본문바로가기

Transcriptome Analysis of Itraconazole-tolerant Microsporum canis Isolated from a Case of Human Dermatophytosis

Abstract

Background: Dermatophytosis caused by Microsporum canis infection is a common cutaneous mycosis in small animals. As a zoonotic disease in humans, M. canis infection causes highly inflammatory tinea cruris or tinea corporis, which are treated with oral terbinafine (TBF) or itraconazole (ITCZ) and/or topical antifungal agents. In recent years, dermatophyte resistance to antifungal drugs has gained clinical importance as it impedes dermatophytosis treatment.

Objective: The mechanism of azole ITCZ tolerance in the dermatophyte M. canis was investigated through transcriptome analysis of the ITCZ-tolerant strain DTMU25-001.

Methods: Strain DTMU25-001 was cultured with and without ITCZ, after which total RNA was extracted from mycelial samples and sequenced using a DNBSEQ-G400 system.

Results: A total of 8,849 expressed genes were detected in samples of both RNAs, and gene expression levels were compared between the ITCZ-treated and ITCZ-free samples. Treatment with ITCZ upregulated the expression of 24 genes >2-fold over the untreated sample. Heat shock protein and ABC transporter genes were the most highly expressed and were presumed to be related to the tolerance mechanism. The expression levels of 79 identified genes decreased approximately ≤0.5-fold with the addition of ITCZ.

Conclusion: ITCZ addition reduced the expression of many genes in M. canis cells, which could be related to ITCZ tolerance of this organism.



Keywords



Gene expression Itraconazole Microsporum canis Transcriptome analysis



INTRODUCTION

Dermatophytosis caused by Microsporum canis infection is a common cutaneous mycosis in small animals. As a zoonotic disease in humans1,2, M. canis infection causes highly inflammatory tinea cruris or tinea corporis, which are treated with oral terbinafine (TBF) or itraconazole (ITCZ) and/ or topical antifungal agents. In recent years, dermatophyte resistance to antifungal drugs has emerged, impeding der- matophytosis treatment3,4.

We have previously described the initial isolation of a TBF-resistant M. canis strain from a case of feline dermatophytosis in China in 20185. The isolated strain exhibited a TBF minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of >32 μg/mL but remained susceptible to ITCZ (MIC: 0.023 μg/mL)5,6. We later reported the first isolation of an ITCZ-tolerant M. canis strain from a case of human tinea corporis that was resistant to oral ITCZ therapy7. The isolate was ITCZ-tolerant (MIC: 1 μg/mL) and susceptible to TBF (MIC: <0.03 μg/mL), ravuconazole (RVCZ; MIC: 0.06 μg/mL), and luliconazole (LLCZ; MIC: <0.03 μg/ mL)7. As the patient had a pet cat diagnosed with dermato- phytosis, the infection was probably acquired from the cat7. Such cases have raised concerns that the incidence of pet-acquired infections with ITCZ-tolerant dermatophytes is in- creasing. However, the mechanism of ITCZ tolerance in zoophilic M. canis is not as clearly understood as in anthro- pophilic dermatophytes like Trichophyton interdigitale and T. rubrum8. In this study, as a One Health approach, we per- formed a transcriptome analysis to elucidate the tolerance mechanism of ITCZ-tolerant M. canis isolated from a case of human dermatophytosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Strain and antifungal susceptibility testing

Strain DTMU25-001 of M. canis was isolated from a patient with tinea faciei and corporis whose pet had a case of feline dermatophytosis in 20257.

After determining the MICs for these agents9,10, the cultures were resuspended, and a 10-μL aliquot of the suspension in each well was inoculated onto potato dextrose agar (Kanoto Chemical Co., Inc., Tokyo, Japan) plates using a pipette. After 7-10 days of incubation at 28℃, the minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) was determined as the lowest con- centration of drug at which colony growth was observed11.

