Quantification methods of Candida albicans are independent irrespective of fungal morphology.

IF 4.1 3区 生物学 Q2 CELL BIOLOGY
Microbial Cell Pub Date : 2024-07-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.15698/mic2024.07.831
Amanda B Soares, Maria C de Albuquerque, Leticia M Rosa, Marlise I Klein, Ana C Pavarina, Paula A Barbugli, Livia N Dovigo, Ewerton G de O Mima
{"title":"Quantification methods of <i><b>Candida albicans</b></i> are independent irrespective of fungal morphology.","authors":"Amanda B Soares, Maria C de Albuquerque, Leticia M Rosa, Marlise I Klein, Ana C Pavarina, Paula A Barbugli, Livia N Dovigo, Ewerton G de O Mima","doi":"10.15698/mic2024.07.831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ability of <i>Candida albicans</i> to switch its morphology from yeast to filaments, known as polymorphism, may bias the methods used in microbial quantification. Here, we compared the quantification methods [cell/mL, colony forming units (CFU)/mL, and the number of nuclei estimated by viability polymerase chain reaction (vPCR)] of three strains of <i>C. albicans</i> (one reference strain and two clinical isolates) grown as yeast, filaments, and biofilms. Metabolic activity (XTT assay) was also used for biofilms. Comparisons between the methods were evaluated by agreement analyses [Intraclass and Concordance Correlation Coefficients (ICC and CCC, respectively) and Bland-Altman Plot] and Pearson Correlation (α = 0.05). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was employed to visualize the similarities and differences between the methods. Results demonstrated a lack of agreement between all methods irrespective of fungal morphology/growth, even when a strong correlation was observed. Bland-Altman plot also demonstrated proportional bias between all methods for all morphologies/growth, except between CFU/mL X vPCR for yeasts and biofilms. For all morphologies, the correlation between the methods were strong, but without linear relationship between them, except for yeast where vPCR showed weak correlation with cells/mL and CFU/mL. XTT moderately correlated with CFU/mL and vPCR and weakly correlated with cells/mL. For all morphologies/growth, PCA showed that CFU/mL was similar to cells/mL and vPCR was distinct from them, but for biofilms vPCR became more similar to CFU/mL and cells/mL while XTT was the most distinct method. As conclusions, our investigation demonstrated that CFU/mL underestimated cells/mL, while vPCR overestimated both cells/mL and CFU/mL, and that the methods had poor agreement and lack of linear relationship, irrespective of <i>C. albicans</i> morphology/growth.1.</p>","PeriodicalId":18397,"journal":{"name":"Microbial Cell","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287054/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microbial Cell","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15698/mic2024.07.831","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ability of Candida albicans to switch its morphology from yeast to filaments, known as polymorphism, may bias the methods used in microbial quantification. Here, we compared the quantification methods [cell/mL, colony forming units (CFU)/mL, and the number of nuclei estimated by viability polymerase chain reaction (vPCR)] of three strains of C. albicans (one reference strain and two clinical isolates) grown as yeast, filaments, and biofilms. Metabolic activity (XTT assay) was also used for biofilms. Comparisons between the methods were evaluated by agreement analyses [Intraclass and Concordance Correlation Coefficients (ICC and CCC, respectively) and Bland-Altman Plot] and Pearson Correlation (α = 0.05). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was employed to visualize the similarities and differences between the methods. Results demonstrated a lack of agreement between all methods irrespective of fungal morphology/growth, even when a strong correlation was observed. Bland-Altman plot also demonstrated proportional bias between all methods for all morphologies/growth, except between CFU/mL X vPCR for yeasts and biofilms. For all morphologies, the correlation between the methods were strong, but without linear relationship between them, except for yeast where vPCR showed weak correlation with cells/mL and CFU/mL. XTT moderately correlated with CFU/mL and vPCR and weakly correlated with cells/mL. For all morphologies/growth, PCA showed that CFU/mL was similar to cells/mL and vPCR was distinct from them, but for biofilms vPCR became more similar to CFU/mL and cells/mL while XTT was the most distinct method. As conclusions, our investigation demonstrated that CFU/mL underestimated cells/mL, while vPCR overestimated both cells/mL and CFU/mL, and that the methods had poor agreement and lack of linear relationship, irrespective of C. albicans morphology/growth.1.

无论真菌形态如何,白色念珠菌的定量方法都是独立的。
白色念珠菌具有从酵母到丝状菌的形态转换能力,即所谓的多态性,这可能会使微生物定量方法产生偏差。在此,我们比较了以酵母、菌丝和生物膜形式生长的三种白念珠菌菌株(一种参考菌株和两种临床分离菌株)的定量方法[细胞/毫升、菌落形成单位(CFU)/毫升,以及通过活力聚合酶链反应(vPCR)估算的细胞核数量]。代谢活性(XTT 检测法)也用于生物膜。通过一致性分析[类内相关系数(ICC)和一致性相关系数(CCC)]以及布兰德-阿尔特曼图(Bland-Altman Plot)]和皮尔逊相关性(α = 0.05)评估了不同方法之间的比较。采用主成分分析法(PCA)来直观地显示各种方法之间的异同。结果表明,无论真菌形态/生长情况如何,所有方法之间都缺乏一致性,即使观察到很强的相关性也是如此。除 CFU/mL X vPCR 检测酵母菌和生物膜外,Bland-Altman 图还显示了所有形态/生长情况下所有方法之间的比例偏差。对于所有形态,各种方法之间的相关性都很强,但它们之间没有线性关系,只有酵母菌的 vPCR 与细胞/毫升和 CFU/ 毫升之间的相关性较弱。XTT 与 CFU/mL 和 vPCR 呈中度相关,与细胞/mL 呈弱相关。对于所有形态/生长情况,PCA 显示 CFU/mL 与细胞/毫升相似,vPCR 与它们不同,但对于生物膜,vPCR 与 CFU/mL 和细胞/毫升更相似,而 XTT 是最不同的方法。作为结论,我们的研究表明,CFU/mL 低估了细胞/mL,而 vPCR 则高估了细胞/mL 和 CFU/mL,而且无论白僵菌的形态/生长情况如何,这两种方法的一致性都很差,缺乏线性关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Microbial Cell
Microbial Cell Multiple-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信