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
Mechanisms of Action: Physiological Effects

Efficacy of Voriconazole against Aspergillus fumigatus Infection Depends on Host Immune Function

Emily E. Rosowski, Jiaye He, Jan Huisken, Nancy P. Keller, Anna Huttenlocher
Emily E. Rosowski
aDepartment of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Emily E. Rosowski
Jiaye He
bMorgridge Institute for Research, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
cDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
dMax Planck Institute for Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jiaye He
Jan Huisken
bMorgridge Institute for Research, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
cDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nancy P. Keller
eDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
fDepartment of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nancy P. Keller
Anna Huttenlocher
eDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
gDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00917-19
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Antifungal therapy can fail in a remarkable number of patients with invasive fungal disease, resulting in significant morbidity worldwide. A major contributor to this failure is that while these drugs have high potency in vitro, we do not fully understand how they work inside infected hosts. Here, we used a transparent larval zebrafish model of Aspergillus fumigatus infection amenable to real-time imaging of invasive disease as an in vivo intermediate vertebrate model to investigate the efficacy and mechanism of the antifungal drug voriconazole. We found that the ability of voriconazole to protect against A. fumigatus infection depends on host innate immune cells and, specifically, on the presence of macrophages. While voriconazole inhibits fungal spore germination and growth in vitro, it does not do so in larval zebrafish. Instead, live imaging of whole, intact larvae over a multiday course of infection revealed that macrophages slow down initial fungal growth, allowing voriconazole time to target and kill A. fumigatus hyphae postgermination. These findings shed light on how antifungal drugs such as voriconazole may synergize with the immune response in living hosts.

INTRODUCTION

More than 2 million life-threatening invasive fungal infections are estimated to occur each year, primarily in immunosuppressed patients (1). Among these infections is invasive aspergillosis, caused mainly by Aspergillus fumigatus and estimated to occur in >200,000 people per year (1). Three main classes of antifungal drugs are used in the clinic, polyenes, azoles, and echinocandins, with the first discovered in the 1950s and others developed recently (2). While there are a range of MICs reported for these drugs, depending on both the species and the strain, these drugs have excellent activity against A. fumigatus in in vitro testing, with MICs of <10 μg/ml (3). Yet patients with invasive aspergillosis who are treated with frontline drugs have only an ∼50% survival rate (4). One of the reasons for this treatment failure is growing antifungal resistance (5), but even patients infected with susceptible fungal strains can succumb despite treatment (6). Additionally, while these drugs are tested for their ability to inhibit spore germination (7), most patients present with already germinated, invasive hyphae (8). Antifungal therapy can also cause severe side effects in patients, including hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, hormone dysregulation, fever, chills, and vomiting (9, 10). New drugs are being developed or repurposed for antifungal therapy (11), but the current situation suggests that we first need to understand better how these antifungal drugs work in live, infected animals. All of these drugs are primarily tested and studied in vitro, but the presence of immune cells and the complexity of whole tissues and organs has major effects on drug delivery and efficacy in infected patients (12, 13).

The larval zebrafish is an ideal intermediate animal model in which to study antifungal drug efficacy in vivo. Zebrafish have an immune system that is largely conserved with humans (14), and the pathogenesis of invasive fungal infections in larval zebrafish recapitulates that of human patients (15), including a model of invasive aspergillosis (16, 17). These studies utilize the many established immunodeficient models in larval zebrafish, including deficiencies in neutrophils and macrophages, the two major immune cell types present in larval zebrafish. Drugs are commonly tested and screened in zebrafish larvae and can easily be delivered to the animal through addition to larval water and absorption through the skin (18). Finally, the transparency of larval zebrafish allows for direct observation of fungal growth and host cell responses through light microscopy in a living, intact host over the course of multiple days (17).

In this study, we took advantage of this live imaging ability to observe the temporal effects of an antifungal drug on fungal growth in real time. We found that voriconazole treatment can fully protect wild-type larval zebrafish from A. fumigatus infection. Unexpectedly, this protection is partially dependent on the presence of host macrophages, while neutrophil function is dispensable. From live imaging experiments following a multiday course of infection, our data suggest that by inhibiting germination of spores, macrophages slow down the course of infection, allowing the drug more time to act. Previous in vitro experiments suggested that voriconazole has both fungistatic and fungicidal activity, inhibiting A. fumigatus germination and killing hyphae postgermination (19, 20), but we find that only the latter occurs in infected, voriconazole-treated larval zebrafish. These data demonstrate that intermediate models such as larval zebrafish can provide insight into how antimicrobial therapies work inside live, intact hosts.

RESULTS

Voriconazole efficacy in larval zebrafish depends on the presence of host immune cells.To first test whether larval zebrafish are a good host model for antifungal drug studies, we infected larval zebrafish with A. fumigatus spores using a now well-established model of microinjection into the hindbrain ventricle (16, 17). We then added voriconazole to the larval water and monitored survival for 7 days. In both a neutrophil-defective host model (mpx:rac2D57N) and a matched control (mpx:rac2wt) (64), 1 μg/ml or 10 μg/ml of voriconazole in the larval water fully rescued survival of these larvae (Fig. 1A). For comparison, voriconazole is estimated to have an MIC in the range of 0.25 to 1 μg/ml in vitro against a variety of A. fumigatus isolates, including the strain used here, Af293 (21–23). Similar results were seen in a different neutrophil-defective host (see Fig. S1A in the supplemental material), confirming that voriconazole can protect larval zebrafish from infection with A. fumigatus.

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Voriconazole efficacy in larval zebrafish depends on host immune function. Larvae were injected with A. fumigatus spores, voriconazole was added to the larval water, and host survival was monitored for 7 days. All data are from 3 pooled independent replicates. (A) Neutrophil-defective larvae (mpx:rac2D57N) or control larvae (mpx:rac2wt) were injected with an Af293-derived strain. (B) Larvae lacking both neutrophils and macrophages (pu.1 morphant) were injected with an Af293-derived strain. (C) Larvae lacking macrophages (irf8−/−) were injected with an Af293-derived strain. (D) Neutrophil-defective larvae (mpx:rac2D57N) were injected with a CEA10-derived strain. (E) Neutrophil-defective larvae (mpx:rac2D57N) were injected with patient-derived isolates of A. fumigatus that are in vitro azole-resistant (strain F11628 or F13747) or azole-susceptible (AF41) or an Af293-derived control.

However, when we expanded these studies to other immunosuppressed host models, voriconazole treatment was not as effective. In pu.1 morphant larvae, which do not have neutrophils or macrophages, 70% of larvae treated with 1 μg/ml voriconazole still succumbed to infection (Fig. 1B). In irf8 mutant larvae, which lack macrophages and have an expanded number of neutrophils, voriconazole treatment again did not fully rescue survival (Fig. 1C). Significantly more irf8−/− larvae succumb to infection after treatment with 1 μg/ml voriconazole than irf8+/+ or irf8+/– controls (Fig. S1C; P = 0.03 and 0.003, respectively). As protection was observed in the respective controls (Fig. S1B and C), the failure of voriconazole treatment in pu.1 morphant and irf8−/− hosts likely is due to specific differences in the host immune cells present. Similar results were obtained with a different A. fumigatus strain, demonstrating that in this model, fungal strain differences are not a major determinant of voriconazole efficacy (Fig. 1D, Fig. S1D to F).