2. Next-generation sequence analysis of whole-RNA samples

Strain DTMU25-001 was cultured in Sabouraud's dextrose broth (SDB: 1% peptone and 2% glucose) at 28℃ with shaking for 5 days. Culture medium containing mycelial cells was incubated with and without ITCZ at a concentration of 0.2 μg/mL for an additional 3 h at 28℃. Mycelia samples (approximately 100-200 mg) were flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and ground to obtain a homogeneous powder. Total RNA was extracted using the RNeasy Total RNA kit (QIAGEN, Tokyo, Japan). Approximately 1 μg/μL of total RNA from ITCZ-treated and ITCZ-free cultures was stored at -80℃ until analysis.

The mRNA enrichment samples were sequenced using oligodT from whole RNA (300 ng of RNA) using a DNBSEQ-G400 system (MGI Tech Co., Ltd. Tokyo, Japan), and the resulting data were analyzed by Bioengineering Lab. Co., Ltd. (Kanagawa, Japan; https://gikenbio.com). Complementary DNA (cDNA) libraries were synthesized using an MGIEasy Fast RNA Library Prep Set (MGI Tech) and transformed into circular libraries using an MGIEasy Dual Barcode Circularization kit (MGI Tech) for sequencing analysis. For next-generation sequencing analysis of the cyclic cDNA libraries, a DNBSEQ-G400RS High-Throughput Sequencing kit (MGI Tech) and High-Throughput Paired-End Sequencing Primer kit (App-D; MGI Tech) were used to synthesize samples for DNA nano- balls. Whole-RNA sequencing (MGI DNBSEQ-G400RS) and data analysis of the two samples were performed by Bio- engineering Lab. Co., Ltd. (Kanagawa, Japan).

3. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis of heat shock protein and ABC transporter genes

The expression levels of heat shock protein and ABC trans- porter genes were analyzed using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) as follows. First, cDNA samples synthesized from 0.5 μg of RNA were amplified using RT-qPCR (Thermal Cycler Dice; Takara) and analyzed as described in the previous report6.

The following primer pair was used to amplify fragments of the open reading frames of target genes: heat shock protein gene (293-bp fragment), forward primer 5'-GCCCT- TGGGCTAAACAATGCCGT-3' and reverse primer 5'-GTATAG- AGCCAACGAGAGTGAGGGCG-3', corresponding to nucleo- tides 56-78 and 339-358, respectively, of the M. canis heat shock protein gene (M. canis CBS 113480 heat shock pro- tein [MCYG_07264], partial mRNA, GenBank accession no. XM_002843435.1).

The following primer pair was used to analyze the ABC transporter gene (302-bp fragment): forward primer 5'-GGAACAACAGCCTTCAATCCACC-3' and reverse primer 5'-CACCGGGAATTTCTCCGTCG-3', corresponding to nucleo- tides 47-69 and 315-340, respectively, of the M. canis ABC transporter gene (M. canis CBS 113480 ABC transporter [MCYG_02928], partial mRNA, GenBank accession no. XM_002847376).

RT-qPCR assays and data analysis (ΔΔCT method) for relative quantitation were conducted using Thermal Cycler Dice Real-Time System software, version 5.11C (Takara). Basal expres- sion levels were estimated based on normalization to the level of actin-encoding transcripts in RNA from cultures under the assumption that an equivalent total RNA input and observed equal PCR efficiency would provide comparable threshold cycle (Ct) values. Gene expression levels were normalized to that of the actin-encoding gene, and values were compared between strains cultured in SDB with and without 0.2 μg/mL ITCZ. All RT-qPCR experiments were per- formed in triplicate. To identify any significant differences in the data, we performed a Student's nonpair t-test with Excel (Microsoft® Excel® 2021).

RESULTS

1. MFCs for M. canis strain DTMU25-001

The MFCs for strain DTMU25-001 were 0.25 μg/mL for TBF, >32 μg/mL for ITCZ, 2 μg/mL for RVCZ, and <0.03 μg/ mL for LLCZ.

