Chinese Journal of Natural Medicines  2019, Vol. 17Issue (8): 616-623  
0

Cite this article as: 

LIN Mei-Yu, YUAN Zhong-Lan, HU Dan-Dan, HU Gan-Hai, ZHANG Ri-Li, ZHONG Hua, YAN Lan, JIANG Yuan-Ying, SU Juan, WANG Yan. Effect of loureirin A against Candida albicans biofilms[J]. Chinese Journal of Natural Medicines, 2019, 17(8): 616-623.
[Copy]

Research funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81772124), the Shanghai Pujiang Program (No. 14PJD001), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. NSFC81402823)

Corresponding author

SU Juan, Tel:86-21-81871340, Fax:86-21-65490641, E-mail:juansu_2008@126.com
WANG Yan, Tel:86-21-81871360, Fax:86-21-65490641, E-mail:wangyansmmu@126.com

Article history

Received on: 24 May., 2019
Available online: 20 Aug., 2019
Effect of loureirin A against Candida albicans biofilms
LIN Mei-Yu1 Δ, YUAN Zhong-Lan1 Δ, HU Dan-Dan1 , HU Gan-Hai1,2 , ZHANG Ri-Li1 , ZHONG Hua1 , YAN Lan1 , JIANG Yuan-Ying1 , SU Juan1 , WANG Yan1     
1 School of Pharmacy, Naval Military Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China;
2 Department of Pharmacy, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou 350000, China
[Abstract]: Loureirin A is a major active component of Draconis sanguis, a traditional Chinese medicine. This work aimed to investigate the activity of loureirin A against Candida albicans biofilms. 2, 3-Bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide (XTT) reduction assay and scanning electron microscopy were used to investigate the anti-biofilm effect. Minimal inhibitory concentration testing and time-kill curve assay were used to evaluate fungicidal activity. Cell surface hydrophobicity (CSH) assay and hyphal formation experiment were respectively carried out to investigate adhesion and morphological transition, two virulence traits of C. albicans. Real-time RT-PCR was used to investigate gene expression. Galleria mellonella-C. albicans and Caenorhabditis elegans-C. albicans infection models were used to evaluate the in-vivo antifungal effect. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells and C. elegans nematodes were used to evaluate the toxicity of loureirin A. Our data indicated that loureirin A had a significant effect on inhibiting C. albicans biofilms, decreasing CSH, and suppressing hyphal formation. Consistently, loureirin A down-regulated the expression of some adhesion-related genes and hypha/biofilm-related genes. Moreover, loureirin A prolonged the survival of Galleria mellonella and Caenorhabditis elegans in C. albicans infection models and exhibited low toxicity. Collectively, loureirin A inhibits fungal biofilms, and this effect may be associated with the suppression of pathogenic traits, adhesion and hyphal formation.
[Key words]: Candida albicans    Loureirin A    Anti-biofilm    Morphological transition    
Introduction

Draconis sanguis (Xue Jie in Chinese) is a deep red resin obtained from stems of Dracaena cochinchinensis and other plant sources [1]. It is a rare and precious traditional medicine used by China and some other countries since ancient times [2]. There are many kinds of preparations containing Draconis sanguis, and they are clinically used for the treatment of blood stasis syndrome, trauma, gynecopathy, and allergic dermatitis [3-4]. Modern pharmacological studies have found that Draconis sanguis has anti-microbial activities [1]. According to the records in "Great Dictionary of Chinese Medicine" and "Chinese materia medica", water extracts of Draconis sanguis exhibited inhibitory effect against Trichophyton violaceum, Trichophyton gypseum, and Trichophyton schoenleinii. Moreover, CAI et al. reported the antimicrobial effect of Guangxi Draconis sanguis [5]. At a concentration of 0.25 mg·mL−1, Draconis sanguis could inhibit the growth of Staphylococcus aureus, Diphtheria bacilli and Bacillus anthracis. While at 50 mg·mL−1, Draconis sanguis could inhibit the growth of Candida albicans [5].

Candida albicans is a major opportunistic fungal pathogen causing superficial to life-threatening infections, especially in immunocompromised patients [6]. More specifically, C. albicans is the fourth leading cause of vascular catheter-related infections and disseminated bloodstream infections accounts for a mortality rate of above 40% [7-10]. Moreover, C. albicans is the third leading cause of urinary catheter-related infections [7, 11-13]. It has a high propensity to develop biofilms on the surfaces of medical devices and various types of catheters [14]. C. albicans biofilms exhibits complex three- dimensional structure, and its formation attributes to the adhesion to biomaterial surfaces, growth to form an anchoring layer, and yeast-to-hypha morphological transition of C. albicans [15-16]. C. albicans biofilms contribute to virulence [17] through the invasion of tissues, harboring persister cells, and the barring of antibiotics/antifungals through physical exclusion and efflux pumps. Unlike planktonic cells, C. albicans biofilms display resistance to a wide variety of clinical antifungal agents, including most frequently used amphotericin B and fluconazole [18-19]. Of note, in a report by Vila and colleagues, at a concentration as high as 16 × MIC, fluconazole could not inhibit the development of biofilms [20]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify or develop new agents that effectively inhibit or prevent C. albicans biofilms.