Together, these results suggest that how voriconazole controls fungal growth in vitro is likely not the same as in vivo and that voriconazole requires host innate immune cells, specifically macrophages, to control fungal infection in larval zebrafish. To test these hypotheses in a different way, we infected a neutrophil-defective host with patient-isolated azole-resistant A. fumigatus strains (24). Larvae infected with strains F11628 or F13747 were still somewhat protected by 1 μg/ml voriconazole treatment (Fig. 1E), even though voriconazole has an MIC of >4 μg/ml against these strains in vitro (24). These data provide further evidence that the efficacy of antifungal drugs in vitro cannot fully predict how these drugs work in a whole-animal model.

Voriconazole does not kill A. fumigatus spores in larval zebrafish.We therefore wanted to investigate the mechanism by which voriconazole protects larvae from A. fumigatus infection, focusing again on Af293-derived strains and the lowest dose of voriconazole tested which can be protective, 1 μg/ml, to avoid any toxicity associated with higher doses. We began by looking at control wild-type hosts, in which we consistently found that voriconazole treatment rescues larval survival (Fig. 1A, Fig. S1B and C). From previous studies, we knew that in wild-type hosts, the germination rate of spores is low, but these spores can persist inside macrophages for more than 7 days of infection (16, 17). We hypothesized that the combination of a macrophage response and voriconazole might lead to better killing of these spores. To test this, we first performed fungal CFU counts from infected larvae through a 7-day infection. However, the percentage of CFU present in wild-type larvae over time was virtually identical in control and voriconazole-treated larvae, suggesting that voriconazole treatment does not increase spore killing in larval zebrafish (Fig. 2A). To confirm these results, we also quantified spore killing using a live-dead staining method and confocal microscopy. In these experiments, the cell wall of yellow fluorescent protein (YFP)-expressing spores was labeled with an Alexa Fluor tracer molecule to allow visualization of both live (YFP+ Alexa Fluor+) and dead (YFP– Alexa Fluor+) spores, and the spores were injected into a larval host with labeled macrophages (mfap4:tomato-CAAX). The percentage of spores killed in control and voriconazole-treated larvae was not significantly different at 2 days postinjection (dpi) (Fig. 2B and C). Similar results were obtained when we focused our analysis only on spores that were clearly inside macrophages (Fig. S2), supporting the conclusion that voriconazole treatment does not increase killing of A. fumigatus spores in vivo.

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Voriconazole treatment in larval zebrafish does not kill A. fumigatus spores. (A) Wild-type larvae were injected with A. fumigatus spores and treated with either 1 μg/ml voriconazole or DMSO vehicle control. Individual larvae were homogenized and plated to enumerate CFU on indicated days. All data are from 3 pooled independent replicates, with an average of n = 8 larvae per time point per replicate. (B, C) Transgenic larvae with labeled macrophages (mfap4:tomato-CAAX) were injected with a YFP-expressing strain of A. fumigatus labeled with an AlexaFluor633 tracer molecule, treated with either 1 μg/ml voriconazole or DMSO vehicle control, and imaged at 2 dpi. (B) Imaging area in the larvae and representative images are shown. Arrowheads mark killed spores (YFP–), and asterisks mark live spores (YFP+). Note: the live spore shown in voriconazole condition is germinating. (C) The percentage of spores alive per larvae was quantified over 3 independent experiments and pooled. Across 3 replicates, a total of 30 and 28 larvae and 1,500 and 1,269 spores were imaged in DMSO and voriconazole conditions, respectively. Individual data points represent single larvae and are color-coded by replicate; lines and error bars represent lsmeans and SEM.

Voriconazole kills A. fumigatus postgermination.If voriconazole does not kill spores, we hypothesized instead that it is fungistatic, preventing spore germination and hyphal development as it does in vitro against A. fumigatus (19). To test this, we used the neutrophil-defective mpx:rac2D57N zebrafish line in which we can observe hyphal growth (16) but which is protected by voriconazole treatment (Fig. 1A). We crossed this line with a macrophage-labeled line (mpeg1:EGFP), infected the resulting larvae with red fluorescent protein (RFP)-expressing A. fumigatus, and monitored fungal growth and macrophage response daily through a 5-day infection. Spores in voriconazole-treated larvae still germinated, and while the rate of appearance of germinated spores was somewhat lower than in control larvae, the difference was not statistically significant (Fig. 2A), suggesting that voriconazole acts even later in infection.

We next looked specifically at larvae that had germinated spores in them early in infection (2 dpi) to determine what happens to the fungus after it germinates. In control larvae, A. fumigatus can keep growing and eventually kill the larval host (Fig. 2B). In voriconazole-treated larvae, on the other hand, we saw hyphae being degraded over time such that most of the hyphal fragments were completely destroyed by 3 days postgermination (5 dpi) (Fig. 2B). In both treatment groups, macrophages are present and surround the growing fungus. Quantification of fungal burden in all of the larvae that had germinated spores inside them at 2 dpi showed that while 4/10 control larvae could not control fungal growth and succumbed to infection, all 7 voriconazole-treated larvae were able to degrade the germinated fungus and survive (Fig. 3C).

FIG 3
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 3

Voriconazole acts postgermination in neutrophil-defective larval zebrafish. Neutrophil-defective (mpx:rac2D57N) larvae with labeled macrophages (mpeg1:EGFP) were injected with RFP-expressing A. fumigatus spores and treated with either 1 μg/ml voriconazole or DMSO vehicle control. Larvae were imaged daily for 5 days. All data are from 3 pooled independent replicates. (A) Individual larvae were scored for the presence of germinated spores inside them, and the cumulative incidence of germination is plotted. (B) Example images of single DMSO-treated and voriconazole-treated larvae are shown for multiple days after germinated spores were observed at 2 dpi. (C) In all larvae that had germinated spores at 2 dpi, fungal burden was quantified from images (RFP+ area) and is displayed as a heatmap.

To better visualize the dynamics of fungal burden and macrophage activity, we performed time-lapse imaging of larvae every minute for ∼40 hours after germination was observed using light sheet microscopy. Again, we observed that in control larvae, fungal growth can proceed unabated and kill the larvae (Movie S1), while in voriconazole-treated larvae, fungal growth is contained (Movie S2). Altogether, these experiments demonstrate that voriconazole protects infected larval zebrafish by killing A. fumigatus hyphae after they begin to develop.