2. Comparison of gene expression under ITCZ-treatment and ITCZ-free conditions

Approximately 7,500 Mb were sequenced for both samples, with approximately 24 million paired reads for each (Sup- plemental Fig. 1 and 2). After annotation, the data were mapped to M. canis CBS 113480 (assembly ASM15114v1), which is registered in GenBank, confirming approximately 98% identity between the RNA sequences of both samples.

Figure 1. Heatmap of 25-013 vs 25-013-ITZ
Figure 2. (A) MA plot of 25-013 vs 25-013-ITZ, (B) Volcano of 25-013 vs 25-013-ITZ.

A total of 8,849 expressed genes were detected in both sample RNAs, and the expression levels were compared between the ITCZ-treated and ITCZ-free samples. Among the compared genes, those for which the expression changed by a factor of >2 or ≤0.5 between ITCZ addition and no addition were plotted from highest to lowest expression level (Supplemental Tables 1 and 2). For 24 genes, the ex- pression increased >2-fold following treatment with ITCZ, with the heat shock protein gene (GenBank accession no. XM_002843435.1) and ABC transporter gene (GenBank accession no. XM_002847376.1) being the most highly ex- pressed, and thus presumed to be involved in tolerance (Supplemental Table 1). By comparison, the expression of 79 genes declined approximately ≤0.5-fold after the addition of ITCZ (Supplemental Table 2).

Accession number
in GenBank

Length
(bp)

 

Lead count

 

TPM (Transcripts Per Million)
normalization

 

Gene names registered
in GenBank

ITZ-Added

Control

ITZ-Added

Control

XM_002843435.1

807

 

255,536

143,590

 

16727.03023

8626.06212

 

Heat shock protein

XM_002847376.1

4,419

 

79,633

24,150

 

951.9395257

264.9445889

 

ABC transporter

XM_002847375.1

23,745

 

65,488

17,447

 

145.6900316

35.62136092

 

Nonribosomal peptide
synthase

XM_002849340.1

1,029

 

63,545

34,508

 

3262.167775

1625.797065

 

Alcohol dehydrogenase

XM_002845285.1

2,580

 

38,085

12,838

 

779.7843917

241.2345932

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002844211.1

342

 

32,092

12,201

 

4956.909176

1729.542513

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002850512.1

1,230

 

31,895

15,912

 

1369.801947

627.1646613

 

Mannitol-1-phosphate
dehydrogenase

XM_002848719.1

2,088

 

27,119

2,426

 

686.0937463

56.32772652

 

Peptidase S8 and S53

XM_002846389.1

2,199

 

24,105

5,948

 

579.058166

131.1316878

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002850536.1

750

 

21,605

4,463

 

1521.714894

288.4878613

 

Macrophage binding
protein

XM_002847443.1

2,694

 

15,123

2,441

 

296.5381985

43.9270571

 

C6 transcription factor FacB

XM_002847470.1

1,683

 

12,816

4,006

 

402.2616835

115.3954671

 

Glutamate decarboxylase

XM_002844579.1

1,062

 

5,801

686

 

288.5483749

31.31565642

 

Glyoxylate reductase

XM_002847067.1

3,195

 

4,585

1,611

 

75.80690425

24.4448062

 

Fatty acid hydroxylase

XM_002848777.1

1,080

 

4,335

1,047

 

212.0340606

46.99859193

 

PQ loop repeat protein

XM_002843246.1

543

 

2,984

987

 

290.2948112

88.12096485

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002844128.1

474

 

2,738

454

 

305.1373612

46.43435654

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002845967.1

843

 

2,445

828

 

153.2115735

47.61729083

 

Aldo-keto reductase

XM_002849064.1

1,245

 

2,310

546

 

98.01282626

21.26107463

 

Sulfite oxidase

XM_002843813.1

610

 

2,200

594

 

190.5167349

47.20831838

 

Uncharacterized protein

XM_002845648.1

606

 

2,175

905

 

189.595018

72.39988488

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002846339.1

1,515

 

1,989

172

 

69.35255003

5.503991248

 

6-phosphogluconate
dehydrogenase

XM_002845426.1

1,167

 

1,927

319

 

87.2270415

13.25200978

 

NAD binding
oxidoreductase

XM_002845443.1

864

 

1,913

493

 

116.9611182

27.66273379

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

Table 1. Gene expression increased by ITCZ stimulation

Accession number
in GenBank

Length
(bp)

 

Lead count

 

TPM (Transcripts Per Million)
normalization

 

Gene names registered
in GenBank

ITZ-Added

Control

ITZ-Added

Control

XM_002846943.1

2,727

 

1,574

3,171

 

30.49017199

56.37324369

 

GTP-binding protein 2

XM_002847168.1

438

 

1,438

2,887

 

173.4303336

319.5468891

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002847348.1

1,425

 

1,241

2,741

 

46.00417017

93.25155698

 

Zinc finger protein zpr1

XM_002845039.1

1,674

 

1,231

2,459

 

38.84569387

71.21393694

 

Phosphotransferase
family protein

XM_002847378.1

958

 

1,149

2,337

 

63.35702899

118.2646971

 

Vegetative cell wall
protein gp1

XM_002847978.1

747

 

1,003

6,147

 

70.92847383

398.937197

 

Glutathione transferase

XM_002851171.1

1,689

 

915

3,243

 

28.61750244

93.08489639

 

Asparagine synthetase 1

XM_002850374.1

1,203

 

817

2,289

 

35.8753968

92.24484085

 

4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate
dioxygenase

XM_002843209.1

498

 

816

2,069

 

86.55678163

201.4155833

 

YjgH family protein

XM_002845511.1

963

 

704

3,588

 

38.61772238

180.6292455

 

Uncharacterized protein

XM_002842671.1


1,170


 

686


1,724


 

30.97266235


71.43537359


 

2-oxoisovalerate
dehydrogenase
subunit beta

XM_002849403.1

2,379

 

685

1,379

 

15.21025214

28.1016451

 

Dipeptidylpeptidase 4

XM_002842689.1

7,755

 

680

1,839

 

4.631987669

11.49639951

 

Polyketide synthase

XM_002843215.1

1,753

 

668

1,630

 

20.12958542

45.07830824

 

Uncharacterized protein

XM_002846325.1

1,191

 

668

3,137

 

29.62818072

127.6922907

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002842791.1

1,011

 

645

1,485

 

33.70146989

71.20938232

 

3-hydroxyisobutyrate
dehydrogenase

XM_002844656.1

1,296

 

642

1,754

 

26.16798671

65.61248826

 

Isovaleryl-CoA
dehydrogenase

XM_002847159.1

1,095

 

637

1,337

 

30.73021489

59.19420724

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002844577.1

960

 

609

1,240

 

33.51091943

62.61990043

 

Hydroxyquinol
1,2-dioxygenase

XM_002843709.1

921

 

607

1,554

 

34.81523612

81.80000022

 

Polysaccharide deacetylase
family protein

XM_002844989.1

1,845

 

601

1,613

 

17.20752406

42.38380252

 

3'-phosphate cyclase

XM_002843038.1

1,503

 

597

1,427

 

20.98242283

46.02850964

 

FAD binding domain-containing protein

XM_002846909.1

1,344

 

577

2,776

 

22.67863067

100.1341265

 

Translation initiation
protein Sua5

XM_002850271.1

726

 

576

2,630

 

41.91081891

175.6228612

 

Acetyltransferase

XM_002843623.1

1,728

 

575

2,665

 

17.57779481

74.76793667

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002847902.1

537

 

569

1,349

 

55.97295878

121.786622

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002847261.1

1,398

 

566

2,885

 

