Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Susceptibility

In Vitro Activities of Ketoconazole, Econazole, Miconazole, and Melaleuca alternifolia (Tea Tree) Oil against Malassezia Species

K. A. Hammer, C. F. Carson, T. V. Riley
K. A. Hammer
Department of Microbiology, The University of Western Australia, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. F. Carson
Department of Microbiology, The University of Western Australia, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T. V. Riley
Department of Microbiology, The University of Western Australia, and
The Western Australian Centre for Pathology and Medical Research, Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre, Nedlands, Western Australia 6009, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.44.2.467-469.2000
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The in vitro activities of ketoconazole, econazole, miconazole, and tea tree oil against 54 Malassezia isolates were determined by agar and broth dilution methods. Ketoconazole was more active than both econazole and miconazole, which showed very similar activities.M. furfur was the least susceptible species. M. sympodialis, M. slooffiae, M. globosa, and M. obtusa showed similar susceptibilities to the four agents.

Lipid-dependentMalassezia yeasts are commonly found on human skin, in particular, on the upper body, where sebum excretion is highest (10, 13). Although usually saprophytic,Malassezia spp. are also considered to be etiological agents in superficial skin diseases, such as pityriasis versicolor, seborrhoeic dermatitis, and Malassezia folliculitis, and infrequently cause systemic disease associated with lipid-rich hyperalimentation fluids (13).

Recently, several new Malassezia species have been described, resulting in seven species now being included in the genus (3, 4). Despite these major taxonomic revisions, little work has subsequently been published about the in vitro susceptibilities of these species to various antifungal agents. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the comparative activities of ketoconazole, econazole, miconazole, and the topical agent tea tree oil againstMalassezia species.

The following reference strains were obtained from the Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures (CBS), Baarn, The Netherlands: M. furfur CBS 1878, M. globosa CBS 7966, M. obtusa CBS 7876, M. slooffiae CBS 7956, and M. sympodialis CBS 7222. The following isolates were obtained in our laboratory as described previously (6); M. furfur (n = 10), M. globosa (n = 4), M. obtusa (n = 1), M. slooffiae (n = 2), and M. sympodialis (n = 30). These were identified according to previously published methods (3, 5, 11, 14). In addition, one isolate of M. sympodialiswas kindly provided by Chris Heath at the Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Royal Perth Hospital, and one isolate ofM. furfur was kindly provided by The Western Australian Centre for Pathology and Medical Research. All organisms were maintained on Dixon's agar (18), and all incubations, including susceptibility tests, were at 32°C.

Tea tree oil (batch 971) was kindly supplied by Australian Plantations Pty. Ltd., Wyrallah, New South Wales, Australia, and complied with the International Standard ISO 4730 (7, 8). Stock solutions of econazole (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.), miconazole (Sigma), and ketoconazole (Janssen Biotech, Olen, Belgium) powders were prepared in dimethyl sulfoxide and stored at −20°C.

For broth and agar dilution assays, inocula were prepared by growing organisms on Dixon's agar for 72 h. Colonies were suspended in saline, and suspensions were adjusted to approximately 5 × 106 CFU/ml, as determined by viable counts. For the agar dilution assay, a series of twofold dilutions of each agent were prepared in medium A agar (10). Final concentration ranges were as follows: tea tree oil, 0.008 to 1.0% (vol/vol); ketoconazole, 0.001 to 0.5 μg/ml; miconazole, 0.015 to 32 μg/ml; and econazole, 0.03 to 32 μg/ml. For dilutions with tea tree oil, a final concentration of 0.5% (vol/vol) Tween 20 was incorporated into the agar to enhance oil solubility (7). After drying for 30 min, plates were inoculated with 1-μl spots containing approximately 103 CFU per spot by using a multipoint replicator (Mast Laboratories, Ltd., Liverpool, United Kingdom). Plates were incubated for 7 days. MICs were then determined as the lowest concentration of the agent preventing the growth of the isolate, disregarding one or two colonies. The broth dilution assay was based on that recommended by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (16). A series of twofold dilutions of each agent were prepared in medium A broth in a 96-well microdilution tray. In tests with tea tree oil, a final concentration of 0.001% (vol/vol) Tween 80 was added to medium A broth to enhance oil solubility (7). Each well was inoculated with a final concentration of approximately 1.5 × 103 to 3.0 × 103 CFU/ml, as confirmed by viable counts. Microdilution trays were incubated for 48 h, and then 5-μl aliquots from each tray well were spot inoculated onto Dixon's agar. The surfactant components of both medium A broth and Dixon's agar meant that larger subculture aliquots were not feasible. Subcultures were incubated until colonies were visible—usually 2 to 7 days. MICs were determined as the lowest concentration of the agent resulting in the maintenance or reduction of the inoculum. Minimum fungicidal concentrations (MFCs) were determined as the lowest concentration of the agent resulting in no growth. Each isolate was tested at least twice on separate occasions, and if results differed, isolates were retested and modal MICs or MFCs were selected.