Although Draconis sanguis has been reported to have anti-C. albicans activity at high concentrations, its anti-biofilm activity has not yet been evaluated. In this study, we evaluated the activity of loureirin A (Lou A), a main active component of Draconis sanguis [1] (Fig. 1A) against C. albicans biofilms, and investigated the underlying mechanism.

Fig. 1 (A) Chemical structure of Lou A. (B) Effects of increasing concentrations of Lou A on biofilm formation. (C) Effects of different concentrations of Lou A on mature biofilms. Biofilm formation was evaluated by XTT reduction assay, and the results were presented as the percentage compared to the control biofilms formed without Lou A treatment. Biofilm formation results represent the mean ± SD for five independent experiments. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 vs the control biofilms. (D) Effects of different concentrations of Lou A on biofilm formation imaged with SEM. Images in the dashed boxes are enlarged and the enlarged images are shown to the right
Materials and methods Strains, culture and agents

C. albicans strains, including SC5314, Y0109, 13, 19, 21, 100, 103, 805, 0710922 were routinely grown in Yeast extract Peptone Dextrose (YPD) (Sinopharm Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China). Lou A was purchased from the National Institute for the Control of Pharmaceutical and Biological Products of China (Shanghai, China), and the level of purity was ≥ 98%. Other media used included YPD + 10% (V/V) Fetal Calf Serum (FCS, Gibco, Bethesda, MD, USA) [21], Spider medium [21], Lee medium (pH = 6.8) [22], and RPMI 1640 medium (Gibco, Bethesda, MD, USA) [21]. Caenorhabditis elegans glp-4; sek-1 strain was propagated on nematode growth medium on lawns of Escherichia coli OP50 by using standard methods [23].

Biofilm formation assay

The assay was carried out as described previously [21, 24]. Briefly, C. albicans SC5314 was used to form biofilms. Serial concentrations of Lou A were added to fresh RPMI 1640 after C. albicans adhesion to the surface of 96-well tissue culture plates. The plate was further incubated at 37 ℃ for 24 h and the formation of biofilm was measured with a 2, 3-bis-(2- methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide (XTT) reduction assay [25]. To detect the effect of Lou A on mature biofilms, C. albicans biofilms were formed without drug treatment and Lou A was then added and treated for 24 h.

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) assay

The assay was carried out as described previously [21, 24]. Briefly, C. albicans biofilms were developed on sterile glass disks coated with poly-L-lysine hydrobromide (Sigma, Cat. No. P6282). The biofilm samples were observed through a Philips XL-30 SEM (Philips, The Netherlands) in high vacuum mode [21].

Antifungal susceptibility testing

Antifungal susceptibility test was carried out in 96-well microtiter plates (Greiner, Germany) as described previously [21, 24], using the broth microdilution protocol of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute methods (M27-A3) [21, 24] to determine minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of Lou A.

Time-kill curve assay

Time-kill curve assay was carried out as described previously [21]. Three independent experiments were carried out.

Cellular surface hydrophobicity (CSH) assay

C. albicans CSH was measured by water-hydrocarbon two-phase assay as described previously [21, 25].

Hyphal formation assay in liquid and solid media

1 × 106 CFU·mL−1 C. albicans SC5314 cells were incubated in liquid hypha-inducing medium RPMI 1640, Spider or Lee at 37 ℃ for 3 h to grow hyphae. The hyphae were photographed using inverted phase contrast microscope (Amersham Pharmacia, German). As for filamentation test in solid media, about 10 C. albicans cells were plated on agars containing Spider, YPD + FCS, or Lee's media. Cells in Spider were incubated at 37 ℃ for 5 d, YPD + FCS at 37 ℃ for 3 d, and Lee's at 25 ℃ for 14 d.