Macrophages are required to inhibit spore germination and give the drug more time to work in larval zebrafish.A remaining question is why the efficacy of voriconazole is different in different immunodeficient hosts, and specifically, why voriconazole works better when macrophages are present. Previous work from our labs demonstrated that a major role of macrophages in a normal immune response to A. fumigatus in larval zebrafish is to inhibit germination (17). Indeed, when we monitored germination in irf8 mutant larvae, we observed a very high incidence of germination, with ∼100% of larvae containing hyphae at 2 dpi (Fig. 4A). For comparison, in neutrophil-defective and wild-type hosts, we had previously observed only ∼60% of larvae with germinated spores at 3 dpi (Fig. 3A) (17). Similar to voriconazole treatment in neutrophil-defective hosts, treatment of infected irf8 mutant larvae with voriconazole did not inhibit germination significantly (Fig. 4A). These data further support the conclusion that voriconazole does not prevent A. fumigatus spore germination in larval zebrafish.

FIG 4
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 4

Voriconazole requires multiple days to act in larval zebrafish. (A to C) Macrophage-deficient (irf8−/−) larvae with labeled neutrophils (mpx:mCherry) were injected with YFP-expressing A. fumigatus spores and treated with either 1 μg/ml voriconazole or DMSO vehicle control. Larvae were imaged daily for 5 days. All data are from 3 pooled independent replicates. (A) Individual larvae were scored for the presence of germinated spores inside them, and the cumulative incidence of germination is plotted. (B) Example images of single DMSO-treated and voriconazole-treated larvae are shown for multiple days after germinated spores were observed at 1 dpi. (C) In all larvae that had germinated spores at 1 dpi, the fungal burden was quantified from images (RFP+ area) and is displayed as a heatmap. (D) Neutrophil-defective larvae (mpx:rac2D57N) or control larvae (mpx:rac2wt) were injected with A. fumigatus spores. Voriconazole was added to the larval water either immediately or at 2 dpi, and host survival was monitored for 7 days. All data are from 3 pooled independent replicates.

We therefore looked specifically at what happens to these irf8 mutant larvae after spores germinate inside them. Focusing on larvae that had germinated spores at 1 dpi, we again found that control larvae often could not control fungal growth, with hyphae overtaking the entire hindbrain region and killing the larvae (Fig. 4B). While many neutrophils respond to the fungus after germination, in general, fungal burden remained high in the control larvae, and 9/21 larvae succumbed by 4 days postgermination (5 dpi) (Fig. 4C). In larvae treated with voriconazole, the fungal burden was lower overall than in control larvae, but hyphal growth persisted for more than 4 days after germination, and we never observed the same clearance of hyphae that we did in larvae with functional macrophages (Fig. 4B and C).

Voriconazole requires multiple days to act in vivo.Our experiments in neutrophil-defective versus macrophage-deficient larvae highlight a striking difference in the rate of spore germination in these hosts (Fig. 3A and 4A). Almost 100% of macrophage-deficient larvae had germinated spores inside them at 2 dpi, while only ∼60% of neutrophil-defective larvae did at 3 dpi. We therefore hypothesized that macrophages promote voriconazole efficacy in larval zebrafish simply by inhibiting spore germination and giving the drug more time to target and kill the fungus before hyphal growth becomes too invasive and tissue-damaging (Fig. 5). If this hypothesis is correct, we would expect that in a host that is protected by voriconazole treatment (such as neutrophil-defective larvae), the addition of voriconazole later in infection would not be as effective. Indeed, in neutrophil-defective mpx:rac2D57N larvae, treatment with voriconazole starting at 2 dpi did not fully rescue host survival (Fig. 4D), similar to what we observed in macrophage-deficient hosts. On the other hand, in control hosts with a full and active innate immune system that can both inhibit the germination of A. fumigatus and target the fungus postgermination, adding voriconazole 2 dpi still fully rescued larval survival (Fig. 4D), underlining the importance of the host immune activity in anti-fungal drug efficacy in larval zebrafish.

FIG 5
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 5

Model of voriconazole activity in larval zebrafish. Voriconazole efficacy builds up throughout the course of treatment, reaching full efficacy after ∼3 days. Macrophages delay the process of A. fumigatus spore germination such that the occurrence of invasive fungal growth corresponds with this peak of efficacy, allowing the drug to fully clear any developed hyphae. In larvae without functional macrophages, germination happens much faster, and hyphae appear before the drug is fully effective, allowing for uncontrollable fungal growth and host death.

DISCUSSION

The molecular targets of all of the commonly used antifungal drugs are known, but we still do not fully understand the range of their phenotypic effects both on the fungus directly or on the pathogenesis of infection in humans or animal models. Triazole antifungal drugs, including voriconazole, inhibit ergosterol biosynthesis by targeting the cytochrome P450-dependent enzyme 14α-lanosterol demethylase (25). Ergosterol is a fungus-specific sterol that is an important component of the cell membrane, similar to cholesterol in mammals and vertebrates.

It is thought that inhibiting ergosterol synthesis prevents new membrane production and therefore new growth (26). There is also evidence that buildup of methylated sterols stresses and disrupts existing membranes in fungi (27). By affecting cell membranes, these drugs can also affect the function of intracellular vacuoles, including impairing vacuolar acidification (28). As a result, many studies have found that voriconazole can be fungicidal, not just fungistatic (20, 29–32). However, whether this fungistatic activity in vitro is against conidia, hyphae, or both is disputed (20, 29–33). Here, we report that in larval zebrafish, voriconazole primarily acts against the hyphal stage of A. fumigatus and does not significantly inhibit conidial germination. In vitro studies finding that this fungicidal activity is time- and concentration-dependent are consistent with our findings in larval zebrafish that several days of voriconazole treatment are required before the fungus is destroyed (31, 32). These questions have been hard to tackle in animal models in the past, as many are not amenable to long-term imaging, and therefore the effect of the drug on different stages of infection cannot be measured. However, in mammalian models of infection, voriconazole is typically given to the animal 24 hours after infection, after the infection is already established, and the drug is still effective at high doses at increasing animal survival and decreasing the fungal burden (34–39).

Variables that may differ between the larval zebrafish host and mammals include host temperature difference (28.5°C versus 37°C) and drug metabolism. In humans, voriconazole is metabolized in the liver by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes via N-oxidation into a metabolite that no longer has antifungal activity, but sufficient dosing can still create steady-state levels of the drug in patients (40). We do not currently know if or how this drug is metabolized in the larval zebrafish model, and while CYP-mediated drug metabolism varies among species (41), there are similarities between CYP enzymes in zebrafish and humans (42). Higher concentrations of voriconazole can also cause host toxicity, including off-target effects on host sterol synthesis and homeostasis (43, 44), and can have adverse effects in patients, such as cutaneous malignancy, photosensitivity, and periostitis (45). Some triazole drugs are toxic to zebrafish, especially during development (46–48), and there may be some toxicity associated with higher doses of voriconazole (10 μg/ml) in immunosuppressed zebrafish. However, we do not find any toxicity of voriconazole at the dose at which we performed the bulk of our experiments (1 μg/ml).