21.38698397

100.0461928

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002850779.1

330

 

549

1,410

 

87.88174841

207.1414888

 

Uncharacterized protein

XM_002851237.1

1,830

 

526

1,039

 

15.18360645

27.52493984

 

MPE1

XM_002846799.1

867

 

520

1,805

 

31.68287108

100.9299433

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002843202.1


2,007


 

516


1,337


 

13.58133974


32.29579319


 

Activating signal
cointegrator 1 complex
subunit 2

XM_002843911.1

1,038

 

515

1,087

 

26.20898242

50.76847419

 

Uncharacterized protein

XM_002847252.1

1,848

 

514

2,006

 

14.69269408

52.62485139

 

Methionyl-tRNA
synthetase

XM_002842694.1

1,761

 

497

1,666

 

14.90861559

45.86459487

 

Laccase-1

XM_002850980.1

1,617

 

489

1,106

 

15.97493587

33.15942779

 

Esterase

XM_002844658.1

2,139

 

487

2,035

 

12.02703184

46.12278781

 

Methylcrotonoyl-CoA
carboxylase subunit alpha

XM_002846163.1

996

 

480

1,272

 

25.45787695

61.91411842

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002849679.1

498

 

475

1,035

 

50.38538146

100.7564663

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002847992.1

1,983

 

474

1,167

 

12.62687588

28.53054465

 

Alkaline phosphatase 4

XM_002846727.1

1,311

 

473

1,539

 

19.05893957

56.91121385

 

Aspartate
aminotransferase

XM_002846830.1

1,136

 

466

1,855

 

21.66944905

79.16395863

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002850401.1


1,344


 

464


1,331


 

18.23723506


48.01099509


 

2-oxoisovalerate
dehydrogenase
subunit alpha

XM_002848773.1

1,752

 

424

1,943

 

12.78415533

53.76511999

 

Phosphate-repressible
phosphate permease

XM_002846918.1

729

 

411

4,370

 

29.78204926

290.6135297

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002851113.1

828

 

390

1,142

 

24.88138517

66.86482121

 

PEP phosphonomutase

XM_002848106.1

1,056

 

336

5,233

 

16.80798467

240.2418907

 

Lysine amidinotransferase

XM_002848786.1

4,317

 

289

1,080

 

3.536356813

12.12840323

 

Enniatin synthetase

XM_002842695.1

897

 

276

1,082

 

16.25387528

58.47856922

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002845832.1

573

 

210

2,262

 

19.35998234

191.3814758

 

Uncharacterized protein

XM_002842669.1

696

 

208

498

 

15.7868099

34.6882207

 

Uncharacterized protein

XM_002848105.1

1,566

 

193

1,203

 

6.510372459

37.24223963

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002850196.1

1,227

 

143

780

 

6.156469876

30.8185329

 

Conserved hypothetical
protein

XM_002846540.1

1,068

 

105

431

 

5.193478409

19.56446327

 

Alpha/beta hydrolase
fold protein

Table 2. Gene expression decreased by ITCZ stimulation

3. ITCZ-induced increase in gene expression

Transcript levels of the heat shock protein and ABC trans- porter genes in ITCZ-tolerant M. canis strain DTMU25-001 were compared between samples cultured in SDB containing 0.2 μg/mL ITCZ versus ITCZ-free conditions. The results of RT-qPCR analyses confirmed that ITCZ stimulation increased the expression of the ABC transporter gene approximately 2-fold and the heat shock protein gene 6-fold in M. canis cells compared with the unstimulated condition (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Transcript levels of the genes encoding actin, the ABC transporter, and the heat shock protein in an ITCZ-tolerant M. canis strain (DTMU25-001). The strain was cultured in SDB con- taining 0.2 μg/mL ITCZ for 3 h at 28℃. Expression levels of all genes were nor- malized to that of the actin-encoding gene and are shown as relative expres- sion levels. RT-qPCR experiments were performed in triplicate. To determine any significant differences in the data, we performed a Student's nonpair t-test with Excel (Microsoft® Excel® 2021).