Real-time RT-PCR assay

C. albicans SC5314 cells were incubated in cell culture dishes for 90 min to adhere, the medium was removed and replaced with medium containing 40 μg·mL−1 Lou A or DMSO as the control. The cultures were then incubated statically at 37 ℃ for an additional 1 h. Then the C. albicans cells were collected immediately after the incubation. RNA extraction and real-time PCRs were performed as described previously [23]. RNA was extracted using a fungal RNAout kit (TIANZ, China) according to the manufacturer's instructions. A reverse transcription reaction was performed to transform 500 ng RNA into cDNA for each group with a reverse transcription kit (TaKaRa, Japan). Real-time PCR was conducted using a 7500 real-time PCR system (Applied biosystems, USA) with SYBR green I (TaKaRa) as the monitor. A total volume of 20 μL reaction system was prepared in accordance with the manufacture's instructions. The PCR program consisted of initial denaturation stage (95 ℃, 30 sec), 40 cycles of PCR stage (95 ℃, 5 sec; 60 ℃, 34 sec), and melt curve stage (60−95 ℃). The threshold cycle (CT) above background for each reaction was calculated The CT value of each gene was normalized to that of 18S rRNA in its group and marked as ΔCT. Then ΔΔCT was calculated by subtracting ΔCT of corresponding gene in control group from ΔCT value in Lou A treated group. Gene expression data in the results was indicated as 2–ΔΔCT, and the gene whose result < 0.5 was considered to be down-regulated compared with the control group. Triplicate independent experiments were conducted.

Galleria mellonella survival assay

G. mellonellaC. albicans infection model was used to evaluate the antifungal effect of Lou A, and survival assay was performed as described previously [26-27]. Briefly, C. albicans SC5314 inoculum was injected at the last left pro-leg of G. mellonella larvae using a Hamilton syringe. 2 mg·kg−1 Lou A was injected at the last right pro-leg. A control group received sterile water. The number of dead larvae was scored daily.

Caenorhabditis elegans survival assay

C. elegans was infected by C. albicans SC5314 as described previously [28]. For Lou A treatment groups, 20 µg·mL−1 Lou A was added, and DMSO solvent group was included as a control. Worms were scored daily and dead worms were removed from the assay.

Toxicity evaluation using human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) and C. elegans nematodes

HUVEC Cells were treated with various concentrations of Lou A for 24 h. Then the medium was removed and replaced with medium containing 500 μg·mL−1 XTT and 3.8 μg·mL−1 phenazine methosulfate. After treatment at 37 ℃ for additional 4 h, absorbance at 450 nm was measured with the Multilabel Counter (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Massachusetts, USA).

C. elegans nematodes were also used to evaluate the toxicity of Lou A as described previously [29]. Briefly, the nematodes were transferred to liquid medium containing 160 μg·mL−1 Lou A or the solvent DMSO at the same volume. The worms were incubated at 25 ℃ for 6 d and observed daily.

Statistical analysis

Survival was examined by using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences were determined by using the log-rank test (STATA 6; STATA, College Station, TX). A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant [26-27].

Results Lou A inhibits the formation of C. albicans biofilms

In this study, we evaluated the effect of Lou A on C. albicans biofilms. Lou A inhibited biofilm formation in a dose dependent manner (Fig. 1B). Biofilm formation was inhibited by 37% (P < 0.05) in the presence of 5 μg·mL−1 of Lou A, with extended inhibition with increasing concentrations of the compound. In the presence of 80 µg·mL−1 Lou A, the biofilm formation was 30% of structure formed in the negative control group. Notably, Lou A also inhibited mature biofilms dose dependently (Fig. 1C). At 20 µg·mL−1, Lou A inhibited mature biofilms by 26% (P < 0.05). The effect was more pronounced with increasing concentrations of Lou A. When 80 µg·mL−1 Lou A was added to the fungal biofilm, the measured material was 44% (P < 0.01) compared to the negative control. Collectively, Lou A exhibited a remarkable anti-biofilm effect, both preventing formation and inhibiting mature structures.

Consistent results were obtained in SEM assay where increasing concentrations of the compound were observed to inhibit the collection or formation of filaments. Provision of 20 µg·mL−1 of Lou A caused defect in filamentation and destroyed the 3D structure of the C. albicans biofilms (Fig. 1D). These alterations were more pronounced with increasing concentrations of Lou A. Provision of 80 µg·mL−1 of Lou A inhibited biofilm formation and most C. albicans cells were in yeast form.

Anti-biofilm effect of Lou A is not attributed to its antifungal activity

We evaluated the antifungal capacity of Lou A on C. albicans by evaluating the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the compound using a collection of both drug susceptible and drug resistant strains of C. albicans. Our panel included 5 fluconazole-susceptible strains and 4 fluconazole-resistant strains. The MIC50 and MIC80 of Lou A on all the 9 strains tested were no less than 80 μg·mL−1 (Table 1), which was much higher than the anti-biofilm concentrations of Lou A. These results indicated that the anti-biofilm effect of Lou A was not attributed to its antifungal activity.