We unexpectedly found that the full efficacy of this drug depends on host immune cells, specifically macrophages. Macrophages phagocytose A. fumigatus spores and prevent their germination in both larval zebrafish and mice (16, 17, 49), and our data suggest that it is this activity that slows down fungal growth and allows the drug more time to act. However, in some larval zebrafish infection contexts, macrophages are not required for host survival. Irf8−/− larvae that lack macrophages but have an increased number of neutrophils are still resistant to certain strains of A. fumigatus because their neutrophil response is sufficient to clear the fungus (17). Similarly, different studies using mouse models disagree on the importance of macrophages in the immune response to A. fumigatus, with some suggesting that they are dispensable (50) and others demonstrating an increased fungal burden in their absence (51). In human patients as well, macrophage deficiency is not considered a major risk factor for invasive aspergillosis, although many immunosuppressive treatments that cause susceptibility, such as corticosteroid treatment or immune-modulatory treatments such as anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF), and genetic deficiencies, such as chronic granulomatous disease, affect the function of many immune cell types, including macrophages (52–54). Our data suggest that in infection contexts where macrophages are important, such as in larval zebrafish infected with the Af293 strain of A. fumigatus, these cells are also important for voriconazole efficacy.

Macrophages may act in other ways to increase the efficacy of voriconazole in larval zebrafish that have yet to be explored. Macrophages could increase uptake of the drug from the larval water or concentrate the drug at the site of fungal growth. Both epithelial cells and murine macrophages in vitro can take up and concentrate a different azole drug, posaconazole, and increase drug targeting of A. fumigatus (55, 56). While similar results were not observed with voriconazole, it could be different in an in vivo situation. Antifungal drugs can also directly modulate host immune function in cell culture studies. Monocytes synergize with voriconazole to lead to more A. fumigatus hyphal damage (20, 29, 30). One mechanism for this synergy is proposed to be an increase in the expression of NF-κB-regulated chemokines and cytokines, including TNF-α and interferon-γ (IFN-γ), which can be stimulated in monocytes by either voriconazole alone or voriconazole combined with A. fumigatus hyphae (20, 30). A different study showed that when monocytes were stimulated with voriconazole plus A. fumigatus spores, the drug actually reduced NF-κB activation and TNF-α production (57), which could also partially explain why voriconazole was more effective against hyphae than spores in our experiments. Another line of evidence supporting the hypothesis that voriconazole treatment can act independently of direct targeting of the fungus is our observation that voriconazole provides protection against azole-resistant strains in larval zebrafish, which was similarly observed in murine models (35). The effect of this drug on immune cell behavior and gene expression in animal models such as larval zebrafish will be an important area of future study.

Altogether, we report that the efficacy of antifungal drugs inside infected larval zebrafish depends on the presence of macrophages. This finding suggests that more studies should aim to understand how existing antifungal drugs work in different immunosuppressed conditions with different proximal causes of immunodeficiency, such as patients who have had hematopoietic stem cell transplants versus cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. To our knowledge, this has not been studied in higher vertebrate models. Some studies have compared the efficacy of different antifungal drugs in patients with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) and cystic fibrosis (58, 59), but very little is known about how underlying risk factors for invasive aspergillosis affect patient outcome after treatment with different antifungal drugs. While the experiments we present here were performed in an intermediate vertebrate larval zebrafish model and need to be expanded into higher vertebrate models, they highlight the possible utility of the larval zebrafish model in drug development and testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Zebrafish lines and maintenance.All zebrafish were maintained as previously described (60). Animal care and use protocol M005405-A02 was approved by the University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences (CALS) Animal Care and Use Committee. Prior to any experimental manipulations, larvae were anesthetized in E3 medium containing 0.2 mg/ml tricaine (ethyl 3-amino-benzoate; Sigma). All zebrafish lines used in this study are listed in Table 1 and were maintained on the wild-type AB background.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 1

Zebrafish lines used in this study

The mpx:rac2D57N transgenic line expresses a mutated (amino acid 57, D to N), dominant-negative copy of the rac2 gene specifically in neutrophils, preventing neutrophil migration to sites of inflammation. Its respective control, mpx:racwt, expresses a wild-type copy and has neutrophils that can migrate normally (64). The irf8−/− line was maintained as adult heterozygotes by out-crossing. For larval survival experiments, homozygous mutants (and their +/+ siblings) were grown to adulthood and in-crossed. For imaging experiments, larvae were generated from an irf8+/− mpx:mCherry in-cross. To enrich for the irf8−/− genotype, larvae with high numbers of mCherry+ cells were selected for experiments, as the irf8 mutation also increases neutrophil numbers. The actual genotype of each larva was then confirmed by PCR and restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) at the conclusion of the experiment as previously described (61).

pu.1 morpholino injection.A previously published and established splice-blocking morpholino oligonucleotide (MO; GeneTools) against pu.1 (ZFIN MO1:GATATACTGATACTCCATTGGTGGT) (62) was kept at a stock concentration of 1 mM in water. For injection, the MO was diluted in water with 0.5× CutSmart buffer (NEB) and 0.1% phenol red to a final concentration of 0.5 mM. We injected 3 nl into the yolk of single-cell embryos. A standard control MO (GeneTools) was used at a matching concentration.

Preparation of A. fumigatus spores and microinjection.All A. fumigatus strains used in this study are listed in Table 2. TBK1.1, TBK5.1, and TFYL49.1 had previously been used in larval zebrafish and were shown to have similar characteristics to their parental strains in larval zebrafish (17). All experiments were done with Af293-derived strains unless otherwise noted. Experiments with an Af293-derived strain used TBK1.1, except for experiments in Fig. 3 and Movies S1 and S2, which used TBK5.1. Experiments with a CEA10-derived strain used TFYL49.1. Patient-derived isolates were a gift from David W. Denning.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
TABLE 2

A. fumigatus strains used in this study

Spores were grown at 37°C on solid glucose minimal media (GMM), isolated for injection in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), and microinjected into the hindbrain ventricle of 2-day postfertilization (2-dpf) larvae as previously described (16). We aimed for an infectious dose of ∼50 spores per larva. Unless otherwise stated, larvae were kept in 96-well plates after injection.

Voriconazole treatment.Voriconazole (Sigma) was resuspended to stock concentrations of 10 mg/ml and 1 mg/ml in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and kept in aliquots at 4°C. Stock was then added to E3 with a 1:1,000 dilution to result in final concentrations of 10 μg/ml or 1 μg/ml, respectively. A DMSO control was also added at 1:1,000 to E3. Unless otherwise noted, larvae were treated within 2 hours after injection, and voriconazole was left on larvae for the entire experiment and not refreshed.

CFU counts.Single larvae were placed in 1.5-ml microcentrifuge tubes and first rinsed with 500 ml of fresh E3 for 30 min to wash out voriconazole and/or DMSO. CFU counts then were performed as described previously (17). Briefly, individual larvae were homogenized and spread on solid GMM plates, and CFU were counted 2 to 3 days later. All CFU data were normalized to the average initial injection dose for each replicate and condition.

