Table 1.
Primers used in this study.
Table 2.
In vitro drug effects evaluated by the FICI model and the △E model.
Fig 1.
Efficacy of FLC alone or in combination with BUD on the survival of infected G. mellonella over 4 days.
The concentration of yeast cells was 5×106 CFU/larva. Treatments consisted of PBS, FLC (160μg/mL) alone, BUD (160μg/mL) alone, or a combination of FLC (160μg/mL) with BUD (160μg/mL).
Fig 2.
Fungal burden in infected G. mellonella over 4 days.
The concentration of yeast cells was 5 × 106 CFU/larva. Treatments consisted of PBS, FLC (160μg/mL) alone, BUD (160μg/mL) alone, or a combination of FLC (160μg/mL) with BUD (160μg/mL). Data came from the means of three independent experiments. For clarity, data for treatment with BUD are not shown because the data obtained closely followed those shown for the control group.
Fig 3.
Histopathology of infected G. mellonella at day 2 past infection.
The concentration of yeast cells was 5 × 106 CFU/larva. Treatments consisted of PBS (A), 160μg/mL FLCalone (B), 160μg/mL BUD alone(C), or a combination of FLC and BUD (D). Melanized nodules was the mixtures of yeast cells and filaments.
Fig 4.
The effect of BUD on the (A) uptake and (B) efflux of Rh6G in resistant C. albicans. The uptake and efflux of Rh6G in the absence and presence of BUD (128μg/mL) was determined by a flow cytometry. MFIs represented the intracellular Rh6G in C. albicans. Error bars indicated standard errors of the means. Statistical significances were determined by Student’s t-test. *P < 0.05 when compared with the respective controls.
Fig 5.
Relative expressions of CDR1, CDR2, MDR1 and FLU1 in resistant C. albicans.
CA10 cells were treated with t no agent, 1μg/mL FLC, 128μg/mL BUD, and a combination of FLC and BUD at the same concentration. Error bars indicated standard errors of the means. Statistical significances were determined by Student’s t-test. *P < 0.05 when compared with the respective controls.
Fig 6.
Relative expressions of EFG1, HWP1 and ALS1 in resistant C. albicans.
CA10 cells were treated with t no agent, 1μg/mL FLC, 128μg/mL BUD, and a combination of FLC and BUD at the same concentration. Error bars indicated standard errors of the means. Statistical significances were determined by Student’s t-test. *P < 0.05 when compared with the respective controls.
Table 3.
Synergic effects of FLC alone and in combination with BUD against biofilms of resistant C. albicans.
Fig 7.
Changes of ROS in resistant C. albicans.
CA10 cells with DHR-123 staining wrer analysed by the flow cytometry after treatments with no agent, 1μg/mL FLC, 128μg/mL BUD, or a combination of FLC and BUD at the same concentration. Error bars indicated standard errors of the means. Statistical significances were determined by Student’s t-test. *P < 0.05 when compared with the respective controls.
Fig 8.
Relative expressions of MAC1, HSP90, CRZ1 and CNA1 in resistant C. albicans.
CA10 cells were treated with t no agent, 1μg/mL FLC, 128μg/mL BUD, and a combination of FLC and BUD at the same concentration. Error bars indicated standard errors of the means. Statistical significances were determined by Student’s t-test. *P < 0.05 when compared with the respective controls.
Fig 9.
Relative expressions of PLB1-5 and PLC1 in resistant C. albicans.
CA10 cells were treated with t no agent, 1μg/mL FLC, 128μg/mL BUD, and a combination of FLC and BUD at the same concentration. Error bars indicated standard errors of the means. Statistical significances were determined by Student’s t-test. *P < 0.05 when compared with the respective controls.
Table 4.
Extracellular phospholipase activity of C. albicans.