Table 1 MICs of Lou A against fluconazole-susceptible and fluconazole-resistant C. albicans

The results of a time-kill curve assay confirmed the MIC findings, showing that ≤ 80 µg·mL−1 Lou A had no significant inhibitory effect on C. albicans (Fig. 2). At a concentration as high as 80 µg·mL−1 of Lou A, there was a modest antifungal activity, but no significant difference compared with the control group (P = 0.3723). Thus, our results suggest that Lou A affects an aspect of biofilm formation without adversely affecting the planktonic cells at concentrations less than 80 μg·mL−1.

Fig. 2 Time-kill curves of various concentrations of Lou A on C. albicans strain SC5314. 10 mg/ml Lou A in DMSO was used as a stock and added to 1 × 106 cells·mL−1 C. albicans suspensions in RPMI 1640 medium to obtain the indicated Lou A concentrations. C. albicans suspension in RPMI 1640 medium with 0.8% DMSO was used as the control. The data are shown as mean ± SD from three independent experiments. Statistical significance among the groups was determined by the analyses of variance (ANOVA) and no significant difference was observed
Lou A decreases cell surface hydrophobicity (CSH) of C. albicans

Since cell adhesion and yeast-to-hypha morphological transition are two important aspects for C. albicans biofilm formation [15] and there is a positive correlation between CSH and cell adhesion of C. albicans [30-31], we examined the effect of Lou A on CSH. The normal CSH of C. albicans was found to be 0.93 (Fig. 3). 5 µg·mL−1 Lou A decreased CSH to 0.61 (P < 0.01; Fig. 4). We observed a dose-dependent reduction in CSH with increasing concentration of Lou A (Fig. 3). The CSH of C. albicans decreased to 0.01 in the presence of 80 µg·mL−1 Lou A (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Effects of various concentrations of Lou A on CSH of C. albicans SC5314. CSH was evaluated by using the water- hydrocarbon two-phase assay. The data are shown as mean ± SD from three independent experiments. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 vs the control group without treatment
Fig. 4 Effects of Lou A on hyphal formation in hypha-inducing media. (A) Exponentially growing C. albicans SC5314 cells were transferred to hypha-inducing liquid media. The liquid media include RPMI 1640, Spider and Lee. The cellular morphology was photographed after incubation at 37 ℃ for 3 h. Scale bar = 100 μm. (B) Approximately 10 cells were plated on different solid media. YPD + FCS is a rich medium that induces true hyphae. Spider medium contains mannitol as the carbon source. Lee is a medium rich in amino acids that induces true hyphae. Temperature and time of incubation were as follows: Spider, 37 ℃, 5 d; Lee, 25 ℃, 14 d; YPD + FCS, 37 ℃, 3 d
Lou A inhibits hyphal formation of C. albicans

We further studied the effect of Lou A on yeast-to-hypha morphological transition of C. albicans. For this assay, cells were grown in liquid hypha-inducing media, including RPMI 1640, Spider, or Lee. Without Lou A treatment, C. albicans cells formed true hyphae in all the media tested (Fig. 4A). In Spider medium, 20 µg·mL−1 Lou A could inhibit the yeast-to-hypha morphological transition. At 40 µg·mL−1l, Lou A disrupted the hyphal formation totally (Fig. 4A). Consistently, Lou A inhibited C. albicans hyphal formation in RPMI 1640 and Lee media (Fig. 4A).

The inhibition effect of Lou A on C. albicans hyphal formation was further confirmed on solid hypha-inducing media, including Spider, YPD + FCS and Lee media. On Lou A free solid hypha-inducing media, C. albicans cells formed wrinkled colonies or radial hyphae on all the surfaces tested (Fig. 4B). Of note is that a previous study has revealed that wrinkled or radial colonies indicate pseudohyphal and mycelial cells inside the colonies while smooth colonies indicate budding yeast cells inside [32]. At 5 µg·mL−1, Lou A inhibited the developing of radial colonies (on solid Spider or Lee media) or wrinkled colonies (on solid YPD + FCS medium) to some extent. The addition of Lou A inhibited the hyphal formation inside the colonies in a dose dependent manner, and only smooth colonies were observed with 40 µg·mL−1 Lou A treatment.

Exposure to Lou A alters C. albicans gene expression

To explore the mechanism of biofilm disruption by Lou A, we investigated the expression changes of some known adhesion-related, hypha-related, and biofilm-related genes in response to Lou A treatment. The hypha-specific genes and biofilm-related genes such as SAP4, SAP5, SAP6, ECE1, HWP1 and PGA10, were down-regulated after Lou A treatment. Adhesion-specific genes IFF4 and EAP1 and some regulation genes, including RAS1, GPR1, CYR1, EFG1, CEK1, CPH1 and UME6 were also down-regulated (Table 2). The results were consistent with the biofilm/filament defects induced by Lou A.

Table 2 Fold changes of some important genes related to biofilm formation in C. albicans after Lou A treatment
Lou A exhibits antifungal effect in vivo in G. mellonella and C. elegans candidiasis models

Since Lou A inhibited yeast-to-hypha morphological transition, the most widely acknowledged pathogenic trait of C. albicans, we further investigated the in vivo antifungal activity of Lou A using a G. mellonellaC. albicans infection model and a C. elegansC. albicans infection model. In G. mellonellaC. albicans infection model, 2 mg·kg−1 Lou A was administered. Lou A significantly protected G. mellonella from C. albicans infection (P < 0.05; Fig. 5A). Consistently, Lou A significantly protected C. elegans from C. albicans infection at the concentration of 40 µg·mL−1 (P < 0.05; Fig. 5B). Collectively, Lou A treatment could prolong the survival of G. mellonella and C. elegans with C. albicans infection, indicating the antifungal effect of Lou A in vivo.

Fig. 5 Lou A prolongs the survival of G. mellonella and C. elegans infected by C. albicans. (A) G. mellonella larvae were infected with C. albicans SC5314 and then treated with 2 mg·kg−1 Lou A or drug free sterile water as the control. G. mellonella survival was observed over 216 hours (9 days) at 37 ℃ (n = 16 larvae per group). Dead larvae were counted and removed daily. P < 0.01 vs the control infection group without drug treatment. (B) Lou A prolongs the survival of C. elegans glp-4; sek-1 nematodes infected by C. albicans SC5314. Nematodes were infected with C. albicans for 4 h and then transferred to pathogen-free liquid medium in the presence of 40 μg·mL−1 Lou A or DMSO. C. elegans survival was observed over 144 hours (6 days) at 25 ℃ (n = 60 worms per group). Dead worms were counted and removed daily. P < 0.05 vs the control infection group without drug treatment
Lou A exhibits low toxicity on HUVEC and C. elegans

We tested the toxicity of Lou A using HUVEC. Concentrations ranging from 0 to 160 μg·mL−1 were tested. No toxicity was observed of Lou A at concentrations below 80 μg·mL−1 (Fig. 6A). We further tested the toxicity of Lou A using C. elegans worms. At the concentration as high as 160 μg·mL−1, no toxicity was observed of Lou A, and all the worms with Lou A treatment looked as healthy as those in the drug-free group (Fig. 6B).

Fig. 6 Lou A exhibits low toxicity. (A) Lou A exhibited low toxicity on HUVEC. The data are shown as mean ± SD from three independent experiments. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA. ***P < 0.001 vs the control group without treatment. (B) Lou A exhibited low toxicity on C. elegans worms. 160 μg·mL−1 Lou A was used and solvent DMSO was used as the control. Scale bar = 1 mm
Discussion

Draconis sanguis has been widely used in different countries for ages. Its main chemical constituents are flavonoids. Lou A and loureirin B are two major active flavonoid compounds in Draconis sanguis, and both are used as markers to identify sources or control the quality of preparations containing Draconis sanguis [33]. Of note, Lou A has a better solubility in water, which presents advantages over loureirin B as an anti-biofilm agent. In this investigation, we evaluated the activity of Lou A against C. albicans biofilms.

Lou A presents a stronger anti-biofilm effect rather than the fungicidal effect. More specifically, it inhibits biofilm through suppressing virulence traits, adhesion and yeast-to- hypha morphological transition, rather than killing C. albicans cells. There are three known stages for biofilm formation: adhesion to biomaterial surfaces, growth to form an anchoring layer, and morphological transition to form a complex three- dimensional structure [15-16]. Our data indicate that 20 µg·mL−1 Lou A significantly inhibits biofilm formation, decreases CSH (the indicator of adhesion), and alters the yeast-to-hypha morphological transition, while concentrations as high as 80 µg·mL−1 Lou A could not affect the growth of C. albicans. Thus, the anti-biofilm formation effect of Lou A seems attributed to its anti-adhesion and anti-morphological- transition activities.