The MICs shown in Table 1 demonstrate that ketoconazole was the most active of the imidazoles, followed by miconazole and econazole, which were similar in activity. M. furfur was the species least susceptible to imidazoles: the remaining species were similar. Tea tree oil was active against allMalassezia species, for which the MICs were similar.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

In vitro susceptibilities of Malassezia spp. as determined by the agar dilution assay

Ketoconazole was also the most active of the imidazoles in the broth dilution assay (Table 2). Miconazole and econazole showed similar activities against each species, but demonstrated differences in activity between species. M. sympodialis was more susceptible than M. furfur with all MICs at which 90% of isolates tested are inhibited (MIC90s) and MFCs at which 90% of isolates tested are inhibited (MFC90s) lower than those obtained for M. furfur. The MICs of tea tree oil were similar for M. furfur and M. sympodialis, but the MFCs were several dilutions lower for M. furfur. With ketoconazole, MICs and MFCs were equivalent or 1 dilution apart. For miconazole and econazole, MICs and MFCs differed by several dilutions for both species.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

In vitro susceptibilities of M. furfur andM. sympodialis as determined by the broth dilution assay

Ketoconazole was the most active of the three imidazoles tested—findings similar to those of previous studies (12, 20). A relatively small difference between inhibitory and fungicidal values was seen for ketoconazole, but not for econazole or miconazole. Van Cutsem et al. (19) showed a similar effect for ketoconazole against 10 strains of Pityrosporum ovale. In our study, M. furfur was the least susceptible species. Similarly, Mayser et al. (15) found that M. furfur isolates were least susceptible to polidocanol, with the MICs for them more than 10-fold higher than those for the remainingMalassezia species. In contrast, Leeming et al. (11) reported that M. sympodialis was the species most susceptible to terbinafine, and the remaining species, includingM. furfur, showed very similar susceptibilities. Methodological differences between these studies, such as the test method, the medium used in the assay, and the criteria or method used for determining inhibitory and fungicidal concentrations, limit further comparison of results.

Tea tree oil and products containing the oil have been evaluated in vivo for the treatment of superficial fungal infections such as onychomycosis and oral candidiasis, with some favorable clinical outcomes (1, 9). Reports have been published previously describing the in vitro susceptibility of Malassezia species to tea tree oil (6, 17), and the present study confirms and extends these findings. However, there are no reports on the use of tea tree oil specifically for the treatment of Malassezia skin infections. Most tea tree oil products contain 5 to 10% tea tree oil, and this is likely to be adequate for clinical use. Different commercially available 100% tea tree oils vary little in their antimicrobial activity (2), however, the activity of tea tree oil can be antagonized by various excipients used in the formulation of products (7). In addition, as with many topical agents, there is a low risk of allergic reactions to 100% tea tree oil. We have recently shown the prevalence of such allergy to be approximately 5% (Greig et al., unpublished data).