Larval imaging.To prevent pigment formation, 0.2 mM N-phenylthiourea (PTU; Sigma-Aldrich) was added to E3 water starting at 12 to 24 hours postinjection (hpf). Larvae with fluorescent transgenes were prescreened on a zoomscope (EMS3/SyCoP3; Zeiss; Plan-NeoFluarZ objective) prior to the experiment. Live-dead spore labeling was performed as described previously (17). To image these larvae at 2 dpi, larvae were mounted in a glass-bottom dish with 1% low-melting-point agarose, and images were acquired with a laser-scanning confocal microscope (FluoView FV1000; Olympus) with a numerical-aperture (NA) 0.75/20× objective and FV10-ASW software (Olympus). For daily imaging, after spore injection and voriconazole treatment, larvae were individually maintained in wells of a 48-well plate. Each day, larvae were removed one at a time, anesthetized in E3 with tricaine, and placed into zWEDGI chambers (63) to correctly orient their hindbrains toward the bottom of the dish. Images were acquired on a spinning disk confocal microscope (CSU-X; Yokogawa) with a confocal scan head on a Zeiss Observer Z.1 inverted microscope, Plan-Apochromat NA 0.85/20× or EC Plan-Neofluar NA 0.3/10× objectives, and a Photometrics Evolve EMCCD camera. Images were acquired with ZEN software (Zeiss). After imaging was complete, larvae were rinsed in E3 with PTU and placed back into the same plate well, and liquid was replaced with fresh E3 containing PTU and voriconazole.

Imaging quantification and display.To quantify killing of Alexa Fluor-labeled spores (Fig. 2B and C), the analysis was performed blinded. Live and killed spores were manually counted using Fiji, through all slices of the z-stack, using the Cell Counter plugin. Displayed images of live-dead staining were processed using Fiji with bilinear interpolation to increase the pixel density 2-fold and with a Gaussian blur (sigma = 1.5). Images represent single z-slices. In larvae imaged daily (Fig. 3 and 4), the presence of germination was scored manually. The fungal area was quantified from maximum intensity projections of z-stacks inside a region of interest (ROI) drawn around the hindbrain by auto-thresholding with the Otsu algorithm in Fiji. Heatmaps were generated with MultiExperiment Viewer (MeV). Displayed images of daily larval imaging were processed in Fiji with bilinear interpolation to increase the pixel density 2-fold. Images represent maximum intensity projections. In all displayed images, brightness and contrast were manually adjusted in Fiji.

Light sheet microscopy.At 2 dpi, larvae were screened for the presence of germinated spores on a spinning disk confocal microscope as described above. Positive larvae were then mounted in a 0.8-mm or 1.6-mm inner diameter fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) tube in 0.4% low-melting-point agarose with 0.3 mg/ml Tricaine and an agarose plug. Where applicable, 1 μg/ml voriconazole was also added to the low-melt agarose. The entire head region of the larvae was then imaged with a custom-built multidirectional Selective Plane Illumination Microscope (mSPIM) (71). 3D image stacks were taken every minute with z-plane spacing of 2 μm. Different channels were taken sequentially. For visualization, maximum intensity projections were created postprocessing with Fiji.

Statistical analyses.For all statistical analyses, three independent experiments were performed and pooled. Experimental numbers are noted in figures and/or legends. For larval survival data, endpoint survival was compared using Fisher’s exact test in R, and adjusted P values (padj) are reported. For live-dead staining and CFU quantification, data were compared between experimental conditions using analysis of variance. Results are summarized in terms of least-squared adjusted means (lsmeans) and standard error (SEM). Graphs may show both calculated lsmeans ± SEM and individual data points, color-coded by replicate. For cumulative appearance of germination, replicates were pooled and curves were compared using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, with the experimental replicate included as a group variable, as previously described (16, 17). All calculations were done in R, and graphs were generated in Microsoft Excel 2016.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank members of the Huttenlocher and Keller labs for helpful scientific discussions.

This work was supported by NIH grant R35GM118027-03 to A.H. and NIH grant R01AI065728-10 to N.P.K. E.E.R. was supported by an NIH individual fellowship (F32AI113956).

E.E.R. was responsible for the conceptualization, methodology, and formal analysis. E.E.R. and J. He performed the investigation. J. Huisken contributed resources. E.E.R. wrote the original draft of the article, and E.E.R., N.P.K., and A.H. contributed to the review and editing of the article. N.P.K. and A.H. provided funding for this work.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 3 May 2019.
    • Returned for modification 7 September 2019.
    • Accepted 10 November 2019.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 18 November 2019.
  • Supplemental material is available online only.

  • Copyright © 2020 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Brown GD,
    2. Denning DW,
    3. Gow NAR,
    4. Levitz SM,
    5. Netea MG,
    6. White TC
    . 2012. Hidden killers: human fungal infections. Sci Transl Med 4:165rv13. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3004404.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Robbins N,
    2. Wright GD,
    3. Cowen LE
    . 2016. Antifungal drugs: the current armamentarium and development of new agents. Microbiol Spectr 4:microbiolspec.FUNK-0002-2016. doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.FUNK-0002-2016.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lass-Flörl C,
    2. Mayr A,
    3. Perkhofer S,
    4. Hinterberger G,
    5. Hausdorfer J,
    6. Speth C,
    7. Fille M
    . 2008. Activities of antifungal agents against yeasts and filamentous fungi: assessment according to the methodology of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52:3637–3641. doi:10.1128/AAC.00662-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Baddley JW,
    2. Andes DR,
    3. Marr KA,
    4. Kontoyiannis DP,
    5. Alexander BD,
    6. Kauffman CA,
    7. Oster RA,
    8. Anaissie EJ,
    9. Walsh TJ,
    10. Schuster MG,
    11. Wingard JR,
    12. Patterson TF,
    13. Ito JI,
    14. Williams OD,
    15. Chiller T,
    16. Pappas PG
    . 2010. Factors associated with mortality in transplant patients with invasive aspergillosis. Clin Infect Dis 50:1559–1567. doi:10.1086/652768.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Perlin DS,
    2. Shor E,
    3. Zhao Y
    . 2015. Update on antifungal drug resistance. Curr Clin Microbiol Rep 2:84–95. doi:10.1007/s40588-015-0015-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Paterson PJ,
    2. Seaton S,
    3. Prentice HG,
    4. Kibbler CC
    . 2003. Treatment failure in invasive aspergillosis: susceptibility of deep tissue isolates following treatment with amphotericin B. J Antimicrob Chemother 52:873–876. doi:10.1093/jac/dkg434.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Arendrup MC,
    2. Guinea J,
    3. Cuenca-Estrella M,
    4. Meletiadis J,
    5. Mouton JW,
    6. Lagrou K,
    7. Howard SJ
    , the Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Testing (AFST) of the ESCMID European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST). 2015. EUCAST definitive document E.DEF 9.3. Method for the determination of broth dilution minimum inhibitory concentration for conidia forming moulds. European Committee for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, Vaxjo, Sweden.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Segal BH
    . 2009. Aspergillosis. N Engl J Med 360:1870–1884. doi:10.1056/NEJMra0808853.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Benitez LL,
    2. Carver PL
    . 2019. Adverse effects associated with long-term administration of azole antifungal agents. Drugs 79:833–853. doi:10.1007/s40265-019-01127-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Steimbach LM,
    2. Tonin FS,
    3. Virtuoso S,
    4. Borba HHL,
    5. Sanches ACC,
    6. Wiens A,
    7. Fernandez-Llimós F,
    8. Pontarolo R
    . 2017. Efficacy and safety of amphotericin B lipid-based formulations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mycoses 60:146–154. doi:10.1111/myc.12585.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Pianalto KM,
    2. Alspaugh JA
    . 2016. New horizons in antifungal therapy. J Fungi (Basel) 2:E26. doi:10.3390/jof2040026.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Felton T,
    2. Troke PF,
    3. Hope WW
    . 2014. Tissue penetration of antifungal agents. Clin Microbiol Rev 27:68–88. doi:10.1128/CMR.00046-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ries F,
    2. Alflen A,
    3. Lopez PA,
    4. Beckert H,
    5. Theobald M,
    6. Schild H,
    7. Teschner D,
    8. Radsak MP
    . 2019. Antifungal drugs influence neutrophil effector functions. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 63:e02409-18. doi:10.1128/AAC.02409-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Renshaw SA,
    2. Trede NS
    . 2012. A model 450 million years in the making: zebrafish and vertebrate immunity. Dis Model Mech 5:38–47. doi:10.1242/dmm.007138.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Rosowski EE,
    2. Knox BP,
    3. Archambault LS,
    4. Huttenlocher A,
    5. Keller NP,
    6. Wheeler RT,
    7. Davis JM
    . 2018. The zebrafish as a model host for invasive fungal infections. J Fungi (Basel) 4:E136. doi:10.3390/jof4040136.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. Knox BP,
    2. Deng Q,
    3. Rood M,
    4. Eickhoff JC,
    5. Keller NP,
    6. Huttenlocher A
    . 2014. Distinct innate immune phagocyte responses to Aspergillus fumigatus conidia and hyphae in zebrafish larvae. Eukaryot Cell 13:1266–1277. doi:10.1128/EC.00080-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Rosowski EE,
    2. Raffa N,
    3. Knox BP,
    4. Golenberg N,
    5. Keller NP,
    6. Huttenlocher A
    . 2018. Macrophages inhibit Aspergillus fumigatus germination and neutrophil-mediated fungal killing. PLoS Pathog 14:e1007229. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1007229.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Zon LI,
    2. Peterson RT
    . 2005. In vivo drug discovery in the zebrafish. Nat Rev Drug Discov 4:35–44. doi:10.1038/nrd1606.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Meletiadis J,
    2. Antachopoulos C,
    3. Stergiopoulou T,
    4. Pournaras S,
    5. Roilides E,
    6. Walsh TJ
    . 2007. Differential fungicidal activities of amphotericin B and voriconazole against Aspergillus species determined by microbroth methodology. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:3329–3337. doi:10.1128/AAC.00345-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Simitsopoulou M,
    2. Roilides E,
    3. Paliogianni F,
    4. Likartsis C,
    5. Ioannidis J,
    6. Kanellou K,
    7. Walsh TJ
    . 2008. Immunomodulatory effects of voriconazole on monocytes challenged with Aspergillus fumigatus: differential role of Toll-like receptors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 52:3301–3306. doi:10.1128/AAC.01018-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Sabatelli F,
    2. Patel R,
    3. Mann PA,
    4. Mendrick CA,
    5. Norris CC,
    6. Hare R,
    7. Loebenberg D,
    8. Black TA,
    9. McNicholas PM
    . 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. doi:10.1128/AAC.00163-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Pfaller MA,
    2. Messer SA,
    3. Rhomberg PR,
    4. Jones RN,
    5. Castanheira M
    . 2013. In vitro activities of isavuconazole and comparator antifungal agents tested against a global collection of opportunistic yeasts and molds. J Clin Microbiol 51:2608–2616. doi:10.1128/JCM.00863-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Colley T,
    2. Alanio A,
    3. Kelly SL,
    4. Sehra G,
    5. Kizawa Y,
    6. Warrilow AGS,
    7. Parker JE,
    8. Kelly DE,
    9. Kimura G,
    10. Anderson-Dring L,
    11. Nakaoki T,
    12. Sunose M,
    13. Onions S,
    14. Crepin D,
    15. Lagasse F,
    16. Crittall M,
    17. Shannon J,
    18. Cooke M,
    19. Bretagne S,
    20. King-Underwood J,
    21. Murray J,
    22. Ito K,
    23. Strong P,
    24. Rapeport G
    . 2017. In vitro and in vivo antifungal profile of a novel and long-acting inhaled azole, PC945, on Aspergillus fumigatus infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e02280-16. doi:10.1128/AAC.02280-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Albarrag AM,
    2. Anderson MJ,
    3. Howard SJ,
    4. Robson GD,
    5. Warn PA,
    6. Sanglard D,
    7. Denning DW
    . 2011. Interrogation of related clinical pan-azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus strains: G138C, Y431C, and G434C single nucleotide polymorphisms in cyp51A, upregulation of cyp51A, and integration and activation of transposon Atf1 in the cyp51A promoter. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:5113–5121. doi:10.1128/AAC.00517-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Hitchcock CA,
    2. Dickinson K,
    3. Brown SB,
    4. Evans EG,
    5. Adams DJ
    . 1990. Interaction of azole antifungal antibiotics with cytochrome P-450-dependent 14 alpha-sterol demethylase purified from Candida albicans. Biochem J 266:475–480. doi:10.1042/bj2660475.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Campoy S,
    2. Adrio JL
    . 2017. Antifungals. Biochem Pharmacol 133:86–96. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2016.11.019.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Ghannoum MA,
    2. Rice LB
    . 1999. Antifungal agents: mode of action, mechanisms of resistance, and correlation of these mechanisms with bacterial resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 12:501–517. doi:10.1128/CMR.12.4.501.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Gamarra S,
    3. Garcia-Effron G,
    4. Park S,
    5. Perlin DS,
    6. Rao R
    . 2010. Requirement for ergosterol in V-ATPase function underlies antifungal activity of azole drugs. PLoS Pathog 6:e1000939. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1000939.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Vora S,
    2. Chauhan S,
    3. Brummer E,
    4. Stevens DA
    . 1998. Activity of voriconazole combined with neutrophils or monocytes against Aspergillus fumigatus: effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 42:2299–2303. doi:10.1128/AAC.42.9.2299.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Simitsopoulou M,
    2. Roilides E,
    3. Likartsis C,
    4. Ioannidis J,
    5. Orfanou A,
    6. Paliogianni F,
    7. Walsh TJ
    . 2007. Expression of immunomodulatory genes in human monocytes induced by voriconazole in the presence of Aspergillus fumigatus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 51:1048–1054. doi:10.1128/AAC.01095-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Manavathu EK,
    2. Cutright JL,
    3. Chandrasekar PH
    . 1998. Organism-dependent fungicidal activities of azoles. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 42:3018–3021. doi:10.1128/AAC.42.11.3018.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Chryssanthou E,
    2. Loebig A,
    3. Sjölin J
    . 2008. Post-antifungal effect of amphotericin B and voriconazole against germinated Aspergillus fumigatus conidia. J Antimicrob Chemother 61:1309–1311. doi:10.1093/jac/dkn129.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 33.↵
    1. Mowat E,
    2. Lang S,
    3. Williams C,
    4. McCulloch E,
    5. Jones B,
    6. Ramage G
    . 2008. Phase-dependent antifungal activity against Aspergillus fumigatus developing multicellular filamentous biofilms. J Antimicrob Chemother 62:1281–1284. doi:10.1093/jac/dkn402.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    1. Seyedmousavi S,
    2. Brüggemann RJM,
    3. Melchers WJG,
    4. Rijs AJMM,
    5. Verweij PE,
    6. Mouton JW
    . 2013. Efficacy and pharmacodynamics of voriconazole combined with anidulafungin in azole-resistant invasive aspergillosis. J Antimicrob Chemother 68:385–393. doi:10.1093/jac/dks402.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    1. Mavridou E,
    2. Bruggemann RJM,
    3. Melchers WJG,
    4. Verweij PE,
    5. Mouton JW
    . 2010. Impact of cyp51A mutations on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of voriconazole in a murine model of disseminated aspergillosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:4758–4764. doi:10.1128/AAC.00606-10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Chandrasekar PH,
    2. Cutright J,
    3. Manavathu E
    . 2000. Efficacy of voriconazole against invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in a guinea-pig model. J Antimicrob Chemother 45:673–676. doi:10.1093/jac/45.5.673.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    1. Kirkpatrick WR,
    2. McAtee RK,
    3. Fothergill AW,
    4. Rinaldi MG,
    5. Patterson TF
    . 2000. Efficacy of voriconazole in a guinea pig model of disseminated invasive aspergillosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 44:2865–2868. doi:10.1128/aac.44.10.2865-2868.2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. George D,
    2. Miniter P,
    3. Andriole VT
    . 1996. Efficacy of UK-109496, a new azole antifungal agent, in an experimental model of invasive aspergillosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 40:86–91. doi:10.1128/AAC.40.1.86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Murphy M,
    2. Bernard EM,
    3. Ishimaru T,
    4. Armstrong D
    . 1997. Activity of voriconazole (UK-109,496) against clinical isolates of Aspergillus species and its effectiveness in an experimental model of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 41:696–698. doi:10.1128/AAC.41.3.696.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Theuretzbacher U,
    2. Ihle F,
    3. Derendorf H
    . 2006. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile of voriconazole. Clin Pharmacokinet 45:649–663. doi:10.2165/00003088-200645070-00002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    1. Martignoni M,
    2. Groothuis GMM,
    3. de Kanter R
    . 2006. Species differences between mouse, rat, dog, monkey and human CYP-mediated drug metabolism, inhibition and induction. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2:875–894. doi:10.1517/17425255.2.6.875.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 42.↵
    1. Saad M,
    2. Cavanaugh K,
    3. Verbueken E,
    4. Pype C,
    5. Casteleyn C,
    6. Van Ginneken C,
    7. Van Cruchten S
    . 2016. Xenobiotic metabolism in the zebrafish: a review of the spatiotemporal distribution, modulation and activity of cytochrome P450 families 1 to 3. J Toxicol Sci 41:1–11. doi:10.2131/jts.41.1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Shafaati M,
    2. Mast N,
    3. Beck O,
    4. Nayef R,
    5. Heo GY,
    6. Björkhem-Bergman L,
    7. Lütjohann D,
    8. Björkhem I,
    9. Pikuleva IA
    . 2010. The antifungal drug voriconazole is an efficient inhibitor of brain cholesterol 24S-hydroxylase in vitro and in vivo. J Lipid Res 51:318–323. doi:10.1194/jlr.M900174-JLR200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Zarn JA,
    2. Brüschweiler BJ,
    3. Schlatter JR
    . 2003. Azole fungicides affect mammalian steroidogenesis by inhibiting sterol 14 alpha-demethylase and aromatase. Environ Health Perspect 111:255–261. doi:10.1289/ehp.5785.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. 45.↵
    1. Levine MT,
    2. Chandrasekar PH
    . 2016. Adverse effects of voriconazole: over a decade of use. Clin Transplant 30:1377–1386. doi:10.1111/ctr.12834.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    1. Mu X,
    2. Pang S,
    3. Sun X,
    4. Gao J,
    5. Chen J,
    6. Chen X,
    7. Li X,
    8. Wang C
    . 2013. Evaluation of acute and developmental effects of difenoconazole via multiple stage zebrafish assays. Environ Pollut 175:147–157. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2012.12.029.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Souders CL,
    2. Xavier P,
    3. Perez-Rodriguez V,
    4. Ector N,
    5. Zhang J,
    6. Martyniuk CJ
    . 2019. Sub-lethal effects of the triazole fungicide propiconazole on zebrafish (Danio rerio) development, oxidative respiration, and larval locomotor activity. Neurotoxicol Teratol 74:106809. doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2019.106809.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    1. Cao F,
    2. Souders CL,
    3. Li P,
    4. Pang S,
    5. Qiu L,
    6. Martyniuk CJ
    . 2019. Developmental toxicity of the triazole fungicide cyproconazole in embryo-larval stages of zebrafish (Danio rerio). Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 26:4913–4923. doi:10.1007/s11356-018-3957-z.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. 49.↵
    1. Schaffner A,
    2. Douglas H,
    3. Braude A
    . 1982. Selective protection against conidia by mononuclear and against mycelia by polymorphonuclear phagocytes in resistance to Aspergillus. Observations on these two lines of defense in vivo and in vitro with human and mouse phagocytes. J Clin Invest 69:617–631. doi:10.1172/jci110489.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.↵
    1. Mircescu MM,
    2. Lipuma L,
    3. van Rooijen N,
    4. Pamer EG,
    5. Hohl TM