Our RT-PCR data also supports that Lou A inhibits biofilm through suppressing adhesion and yeast-to-hypha morphological transition. Some important adhesion/hypha-related genes, including HWP1, IFF4, EAP1, ECE1, RAS1, GPR1, CYR1, EFG1, CEK1, CPH1, UME6, and PGA10 were down-regulated after Lou A treatment. HWP1 [24], IFF4 [34] and EAP1 [35] are related to adhesion. RAS1 [24], GPR1 [36], CYR1 [36], EFG1 [37], CEK1 [36] and CPH1 [38] are involved in either cAMP pathway or MAPK pathway, two most important pathways regulating yeast-to-hypha transition. UME6 [39], ECE1 [37] and HWP1 [37] are hypha-specific genes, and PGA10 [40] is involved in biofilm formation. The down-regulation of these genes indicates that Lou A may inhibit biofilm through suppressing adhesion and hyphal formation.

The formation of biofilm is a virulence attribute to C. albicans. In particular, it contributes to the pathogenicity of two invertebrate infection models: G. mellonella and C. elegans [29, 41-42]. In this study, we use a G. mellonellaC. albicans infection model and a C. elegansC. albicans infection model to evaluate the in-vivo antifungal activity of the precious Lou A. These models are reliable to evaluate both the efficacy and the toxicity of antifungal agents [26, 28]. Importantly, these models do not need as large amount of agents as the mammalian models require [26, 28] and thus make it possible for us to evaluate limited quantities of Lou A. Our data indicate that 2 mg·kg−1 Lou A could prolong the survival of G. mellonella with C. albicans infection. 40 μg·mL−1 Lou A significantly protected C. elegans from C. albicans infection, while the agent at this concentration could not inhibit the growth of C. albicans. The antifungal activity of Lou A in vivo may attribute to the inhibitory effect of Lou A on pathogenic traits of C. albicans. Adhesion on host cells is the first step for C. albicans to cause infection [43]. Yeast-to-hypha transition is the most widely acknowledged pathogenic trait of C. albicans, both in mammalian hosts and insect hosts [44-46]. Thus, our in-vivo data also suggest that Lou A can suppress pathogenic traits, adhesion and hyphal formation of C. albicans.

In conclusion, Lou A can inhibit C. albicans biofilms thus suppressing a pathogenic trait, and exhibits low toxicity. Further research work is needed to generate analogues with higher potency. Moreover, translational research is required to determine whether the effect of Lou A or analogues of the compound can be applicable in a clinical setting.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. William A Fonzi (Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA) for providing C. albicans strain SC5314, and Dr. WANG Ying (Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China) and Dr. LIAO Wang-Qing (Changzheng Hospital, Shanghai, China) for providing other fungal strains used in this study. We appreciate the thoughtful review of this manuscript by Dr. Beth Fuchs from Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University.

