.092 Aa0.0140.091 Aa0.004
ZER-1280.083 Aa0.0060.071 Bb0.0170.069 Bb0.017
ZER-2560.033 Ab0.0030.032 Ac0.0020.031 Ac0.001
ASP (µg)Control0.100 Aa0.0080.101 Aa0.0090.100 Aa0.006
ZER-1280.100 Aa0.0120.096 Aab0.0020.094 Aab0.009
ZER-2560.092 Aa0.0100.094 Ab0.0020.092 Ab0.007
eDNA (ng)Control35.904 ABa2.9935.189 Aa4.5239.356 Ba6.05
ZER-12822.452 Ab4.0022.167 Ab3.8221.669 Ab5.27
ZER-25614.903 Ac1.0511.720 ABc2.548.541 Bc1.78
The data are shown as average and standard deviation (n = 12): viable colonies counting (CFU/mL); Dry-Weight (mg); Insoluble Dry-Weight (mg); Soluble proteins (µg); Insoluble proteins (µg); Water-soluble polysaccharides (WSP; µg); Alkali-soluble polysaccharides (ASP; µg); extracellular DNA (eDNA; ng). Capital letters show the comparison among the times (lines) and lowercase letters show the comparison among the concentrations (columns). Unequal letters indicate significant statistical differences (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 3. Biofilm and extracellular matrix components of CaR biofilms after ZER treatment.
Table 3. Biofilm and extracellular matrix components of CaR biofilms after ZER treatment.
ComponentGroups5 min10 min20 min
MeanStandard DeviationMeanStandard DeviationMeanStandard Deviation
CFU/mLControl4.91 × 106 Aa5.13 × 1054.97 × 106 Aa3.92 × 1054.85 × 106 Aa5.02 × 105
ZER-1282.63 × 106 Ab1.37 × 1052.27 × 106 Bb2.05 × 1052.51 × 106 Cb2.27 × 105
ZER-2561.61 × 106 Ac2.52 × 1051.07 × 106 Bc1.72 × 1055.73 × 105 Cc3.94 × 104
Dry-Weight (mg)Control4.967 Aa0.4965.000 Aa0.5725.033 Aa0.450
ZER-1284.950 Aa0.4444.900 Aa0.3574.950 Aa0.683
ZER-2564.900 Aa0.4635.000 Aa0.6214.967 Aa0.558
Insoluble Dry-weight (mg)Control1.211 Aa0.0661.196 Aa0.0491.179 Aa0.073
ZER-1281.131 Ab0.0711.123 Ab0.0571.131 Aa0.045
ZER-2561.108 Ab0.0491.069 ABb0.0501.016 Bb0.054
Soluble proteins (µg)Control0.024 Aa0.0010.026 Aa0.0020.025 Aa0.002
ZER-1280.024 Aa0.0010.022 Bb0.0010.021 Bb0.001
ZER-2560.024 Aa0.0020.021 Bb0.0010.021 Bb0.001
Insoluble proteins (µg)Control0.010 Aa0.0010.010 Aa0.0010.010 Aa0.001
ZER-1280.010 Aa0.0000.010 Aa0.0010.010 Aa0.001
ZER-2560.010 Aa0.0010.010 Aa0.0010.010 Aa0.001
WSP (µg)Control0.090 Aa0.0090.093 Aa0.0140.092 Aa0.004
ZER-1280.084 Ab0.0060.072 Ab0.0170.070 Ab0.017
ZER-2560.053 Ac0.0030.053 Ac0.0020.051 Ac0.001
ASP (µg)Control0.098 Aa0.0050.098 Aa0.0050.099 Aa0.004
ZER-1280.096 Aa0.0050.096 Aab0.0040.095 Ab0.002
ZER-2560.096 Aa0.0040.094 Ab0.0030.089 Bc0.002
eDNA (ng)Control61.571 Aa3.38761.523 Aa3.47360.940 Aa2.715
ZER-12859.119 Aa3.59658.000 Ab4.47855.003 Bb3.251
ZER-25655.320 Ab2.97651.889 Bc2.32446.708 Cc3.143
The data are shown as average and standard deviation (n = 12): viable colonies counting (CFU/mL); Dry-Weight (mg); Insoluble Dry-Weight (mg); Soluble proteins (µg); Insoluble proteins (µg); Water-soluble polysaccharides (WSP; µg); Alkali-soluble polysaccharides (ASP; µg); extracellular DNA (eDNA; ng). Capital letters show the comparison among the times (lines) and lowercase letters show the comparison among the concentrations (columns). Unequal letters indicate significant statistical differences (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abreu-Pereira, C.A.; Gorayb-Pereira, A.L.; Menezes Noveletto, J.V.; Jordão, C.C.; Pavarina, A.C. Zerumbone Disturbs the Extracellular Matrix of Fluconazole-Resistant Candida albicans Biofilms. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 576. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9050576

AMA Style

Abreu-Pereira CA, Gorayb-Pereira AL, Menezes Noveletto JV, Jordão CC, Pavarina AC. Zerumbone Disturbs the Extracellular Matrix of Fluconazole-Resistant Candida albicans Biofilms. Journal of Fungi. 2023; 9(5):576. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9050576

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abreu-Pereira, César Augusto, Ana Luiza Gorayb-Pereira, João Vinícius Menezes Noveletto, Cláudia Carolina Jordão, and Ana Cláudia Pavarina. 2023. "Zerumbone Disturbs the Extracellular Matrix of Fluconazole-Resistant Candida albicans Biofilms" Journal of Fungi 9, no. 5: 576. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9050576

APA Style

Abreu-Pereira, C. A., Gorayb-Pereira, A. L., Menezes Noveletto, J. V., Jordão, C. C., & Pavarina, A. C. (2023). Zerumbone Disturbs the Extracellular Matrix of Fluconazole-Resistant Candida albicans Biofilms. Journal of Fungi, 9(5), 576. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9050576

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop