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

Effect of pH on In Vitro Susceptibility of Candida glabrata and Candida albicans to 11 Antifungal Agents and Implications for Clinical Use

Claire S. Danby, Dina Boikov, Rina Rautemaa-Richardson, Jack D. Sobel
Claire S. Danby
aDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dina Boikov
bDivision of Infectious Diseases, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rina Rautemaa-Richardson
cManchester Academic Health Science Center, School of Translational Medicine, University of Manchester and University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jack D. Sobel
bDivision of Infectious Diseases, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.05025-11
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Resistance or Cross-Resistance to Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors Currently under Development as Microbicides - June 16, 2011

ABSTRACT

The treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) due to Candida glabrata is challenging, with limited therapeutic options. Unexplained disappointing clinical efficacy has been reported with systemic and topical azole antifungal agents in spite of in vitro susceptibility. Given that the vaginal pH of patients with VVC is unchanged at 4 to 4.5, we studied the effect of pH on the in vitro activity of 11 antifungal agents against 40 C. glabrata isolates and compared activity against 15 fluconazole-sensitive and 10 reduced-fluconazole-susceptibility C. albicans strains. In vitro susceptibility to flucytosine, fluconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, clotrimazole, miconazole, ciclopirox olamine, amphotericin B, and caspofungin was determined using the CLSI method for yeast susceptibility testing. Test media were buffered to pHs of 7, 6, 5, and 4. Under conditions of reduced pH, C. glabrata isolates remained susceptible to caspofungin and flucytosine; however, there was a dramatic increase in the MIC90 for amphotericin B and every azole drug tested. Although susceptible to other azole drugs tested at pH 7, C. albicans strains with reduced fluconazole susceptibility also demonstrated reduced susceptibility to amphotericin B and all azoles at pH 4. In contrast, fluconazole-sensitive C. albicans isolates remained susceptible at low pH to azoles, in keeping with clinical observations. In selecting agents for treatment of recurrent C. glabrata vaginitis, clinicians should recognize the limitations of in vitro susceptibility testing utilizing pH 7.0.

INTRODUCTION

Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) accounts for up to one third of all vaginitis cases presenting to gynecologists (1, 2, 3). VVC is most commonly caused by Candida albicans but can also be caused by non-albicans Candida species, with Candida glabrata being the most common (24, 26). Symptomatic C. glabrata vaginitis poses a significant problem for clinicians because effective treatment and eradication of C. glabrata from the vagina have proven difficult (23, 25, 26). The organism has variable intrinsic resistance to azole drugs (23, 25, 26). C. glabrata vaginitis has been moderately successfully treated with boric acid, but this is not curative in one third of patients (8, 23, 25, 26). Other therapies have been advocated, such as topical flucytosine, oral itraconazole, and nystatin suppositories (8, 18). Amphotericin B suppositories in patients with non-albicans Candida resistant to azoles were studied by Phillips and found to be promising; however, symptomatic C. glabrata vaginitis is often unresponsive to these regimens (11, 18). VVC is also occasionally caused by fluconazole-resistant C. albicans, posing a similar treatment dilemma in that susceptibility of these organisms to other azole and non-azole drugs is not clinically predictive (26).

Drug treatment of vaginal infections may be unique in that the normal pH of the vagina is 4 to 4.5, which remains unchanged during VVC (13). Previous studies have found that the test medium pH in in vitro susceptibility testing can alter the azole MIC for Candida species and that an acidic pH tends to increase the MICs of fluconazole for selected Candida species (16). However, it was concluded that more acidic conditions did not change the designation of the isolates from susceptible to resistant, neither were clinical implications evident. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a change in test medium pH had an effect on in vitro susceptibility of C. glabrata and both fluconazole-susceptible and reduced-susceptibility C. albicans to seven azole and four non-azole antifungal agents, in order to explain the frequent in vivo failure of these agents in women with vaginitis caused by C. glabrata.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Vaginal isolates of C. glabrata and C. albicans were chosen from the Wayne State Vaginitis Clinic microbiology laboratory organism bank. The definition of fluconazole-susceptible C. albicans was the presence of an MIC of ≤2 μg/ml, and reduced susceptibility was defined as an MIC of ≥4 μg/ml (4). Vaginal isolates were randomly chosen from the years 2000 to 2010 and plated on CHROMagar to verify purity of culture. These plates were incubated for 48 h at 37°C in ambient air. Susceptibility testing was then performed using a broth microdilution method, according to CLSI document M27-A3 (2008) guidelines utilizing pH 7 (4). Antifungals and concentrations tested were flucytosine and fluconazole (at MIC ranges of 0.125 to 64 μg/ml), and voriconazole, posaconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, clotrimazole, miconazole, ciclopirox olamine, amphotericin B, and caspofungin (all with MIC ranges of 0.03 to 16 μg/ml). C. albicans isolates known to be fluconazole susceptible (MIC, ≤ 2 μg/ml) were not tested against itraconazole, ketoconazole, clotrimazole, and miconazole. A 0.1-ml yeast inoculum of 1.5 (± 1.0) ×103 cells/ml in RPMI 1640 medium was added to each microdilution well. The trays were then incubated at 35°C for 48 h in ambient air. The MICs were read as the lowest antifungal concentration with substantially lower turbidity (80% growth reduction) compared to growth in the antifungal-free growth well for all agents. Testing known ATCC strains of Candida parapsilosis and Candida krusei ensured quality control. Antifungal susceptibility testing was carried out for each isolate at pH 6, 5, and 4 using a MOPS (morpholinepropanesulfonic acid) (Sigma-Aldrich) buffer solution, and MIC ranges, medians, MIC50s, and MIC90s were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 40 vaginal strains of C. glabrata and 15 fluconazole-sensitive and 10 reduced-fluconazole-susceptibility C. albicans strains were studied, and MICs were recorded at pH levels 7, 6, 5, and 4 for each antifungal tested. Table 1 outlines MIC50 and MIC90 susceptibility results, including ranges of antifungal agents tested for each pH value for both C. glabrata and C. albicans.

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

MIC50 and MIC90 susceptibility results

C. glabrata.At pH 7, all C. glabrata isolates were susceptible to flucytosine, amphotericin B, caspofungin, and ciclopirox olamine. In contrast, a range of in vitro activity was present for the various azole agents. The MIC90 for fluconazole was 32 μg/ml (range 2 to >64 μg/ml) with considerably lower MICs for all other azoles tested. Notably low MICs were documented for posaconazole and voriconazole at 0.5 μg/ml. Itraconazole and ketoconazole were highly active at pH 7 and the topical agents clotrimazole and miconazole were similarly active.

With progressive reduction in pH, MIC90 values for 5-fluconazole and caspofungin were unchanged; however, an increase in MIC was evident for amphotericin B and to a lesser extent ciclopirox olamine. A dramatic increase in MIC90 was evident for all azoles tested to drug levels achievable in the vagina with systemic azole use, although pharmacologic data are not available. The trends observed for MIC90 were also reflected in MIC50 values.

C. albicans.At pH 7, fluconazole-susceptible strains of C. albicans were predictably susceptible to all antifungal agents tested. With a decrease in pH, a significant increase in MIC was evident only with amphotericin B and ciclopirox olamine. Azole activity at the lower pH was maintained in the fluconazole-susceptible isolates.

At pH 7, 10 vaginal isolates of fluconazole-reduced-susceptibility C. albicans were evaluated. The MIC range for fluconazole activity was 4 to >64 μg/ml, with MIC90 being 4 μg/ml. These isolates remained susceptible to all other azole drugs tested but demonstrated a moderately higher MIC to flucytosine (MIC, 2 μg/ml). In contrast, when a lower pH was tested, dramatic increases in MIC were seen for flucytosine, amphotericin B, fluconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, and ketoconazole.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study reveal that different classes of antifungals and the two species of Candida studied in vitro behaved differently with decrease in pH. The results confirm the susceptibility of fluconazole-sensitive C. albicans isolates to all azoles and the variable resistance of C. glabrata to fluconazole, and they may also offer insight as to why some antifungal medications may not be as effective in vivo with a more acidic physiologic vaginal pH. Previous studies similarly found that the medium pH can alter azole MICs for Candida species, and specifically an acidic pH was reported to increase the MICs of fluconazole for selected Candida species (16). The clinical implications of this observation were not, however, recognized.

C. glabrata vaginal infection is by no means infrequent, but case numbers are insufficient to perform a randomized controlled trial in order to establish optimal treatment (23, 25, 26). The resistance of C. glabrata to fluconazole, at all pH levels, observed in the present study is consistent with numerous in vitro studies (19, 20) and reflects experience when treating vulvovaginal candidiasis (7, 20, 25) and bloodstream infections (12, 19). Posaconazole and voriconazole are frequently but not invariably active against fluconazole-resistant C. glabrata. The Candida surveillance study demonstrated that resistance to fluconazole was highly predictive for resistance to voriconazole (14). Sabatelli et al. studied 1,218 C. glabrata isolates and their resistance to different azoles and amphotericin B, concluding that isolates with elevated MICs to one azole were generally less susceptible to all azoles (22). An important new finding in the present study reveals that C. glabrata isolates resistant to fluconazole but susceptible to posaconazole and voriconazole at pH 7 are unlikely to be effectively treated in vivo given the dramatic increases in MIC to these drugs at pH 4 and 5.

The topical agents miconazole and clotrimazole, which achieve high local concentrations, are similarly likely to be ineffective. This conclusion is strongly supported by clinical experience (27). In contrast, flucytosine maintained activity at low pH, a finding that supports experience in successfully treating C. glabrata-affected woman with symptomatic vaginitis (25).

Topical amphotericin B has in small studies demonstrated effectiveness for treatment of non-albicans Candida vaginitis, but emerging resistance to this antifungal has been documented (11, 18). Topical amphotericin B has also been used in combination with other antifungals, such as flucytosine. If flucytosine is as effective as previously described and stable at a low pH, perhaps it is contributing much more than amphotericin B to successful treatment (25). It was found in the present study that for both Candida species, amphotericin B activity was profoundly affected by pH, with at least a 16-fold increase in MIC90 with decrease in pH.

Ciclopirox olamine is an agent applied topically and well known for its potency against dermatophytes, and it has been suggested as an antifungal for resistant VVC. It is a synthetic topical agent, widely used to treat onychomycosis, tinea pedis, pityriasis versicolor, and seborrheic dermatitis. Its use in treating vaginal candidiasis has also been studied, with limited success (9, 17, 21), and it has shown clinical promise against azole-resistant Candida species, including C. glabrata. It has demonstrated good topical and systemic tolerance in rats and rabbits when vaginal tissue was examined (5, 15) and has been studied in settings with a lower pH (9, 10). However, in this study, a 4-fold rise in MIC90 from 0.5 to 2 μg/ml with a decrease in pH was seen. One factor that limits the clinical application of these data is that the breakpoint of ciclopirox olamine is unknown and the clinical relevance of increased MICs is questionable.

Caspofungin is an echinocandin that has demonstrated activity against Candida species both in vitro and in vivo for systemic infections (6). None of the echinocandins are available as topical agents, and they have not yet been studied for vulvovaginal candidiasis or at decreased pH levels. The results of this study demonstrated stable MICs with a decrease in pH, with all C. albicans isolates having an MIC90 of less than 2 μg/ml, and continued activity against C. glabrata isolates at lower pH. Additional studies would need to be performed to evaluate echinocandin response in vivo as a topical compound.

