TABLE 2.
Effects of five natural extracts and molecular derivatives on Candida albicans biofilm formationd
| Organism | Extract, deriv. compd., or presence of DMSO | Biofilm thickness (μm) | % change in biofilm thickness | BYCP formation score | Hypha formation score | Vertical hypha orientation score | Hypha bend pointc | Pseudohypa formation score | ECM staining score | PMN impenetrability score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Without DMSO | 161 ± 12 | ++++ | ++++ | ++++ | 70 | − | ++++ | ++++ | |
| With DMSO | 159 ± 11 | ++++ | ++++ | ++++ | 74 | − | ++++ | ++++ | ||
| Pentagonia gigantifolia | Extract | 64 ± 4 | 60 | ++++ | ++ | − | 0 | +++ | − | − |
| 6-Nonadecynoic acid | 40 ± 9 | 75 | + | + | − | NA | ++++ | − | − | |
| Duguetia hadrantha | Extract | 143 ± 5 | 15 | + | ++++ | − | 78 | − | ++ | +++ |
| Sampanginea | 9 ± 1 | 94 | + | − | NA | NA | − | − | NA | |
| Piper coruscans | Extract | 71 ± 4 | 55 | − | +++++(+)b | − | 0 | − | ++ | + |
| Coruscanone A | 45 ± 6 | 72 | − | +++++(+) | − | 0 | − | − | − | |
| Liriodendron tulipifera | Extract | 63 ± 15 | 61 | − | ++++ | − | 30 | − | − | − |
| Liriodenine methiodide | 28 ± 3 | 83 | +++ | + | − | 0 | ++++ | − | − | |
| Pellina eusiphonia | Extract | 61 ± 5 | 62 | ++++ | + | − | 77 | ++++ | − | − |
| Phloeodictine mixturea | 10 ± 2 | 94 | − | − | NA | NA | − | − | NA |
a
Because only a monolayer was formed, preparations treated with sampangine or the phloeodictine mixture could not be assessed for some characteristics.
b
++++(+), hypherhypha formation, assessed as a highly dense hyphal upper layer.
c
The hypha bend point is the percentage of the hyphal length in the distal direction at which hyphae bend.
d
Deriv. compd., derivative compound; BYCP, basal yeast cell polylayer; ECM staining, staining of extracellular matrix with calcofluor white; PMN impenet., polymorphonuclear leukocyte impenetrability; NA, not assessable.