References
[1]
Fan JY, Yi T, Sze-To CM, et al. A Systematic review of the botanical, phytochemical and pharmacological profile of Dracaena cochinchinensis, a plant source of the ethnomedicine " Dragon's Blood"[J]. Molecules, 2014, 19(7): 10650-10669. DOI:10.3390/molecules190710650
[2]
Cui JL, Wang CL, Guo SX, et al. Stimulation of dragon's blood accumulation in Dracaena cambodiana via fungal inoculation[J]. Fitoterapia, 2013, 87: 31-36. DOI:10.1016/j.fitote.2013.03.012
[3]
Choy CS, Hu CM, Chiu WT, et al. Suppression of lipopolysaccharide-induced of inducible nitric oxide synthase and cyclooxygenase-2 by Sanguis Draconis, a dragon's blood resin, in RAW 264.7 cells[J]. J Ethnopharmacol, 2008, 115(3): 455-462. DOI:10.1016/j.jep.2007.10.012
[4]
Zhu H, Wu Q, Xu M. Effects of total Astragalus extract on anti-thrombus[J]. Chin J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2005, 10: 917-920.
[5]
Cai RX, Liu JJ. The preliminary report of the antimicrobial effect of Guangxi dragon's blood[J]. J Guilin Med Coll, 1990, 3(1): 16-19.
[6]
Alangaden GJ. Nosocomial fungal infections: epidemiology, infection control, and prevention[J]. Infect Dis Clin North Am, 2011, 25(1): 201-225. DOI:10.1016/j.idc.2010.11.003
[7]
Beck-Sague C, Jarvis WR. Secular trends in the epidemiology of nosocomial fungal infections in the United States, 1980- 1990. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System[J]. J Infect Dis, 1993, 167(5): 1247-1251. DOI:10.1093/infdis/167.5.1247
[8]
Crnich CJ, Maki DG. The promise of novel technology for the prevention of intravascular device-related bloodstream infection. I. Pathogenesis and short-term devices[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2002, 34(9): 1232-1242. DOI:10.1086/339863
[9]
Fesharaki SH, Aghili SR, Shokohi T, et al. Catheter-related candidemia and identification of causative Candida species in patients with cardiovascular disorder[J]. Curr Med Mycol, 2018, 4(2): 7-13.
[10]
Lohse MB, Gulati M, Johnson AD, et al. Development and regulation of single- and multi-species Candida albicans biofilms[J]. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2018, 16(1): 19-31.
[11]
Maki DG, Tambyah PA. Engineering out the risk for infection with urinary catheters[J]. Emerg Infect Dis, 2001, 7(2): 342-347. DOI:10.3201/eid0702.010240
[12]
Nguyen MH, Peacock JE, Tanner DC, et al. Therapeutic approaches in patients with candidemia. Evaluation in a multicenter, prospective, observational study[J]. Arch Intern Med, 1995, 155(22): 2429-2435. DOI:10.1001/archinte.1995.00430220087009
[13]
Pappas PG, Rex JH, Sobel JD, et al. Guidelines for treatment of candidiasis[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2004, 38(2): 161-189. DOI:10.1086/380796
[14]
Chandra J, Kuhn DM, Mukherjee PK, et al. Biofilm formation by the fungal pathogen Candida albicans: development, architecture, and drug resistance[J]. J Bacteriol, 2001, 183(18): 5385-5394. DOI:10.1128/JB.183.18.5385-5394.2001
[15]
Seneviratne CJ, Jin L, Samaranayake LP. Biofilm lifestyle of Candida: a mini review[J]. Oral Dis, 2008, 14(7): 582-590. DOI:10.1111/j.1601-0825.2007.01424.x
[16]
Li DD, Wang Y, Dai BD, et al. ECM17-dependent methionine/ cysteine biosynthesis contributes to biofilm formation in Candida albicans[J]. Fungal Genet Biol, 2013, 51: 50-59. DOI:10.1016/j.fgb.2012.11.010
[17]
Sherry L, Rajendran R, Lappin DF, et al. Biofilms formed by Candida albicans bloodstream isolates display phenotypic and transcriptional heterogeneity that are associated with resistance and pathogenicity[J]. BMC Microbiol, 2014, 14: 182. DOI:10.1186/1471-2180-14-182
[18]
Chandra J, Mukherjee PK, Leidich SD, et al. Antifungal resistance of candidal biofilms formed on denture acrylic in vitro[J]. J Dent Res, 2001, 80(3): 903-908. DOI:10.1177/00220345010800031101
[19]
Ramage G, Vandewalle K, Wickes BL, et al. Characteristics of biofilm formation by Candida albicans[J]. Rev Iberoam Micol, 2001, 18(4): 163-170.
[20]
Vila TV, Ishida K, de Souza W, et al. Effect of alkylphospholipids on Candida albicans biofilm formation and maturation[J]. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2013, 68(1): 113-125. DOI:10.1093/jac/dks353
[21]
Li DD, Zhao LX, Mylonakis E, et al. In vitro and in vivo activities of pterostilbene against Candida albicans biofilms[J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2014, 58(4): 2344-2355. DOI:10.1128/AAC.01583-13
[22]
Prakash P, Solanki A, Joshi KR. A simple synthetic liquid medium for development of yeast and mycelial form of pathogenic species of Candida[J]. Indian J Pathol Microbiol, 1997, 40(1): 55-58.
[23]
Hwang SB, Choi JG, Wei S, et al. In vivo screening platform for shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) using Caenorhabditis elegans as a model[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(2): e0193277. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0193277
[24]
Zhao LX, Li DD, Hu DD, et al. Effect of tetrandrine against Candida albicans biofilms[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(11): e79671. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0079671