4. Data summary

Updated sequences were submitted to GenBank under the following accession numbers: for data of the transcriptome analysis of ITCZ-induced/non-induced strain DTMU25-001, BioProject: PRJDB35662, and Run: DRR706743-DRR706744.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a transcriptome analysis conducted to clarify the ITCZ tolerance mechanism of an ITCZ-tolerant M. canis strain from human dermatophytosis. The MICs and MFCs for this strain suggest that it is particularly tolerant to ITCZ. Therefore, a trans- criptome analysis was performed to analyze gene expression in samples cultured in the presence and absence of ITCZ. To investigate the adaptive transcriptional responses in this experiment, RNA was extracted after culturing at an ITCZ concentration of 0.2 μg/mL, following Martins et al., who used a concentration of 0.14 μg/mL TBF to evaluate gene expression in four species of Trichophyton12. Although TBF and ITCZ use different chemicals, this concentration was chosen to examine the response to the antifungal agent while avoiding cell death. The transcriptome analysis indicated that the expression levels of the heat shock protein gene (GenBank accession no. XM_002843435.1) and ABC transporter gene (GenBank accession no. XM_002847376.1) increased the most following culture in the presence of ITCZ (Supplemental Table 1). The results of RT-qPCR analyses confirmed that ITCZ stimulation increased the expression of the ABC transporter gene approximately 2-fold and that of the heat shock protein gene 6-fold in M. canis cells over the unstimulated condition (Fig. 1). The RT-qPCR analysis thus corroborated the results of the transcriptome analysis. However, because the RT-qPCR results only pertain to two gene variations per strain, they merely serve to confirm the findings of this transcriptome analysis.

The heat shock protein and ABC transporter are reportedly involved in the pathogenicity and antifungal drug resistance of anthropophilic dermatophytes8,13. For example, different HSPs were detected during the infection and invasion of the host tissue, such as the overexpression of Hsp 30, HSP 60, HSP 70, HSP 78, and HSP 70 and of HSP 90, HSP-related gene hsf1, and HSPSSc1 in T. rubrum8,13. Resistance to azoles has also been repeatedly reported and is associated with the overexpression of two genes (MDR2 and MDR3) encoding a multidrug transporter of the ABC transporter genes, giving rise to multidrug efflux outside the cell in T. rubrum8. In a recent study, we conducted a transcriptome analysis under the same conditions to clarify the multi-azole-resistance mechanism of a strain of M. canis isolated from a feline der- matophytosis14. The results of that experiment also showed increased expression of the same two genes. Moreover, we investigated whether sensitivity to azoles increased during cotreatment with milbemycin, which inhibits the ABC trans- porter in dermatophytes. The milbemycin counteracted the ITCZ and RVCZ tolerance of the M. canis isolate, suggesting that the strain acquired resistance through the high expression of the ABC transporter14. However, we have not investigated the heat shock protein for the azole-tolerant strains. Therefore, in future studies, we plan to generate heat shock protein and ABC transporter gene disruption in M. canis strains to investigate how these changes affect susceptibility to ITCZ. We would also like to investigate other genes that exhibited increased expression.

Additionally, 22 upregulated genes were identified; how- ever, based on the gene names registered in GenBank, it was unclear whether they were associated with ITCZ tolerance (Supplemental Table 1). Because it would be extremely difficult to create knockout strains for all of these genes, we plan to perform transcriptomic analysis on several ITCZ-tolerant strains and investigate the common upregulated genes.