In conclusion, this work has shown that individualMalassezia species vary in their susceptibility to several antifungal agents, with M. furfur being the least susceptible of the species tested. Tea tree oil may be a suitable alternative topical agent. In view of the apparent emergence ofMalassezia as opportunistic pathogens, these data may have clinical significance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Australian Bodycare Corporation Pty. Ltd., Mudgeeraba, Queensland, Australia, and, in part, by a grant from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (UWA-40A).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 22 July 1999.
    • Returned for modification 4 October 1999.
    • Accepted 16 November 1999.
  • Copyright © 2000 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Buck D. S.,
    2. Nidorf D. M.,
    3. Addino J. G.
    Comparison of two topical preparations for the treatment of onychomycosis: Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil and clotrimazole. J. Fam. Pract. 38 1994 601 605
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Carson C. F.,
    2. Riley T. V.
    The antimicrobial activity of tea tree oil. Med. J. Aust. 160 1994 236
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Guého E.,
    2. Midgley G.,
    3. Guillot J.
    The genus Malassezia with description of four new species. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 69 1996 337 355
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Guillot J.,
    2. Guého E.
    The diversity of Malassezia yeasts confirmed by rRNA sequence and nuclear DNA comparisons. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 67 1995 297 314
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Guillot J.,
    2. Guého E.,
    3. Lesourd M.,
    4. Midgley G.,
    5. Chévrier G.,
    6. Dupont B.
    Identification of Malassezia species, a practical approach. J. Mycol. Méd. 6 1996 103 110
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hammer K. A.,
    2. Carson C. F.,
    3. Riley T. V.
    In vitro susceptibility of Malassezia furfur to the essential oil of Melaleuca alternifolia. J. Med. Vet. Mycol. 35 1997 375 377
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hammer K. A.,
    2. Carson C. F.,
    3. Riley T. V.
    Influence of organic matter, cations and surfactants on the antimicrobial activity of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil. J. Appl. Microbiol. 86 1999 446 452
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    International Organisation for Standardisation ISO 4730 Oil of Melaleuca, terpinen-4-ol type (tea tree oil). 1996 International Organisation for Standardisation Geneva, Switzerland
  9. 9.↵
    1. Jandourek A.,
    2. Vaishampayan J. K.,
    3. Vazquez J. A.
    Efficacy of melaleuca oral solution for the treatment of fluconazole refractory oral candidiasis in AIDS patients. AIDS 12 1998 1033 1037
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. Leeming J. P.,
    2. Notman F. H.
    Improved methods for isolation and enumeration of Malassezia furfur from human skin. J. Clin. Microbiol. 25 1987 2017 2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Leeming J. P.,
    2. Sansom J. E.,
    3. Burton J. L.
    Susceptibility of Malassezia furfur subgroups to terbinafine. Br. J. Dermatol. 137 1997 764 767
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Marcon M. J.,
    2. Durrell D. E.,
    3. Powell D. A.,
    4. Buesching W. J.
    In vitro activity of systemic antifungal agents against Malassezia furfur. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 31 1987 951 953
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Marcon M. J.,
    2. Powell D. A.
    Human infections due to Malassezia spp. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 5 1992 101 119
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Mayser P.,
    2. Haze P.,
    3. Papavassilis C.,
    4. Pickel M.,
    5. Gruender K.,
    6. Guého E.
    Differentiation of Malassezia species: selectivity of cremophor EL, castor oil and ricinoleic acid for M. furfur. Br. J. Dermatol. 137 1997 208 213
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Mayser P.,
    2. Haze P.,
    3. Pickel M.
    Polidocanol sensitivity—a possible tool in the differentiation of Malassezia spp. Mycoses 40 1997 391 395
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Approved standard M27-A. 1997 National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards Wayne, Pa
  17. 17.↵
    1. Nenoff P.,
    2. Haustein U.-F.
    Antifungal activity of the essential oil of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree oil) against pathogenic fungi in vitro. Skin Pharmacol. 9 1996 388 394
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Van Abbe N. J.
    The investigation of dandruff. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem. 15 1964 609 630
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Van Cutsem J.,
    2. Van Gerven F.,
    3. Fransen J.,
    4. Schrooten P.,
    5. Janssen P. A. J.
    The in vitro antifungal activity of ketoconazole, zinc pyrithione, and selenium sulfide against Pityrosporum and their efficacy as a shampoo in the treatment of experimental pityrosporosis in guinea pigs. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 22 1990 993 998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Van Gerven F.,
    2. Odds F. C.
    The anti-Malassezia furfur activity in vitro and in experimental dermatitis of six imidazole antifungal agents: bifonazole, clotrimazole, flutrimazole, ketoconazole, miconazole and sertaconazole. Mycoses 38 1995 389 393
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
In Vitro Activities of Ketoconazole, Econazole, Miconazole, and Melaleuca alternifolia (Tea Tree) Oil against Malassezia Species
K. A. Hammer, C. F. Carson, T. V. Riley
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Feb 2000, 44 (2) 467-469; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.44.2.467-469.2000

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
In Vitro Activities of Ketoconazole, Econazole, Miconazole, and Melaleuca alternifolia (Tea Tree) Oil against Malassezia Species
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
In Vitro Activities of Ketoconazole, Econazole, Miconazole, and Melaleuca alternifolia (Tea Tree) Oil against Malassezia Species
K. A. Hammer, C. F. Carson, T. V. Riley
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Feb 2000, 44 (2) 467-469; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.44.2.467-469.2000
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

antifungal agents
Malassezia
Tea Tree Oil

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596