[25]
Dhale RP, Ghorpade MV, Dharmadhikari CA. Comparison of various methods used to detect biofilm production of Candida species[J]. J Clin Diag Res, 2014, 8(11): 18-20.
[26]
Li DD, Deng L, Hu GH, et al. Using Galleria mellonella-Candida albicans infection model to evaluate antifungal agents[J]. Biol Pharm Bull, 2013, 36(9): 1482-1487. DOI:10.1248/bpb.b13-00270
[27]
Fuchs BB, O'Brien E, Khoury JB, et al. Methods for using Galleria mellonella as a model host to study fungal pathogenesis[J]. Virulence, 2010, 1(6): 475-482. DOI:10.4161/viru.1.6.12985
[28]
Pukkila-Worley R, Peleg AY, Tampakakis E, et al. Candida albicans hyphal formation and virulence assessed using a Caenorhabditis elegans infection model[J]. Eukaryot Cell, 2009, 8: 1750-1758. DOI:10.1128/EC.00163-09
[29]
Breger J, Fuchs BB, Aperis G, et al. Antifungal chemical compounds identified using a C. elegans pathogenicity assay[J]. PLoS Pathog, 2007, 3(2): e18. DOI:10.1371/journal.ppat.0030018
[30]
Samaranayake YH, Wu PC, Samaranayake LP, et al. Relationship between the cell surface hydrophobicity and adherence of Candida krusei and Candida albicans to epithelial and denture acrylic surfaces[J]. APMIS, 1995, 103(10): 707-713.
[31]
Luo G, Samaranayake LP. Candida glabrata, an emerging fungal pathogen, exhibits superior relative cell surface hydrophobicity and adhesion to denture acrylic surfaces compared with Candida albicans[J]. APMIS, 2002, 110(9): 601-610. DOI:10.1034/j.1600-0463.2002.1100902.x
[32]
Maidan MM, De Rop L, Serneels J, et al. The G protein-coupled receptor Gpr1 and the Galpha protein Gpa2 act through the cAMP-protein kinase A pathway to induce morphogenesis in Candida albicans[J]. Mol Biol Cell, 2005, 16(4): 1971-1986. DOI:10.1091/mbc.e04-09-0780
[33]
Li Y, Xiao W, Qin J, et al. Simultaneous determination of five active components in resina draconis and its extract by HPLC[J]. China J Chin Mater Med, 2012, 37(7): 929-933.
[34]
Kempf M, Cottin J, Licznar P, et al. Disruption of the GPI protein-encoding gene IFF4 of Candida albicans results in decreased adherence and virulence[J]. Mycopathologia, 2009, 168(2): 73-77. DOI:10.1007/s11046-009-9201-0
[35]
Li F, Svarovsky MJ, Karlsson AJ, et al. Eap1p, an adhesin that mediates Candida albicans biofilm formation in vitro and in vivo[J]. Eukaryotic Cell, 2007, 6(6): 931-939. DOI:10.1128/EC.00049-07
[36]
Sudbery PE. Growth of Candida albicans hyphae[J]. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2011, 9(10): 737-748. DOI:10.1038/nrmicro2636
[37]
Hogan DA, Sundstrom P. The Ras/cAMP/PKA signaling pathway and virulence in Candida albicans[J]. Future Microbiol, 2009, 4(10): 1263-1270. DOI:10.2217/fmb.09.106
[38]
Liu H, Khler J, Fink GR. Suppression of hyphal formation in Candida albicans by mutation of a STE12 homolog[J]. Science, 1994, 266(5191): 1723-1726. DOI:10.1126/science.7992058
[39]
Zeidler U, Lettner T, Lassnig C, et al. UME6 is a crucial downstream target of other transcriptional regulators of true hyphal development in Candida albicans[J]. Fems Yeast Research, 2009, 9(1): 126-142. DOI:10.1111/j.1567-1364.2008.00459.x
[40]
Pérez A, Pedrós B, Murgui A, et al. Biofilm formation by Candida albicans mutants for genes coding fungal proteins exhibiting the eight-cysteine-containing CFEM domain[J]. Fems Yeast Research, 2006, 6(7): 1074-1084. DOI:10.1111/j.1567-1364.2006.00131.x
[41]
Borghi E, Romagnoli S, Fuchs BB, et al. Correlation between Candida albicans biofilm formation and invasion of the invertebrate host Galleria mellonella[J]. Future Microbiol, 2014, 9(2): 163-173. DOI:10.2217/fmb.13.159
[42]
Tan X, Fuchs BB, Wang Y, et al. The role of Candida albicans SPT20 in filamentation, biofilm formation and pathogenesis[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(4): e94468. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0094468
[43]
Pompilio A, Piccolomini R, Picciani C, et al. Factors associated with adherence to and biofilm formation on polystyrene by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: the role of cell surface hydrophobicity and motility[J]. Fems Microbiol Lett, 2008, 287(1): 41-47. DOI:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01292.x
[44]
Leberer E, Harcus D, Broadbent ID, et al. Signal transduction through homologs of the Ste20p and Ste7p protein kinases can trigger hyphal formation in the pathogenic fungus Candida albicans[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1996, 93(23): 13217-13222. DOI:10.1073/pnas.93.23.13217
[45]
Lo HJ, Kohler JR, DiDomenico B, et al. Nonfilamentous C. albicans mutants are avirulent[J]. Cell, 1997, 90(5): 939-949. DOI:10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80358-X
[46]
Saville SP, Lazzell AL, Monteagudo C, et al. Engineered control of cell morphology in vivo reveals distinct roles for yeast and filamentous forms of Candida albicans during infection[J]. Eukaryot Cell, 2003, 2(5): 1053-1060. DOI:10.1128/EC.2.5.1053-1060.2003