In contrast, ITCZ stimulation decreased the expression of more genes than it increased. As reported by Carmo et al., Trichophyton interdigitale, which became resistant to ITCZ, ex- hibited a decrease in cellular metabolism15, which is thought to diminish the toxicity of ITCZ and is suspected to be related to a diversion of energy to sustain the high activity of ABC transporters. The results of our transcriptome analysis suggest that cellular metabolic activity was attenuated, which may contribute to the mechanism of ITCZ tolerance in a broad sense. Our study suggests that multiple intracellular functions are involved in the mechanism of tolerance to ITCZ in M. canis. However, further research is needed to fully elucidate the mechanism of resistance.



References


1. Moriello KA, Coyner K. Dermatophytosis. In: Sykes JE, Rankin SC, Papich MG, Weese JS, Little SE editors. Greene's Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat. 5th edition. London: Elsevier, 2023:961-967

2. Moriello KA, Coyner K, Paterson S, Mignon B. Diagnosis and treatment of dermatophytosis in dogs and cats: Clinical consensus guidelines of the world association for veterinary dermatology. Vet Dermatol 2017;28:266-e68
Google Scholar 

3. Lockhart SR, Chowdhary A, Gold JA. The rapid emer- gence of antifungal-resistant human-pathogenic fungi. Nat Rev Microbiol 2023;21:818-832
Google Scholar 

4. Gold JAW, Lipner SR. The rise of antifungal-resistant dermatophyte infections: What dermatologists need to know. Cutis 2025;115:151-154
Google Scholar 

5. Hsiao YH, Chen C, Han HS, Kano R. The first report of terbinafine resistance Microsporum canis from a cat. J Vet Med Sci 2018;80:898-900
Google Scholar 

6. Kano R, Hsiao YH, Han HS, Chen C, Hasegawa A, Kamata H. Resistance mechanism in a terbinafine-resistant strain of Microsporum canis. Mycopathologia 2018;183:623-627
Google Scholar 

7. Kakurai M, Harada K, Kano R, Demitsu T. A case of tinea faciei caused by itraconazole-resistant Microsporum canis: The first report in a human in Japan. J Dermatol 2025;52:e1066-e1067
Google Scholar 

8. Dubljanin E, Zunic J, Vujcic I, Colovic Calovski I, Sipetic Grujicic S, Mijatovic S, et al. Host-pathogen interaction and resistance mechanisms in dermatophytes. Pathogens 2024;13:657
Google Scholar 

9. CLSI document M38-A2. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi; approved standard: 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, 2008


10. Itoi S, Kano R, Hasegawa A, Kamata H. In vitro activities of antifungal agents against clinical isolates of dermato- phytes from animals. J Vet Med Sci 2012;74:1067-1069
Google Scholar 

11. Hiruma J, Nojyo H, Harada K, Kano R. Development of treatment strategies by comparing the minimum in- hibitory concentrations and minimum fungicidal con- centrations of azole drugs in dermatophytes. J Dermatol 2024;51:1515-1518
Google Scholar 

12. Martins MP, Franceschini ACC, Jacob TR, Rossi A, Martinez-Rossi NM. Compensatory expression of multidrug-resistance genes encoding ABC transporters in dermatophytes. J Med Microbiol 2016;65:605-610
Google Scholar 

13. Sardana K, Sharath S, Khurana A, Ghosh S. An update on the myriad antifungal resistance mechanisms in dermato- phytes and the place of experimental and existential therapeutic agents for Trichophyton complex implicated in tinea corporis and cruris. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2023;21:971-977
Google Scholar 

14. Tsurumi K, Oshima Y, Murayama N, Makimura K, Kano R. Transcriptome analysis of multi-azole-resistant Micro- sporum canis isolated from a case of feline dermato- phytosis. J Vet Med Sci 2026;88:26-29
Google Scholar 

15. Carmo PHF, Costa MC, Leocádio VAT, Gouveia-Eufrásio L, Emídio ECP, Pimentel SP, et al. Exposure to itraconazole influences the susceptibility to antifungals, physiology, and virulence of Trichophyton interdigitale. Med Mycol 2022;60:myac088
Google Scholar 

Congratulatory MessageClick here!

Download this article