This in vitro study demonstrates the potential limitations of conventional in vitro testing in predicting antifungal clinical success when faced with the challenge of treating recurrent vulvovaginal C. glabrata infections as well as fluconazole-refractory C. albicans vaginitis. Although the importance of medium pH in standardizing susceptibility testing is widely recognized in recommending routine testing at pH 7, the profound effect of pH on C. glabrata susceptibility has not been appreciated but is probably relevant only to patients with yeast vaginitis. The exact mechanism of pH-induced reduced susceptibility has not been established. In contrast, fluconazole-susceptible C. albicans strains responsible for the majority of vaginitis episodes are less vulnerable to the pH influence. Finally, C. albicans vaginal isolates already demonstrating reduced azole sensitivity at pH 7 are further compromised by lowering pH, resembling the effect seen with C. glabrata. This study also emphasizes the need for new alternate agents for treatment of C. glabrata vaginitis as well as to consider measuring C. glabrata drug susceptibility in vitro at pH 4 to 5 before recommending antimycotic therapy; however, validation studies are essential.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 7 June 2011.
    • Returned for modification 26 July 2011.
    • Accepted 24 December 2011.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 9 January 2012.
  • Copyright © 2012, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2006. Vaginitis. ACOG Pract. Bull. No. 72 Obstet. Gynecol. 107:1195.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2009. Vulvar disorders. ACOG Clinical Updates in Women's Health Care vol. 8, no. 2, p 36. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Anderson MR,
    2. Klink K,
    3. Cohrssen A
    . 2004. Evaluation of vaginal complaints. JAMA 291:1368–1379.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    CLSI. 2008. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts; approved standard, third edition. CLSI document M27–A3. CLSI, Wayne, PA.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Coppi G,
    2. Silingardi S,
    3. Girardello R,
    4. De Aloysio D,
    5. Manzardo S
    . 1993. Pharmacokinetics of ciclopirox olamine after vaginal application to rabbits and patients. J. Chemother. 5:302–306.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Diekema DJ,
    2. et al
    . 2009. In vitro activity of seven systemically active antifungal agents against a large global collection of rare Candida species as determined by CLSI broth microdilution methods. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47:3170–3177.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Fidel PL Jr,
    2. Vazquez JA,
    3. Sobel JD
    . 1999. Candida glabrata: review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical disease with comparison to C. albicans. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 12:80–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Guaschino S,
    2. et al
    . 2001. Efficacy of maintenance therapy with topical boric acid in comparison with oral itraconazole in the treatment of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 184:598–602.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Gupta AK,
    2. Plott T
    . 2004. Ciclopirox: a broad-spectrum antifungal with antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties. Int. J. Dermatol. 43(Suppl. 1):3–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Harada I,
    2. Mitsui K,
    3. Uchida K,
    4. Yamaguchi H
    . 1999. The in vitro properties of a new hydroxypyridone antimycotic rilopirox, with special reference to its anti-Candida activity. Jpn. J. Antibiot. 52:146–152.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Khan ZU,
    2. et al
    . 2008. Emergence of resistance to amphotericin B and triazoles in Candida glabrata vaginal isolates in a case of recurrent vaginitis. J. Chemother. 20:488–491.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lee I,
    2. et al
    . 2010. Risk factors for fluconazole resistance in patients with Candida glabrata bloodstream infection: potential impact of control group selection on characterizing the association between previous fluconazole use and fluconazole resistance. Am. J. Infect. Control 38:456–460.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Linhares IM,
    2. Summers PR,
    3. Larsen B,
    4. Giraldo PC,
    5. Witkin SS
    . 2011 Contemporary perspectives on vaginal pH and lactobacilli. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 204:120.e1-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lyon GM,
    2. Karatela S,
    3. Sunay S,
    4. Adiri Y
    , Candida Surveillance Study Investigators. Antifungal susceptibility testing of Candida isolates from the Candida surveillance study. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48:1270–1275.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Manzardo S,
    2. Pinzetta A,
    3. Coppi G
    . 1993. Local tolerance of a new ciclopirox olamine vaginal preparation in rats and rabbits. J. Chemother. 5:307–312.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Marr KA,
    2. Rustad TR,
    3. Rex JH,
    4. White TC
    . 1999. The trailing end point phenotype in antifungal susceptibility testing is pH dependent. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43:1383–1386.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Niewerth M,
    2. et al
    . 2003. Ciclopirox olamine treatment affects the expression pattern of Candida albicans genes encoding virulence factors, iron metabolism proteins, and drug resistance factors. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47:1805–1817.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Phillips AJ
    . 2005. Treatment of non-albicans Candida vaginitis with amphotericin B vaginal suppositories. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 192:2009–2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Rex JH,
    2. Pfaller MA,
    3. Barry AL,
    4. Nelson PW,
    5. Webb CD
    . 1995. Antifungal susceptibility testing of isolates from a randomized, multicenter trial of fluconazole versus amphotericin B as treatment of nonneutropenic patients with candidemia. NIAID Mycoses Study Group and the Candidemia Study Group. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39:40–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Richter SS,
    2. et al
    . 2005. Antifungal susceptibilities of Candida species causing vulvovaginitis and epidemiology of recurrent cases. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:2155–2162.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Rubin AI,
    2. Bagheri B,
    3. Scher RK
    . 2002. Six novel antimycotics. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 3:71–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Sabatelli F,
    2. et al
    . 2006. In vitro activities of posaconazole, fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, and amphotericin B against a large collection of clinically important molds and yeasts. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50:2009–2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Sobel JD,
    2. Chaim W
    . 1997. Treatment of Torulopsis glabrata vaginitis: retrospective review of boric acid therapy. Clin. Infect. Dis. 24:649–652.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    1. Sobel JD
    . 2003. Management of patients with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis. Drugs 63:1059–1066.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Sobel JD
    . 2007. Vulvovaginal candidosis. Lancet 369:1961–1971.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Sobel JD,
    2. Chaim W,
    3. Nagappan V,
    4. Leaman D
    . 2003. Treatment of vaginitis caused by Candida glabrata: use of topical boric acid and flucytosine. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 189:1297.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    1. Sood G,
    2. Nyirjesy P,
    3. Weitz MV,
    4. Chatwani A
    . 2000. Terconazole cream for non-Candida albicans fungal vaginitis: results of a retrospective analysis. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol. 8:240–243.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Effect of pH on In Vitro Susceptibility of Candida glabrata and Candida albicans to 11 Antifungal Agents and Implications for Clinical Use
Claire S. Danby, Dina Boikov, Rina Rautemaa-Richardson, Jack D. Sobel
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Feb 2012, 56 (3) 1403-1406; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.05025-11

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.
Effect of pH on In Vitro Susceptibility of Candida glabrata and Candida albicans to 11 Antifungal Agents and Implications for Clinical Use
(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
Effect of pH on In Vitro Susceptibility of Candida glabrata and Candida albicans to 11 Antifungal Agents and Implications for Clinical Use
Claire S. Danby, Dina Boikov, Rina Rautemaa-Richardson, Jack D. Sobel
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Feb 2012, 56 (3) 1403-1406; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.05025-11
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

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