    . 2009. Essential role for neutrophils but not alveolar macrophages at early time points following Aspergillus fumigatus infection. J Infect Dis 200:647–656. doi:10.1086/600380.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Bhatia S,
    2. Fei M,
    3. Yarlagadda M,
    4. Qi Z,
    5. Akira S,
    6. Saijo S,
    7. Iwakura Y,
    8. van Rooijen N,
    9. Gibson GA,
    10. St Croix CM,
    11. Ray A,
    12. Ray P
    . 2011. Rapid host defense against Aspergillus fumigatus involves alveolar macrophages with a predominance of alternatively activated phenotype. PLoS One 6:e15943. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015943.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Kosmidis C,
    2. Denning DW
    . 2015. The clinical spectrum of pulmonary aspergillosis. Thorax 70:270–277. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206291.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Filler SG,
    2. Yeaman MR,
    3. Sheppard DC
    . 2005. Tumor necrosis factor inhibition and invasive fungal infections. Clin Infect Dis 41(Suppl 3):208. doi:10.1086/430000.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.↵
    1. Grimm MJ,
    2. Vethanayagam RR,
    3. Almyroudis NG,
    4. Dennis CG,
    5. Khan ANH,
    6. D’Auria AC,
    7. Singel KL,
    8. Davidson BA,
    9. Knight PR,
    10. Blackwell TS,
    11. Hohl TM,
    12. Mansour MK,
    13. Vyas JM,
    14. Röhm M,
    15. Urban CF,
    16. Kelkka T,
    17. Holmdahl R,
    18. Segal BH
    . 2013. Monocyte- and macrophage-targeted NADPH oxidase mediates antifungal host defense and regulation of acute inflammation in mice. J Immunol 190:4175–4184. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1202800.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Campoli P,
    2. Perlin DS,
    3. Kristof AS,
    4. White TC,
    5. Filler SG,
    6. Sheppard DC
    . 2013. Pharmacokinetics of posaconazole within epithelial cells and fungi: insights into potential mechanisms of action during treatment and prophylaxis. J Infect Dis 208:1717–1728. doi:10.1093/infdis/jit358.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Campoli P,
    2. Al Abdallah Q,
    3. Robitaille R,
    4. Solis NV,
    5. Fielhaber JA,
    6. Kristof AS,
    7. Laverdiere M,
    8. Filler SG,
    9. Sheppard DC
    . 2011. Concentration of antifungal agents within host cell membranes: a new paradigm governing the efficacy of prophylaxis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:5732–5739. doi:10.1128/AAC.00637-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    1. Choi J,
    2. Kwon E,
    3. Park C,
    4. Choi S,
    5. Lee D,
    6. Yoo J,
    7. Shin W,
    8. Stevens DA
    . 2010. Immunomodulatory effects of antifungal agents on the response of human monocytic cells to Aspergillus fumigatus conidia. Med Mycol 48:704–709. doi:10.3109/13693780903471784.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Moreira AS,
    2. Silva D,
    3. Ferreira AR,
    4. Delgado L
    . 2014. Antifungal treatment in allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis with and without cystic fibrosis: a systematic review. Clin Exp Allergy 44:1210–1227. doi:10.1111/cea.12333.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Periselneris J,
    2. Nwankwo L,
    3. Schelenz S,
    4. Shah A,
    5. Armstrong-James D
    . 2019. Posaconazole for the treatment of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in patients with cystic fibrosis. J Antimicrob Chemother 74:1701–1703. doi:10.1093/jac/dkz075.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    1. Vincent WJB,
    2. Freisinger CM,
    3. Lam P,
    4. Huttenlocher A,
    5. Sauer J
    . 2016. Macrophages mediate flagellin induced inflammasome activation and host defense in zebrafish. Cell Microbiol 18:591–604. doi:10.1111/cmi.12536.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Shiau CE,
    2. Kaufman Z,
    3. Meireles AM,
    4. Talbot WS
    . 2015. Differential requirement for irf8 in formation of embryonic and adult macrophages in zebrafish. PLoS One 10:e0117513. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117513.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Rhodes J,
    2. Hagen A,
    3. Hsu K,
    4. Deng M,
    5. Liu TX,
    6. Look AT,
    7. Kanki JP
    . 2005. Interplay of pu.1 and gata1 determines myelo-erythroid progenitor cell fate in zebrafish. Dev Cell 8:97–108. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2004.11.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  63. 63.↵
    1. Huemer K,
    2. Squirrell JM,
    3. Swader R,
    4. LeBert DC,
    5. Huttenlocher A,
    6. Eliceiri KW
    . 2017. zWEDGI: wounding and entrapment device for imaging live zebrafish larvae. Zebrafish 14:42–50. doi:10.1089/zeb.2016.1323.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.↵
    1. Deng Q,
    2. Yoo SK,
    3. Cavnar PJ,
    4. Green JM,
    5. Huttenlocher A
    . 2011. Dual roles for Rac2 in neutrophil motility and active retention in zebrafish hematopoietic tissue. Dev Cell 21:735–745. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2011.07.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Walters KB,
    2. Green JM,
    3. Surfus JC,
    4. Yoo SK,
    5. Huttenlocher A
    . 2010. Live imaging of neutrophil motility in a zebrafish model of WHIM syndrome. Blood 116:2803–2811. doi:10.1182/blood-2010-03-276972.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Yoo SK,
    2. Huttenlocher A
    . 2011. Spatiotemporal photolabeling of neutrophil trafficking during inflammation in live zebrafish. J Leukoc Biol 89:661–667. doi:10.1189/jlb.1010567.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. 67.↵
    1. Walton EM,
    2. Cronan MR,
    3. Beerman RW,
    4. Tobin DM
    . 2015. The macrophage-specific promoter mfap4 allows live, long-term analysis of macrophage behavior during mycobacterial infection in zebrafish. PLoS One 10:e0138949. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138949.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Ellett F,
    2. Pase L,
    3. Hayman JW,
    4. Andrianopoulos A,
    5. Lieschke GJ
    . 2011. mpeg1 promoter transgenes direct macrophage-lineage expression in zebrafish. Blood 117:e49. doi:10.1182/blood-2010-10-314120.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. 69.↵
    1. Yoo SK,
    2. Deng Q,
    3. Cavnar PJ,
    4. Wu YI,
    5. Hahn KM,
    6. Huttenlocher A
    . 2010. Differential regulation of protrusion and polarity by PI3K during neutrophil motility in live zebrafish. Dev Cell 18:226–236. doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2009.11.015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  70. 70.↵
    1. Lim FY,
    2. Ames B,
    3. Walsh CT,
    4. Keller NP
    . 2014. Co-ordination between BrlA regulation and secretion of the oxidoreductase FmqD directs selective accumulation of fumiquinazoline C to conidial tissues in Aspergillus fumigatus. Cell Microbiol 16:1267–1283. doi:10.1111/cmi.12284.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Huisken J,
    2. Stainier DY
    . 2007. Even fluorescence excitation by multidirectional selective plane illumination microscopy (mSPIM). Opt Lett 32:2608–2610. doi:10.1364/OL.32.002608.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Efficacy of Voriconazole against Aspergillus fumigatus Infection Depends on Host Immune Function
Emily E. Rosowski, Jiaye He, Jan Huisken, Nancy P. Keller, Anna Huttenlocher
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 2020, 64 (2) e00917-19; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00917-19

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.
Efficacy of Voriconazole against Aspergillus fumigatus Infection Depends on Host Immune Function
(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
Efficacy of Voriconazole against Aspergillus fumigatus Infection Depends on Host Immune Function
Emily E. Rosowski, Jiaye He, Jan Huisken, Nancy P. Keller, Anna Huttenlocher
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jan 2020, 64 (2) e00917-19; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00917-19
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Aspergillus fumigatus
antifungal therapy
invasive fungal infection
larval zebrafish
live imaging
macrophages

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