Mauritio
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2018
- Messages
- 5,669
Vitamin B2 has been shown to have anti-bacterial effects (even against anti-biotic-resistant bacteria) and anti-endotoxin effects.
As it seems B2 also has potent anti-fungal effects. The researchers first looked at its effects in vivo finding that :
" The formation of C. albicans hyphae and biofilm was inhibited by RF. Mechanistically, RF disrupted membrane and cell wall integrity, as well as promoting reactive oxygen species and pyruvate accumulation."
B2 was actually more effective than the common anti-fungal fluconazole!
"Compared with the control group, 1× MIC of RF inhibited more than 90% of C. albicans, Candida krusei, and Candida parapsilosis grwoth between 2 and 24 h (Fig. 1B), and the antifungal activity of 1× MIC of RF was more effective than that of the FCZ group (64 μg/mL)."
Riboflavin also strongly inhibited early biofilm formation, less so mature biofilm.
The expression of biofilm-related genes was strongly downregulated:
Another mechanism of action was the accumualtion ROS inside the fungus, which can lead to cell death down the road.
"Flow cytometry further confirmed that 65.45% and 77.23% of cells were ROS positive after RF treatment with 1× MIC and 2× MIC, respectively, while only 10.95% of cells were ROS positive in the control group (Fig. 4B). These results suggested that RF markedly promotes the excessive production of ROS (Fig. 4C)."
Then they looked at the effects of riboflavin on candida infected, immuno-suppressed mice. And there as well: b2 inhibited cell count and growth of candida, not as much as fluconazole, but still significantly. Which can be seen when you compare the tongues of mice in the different study groups (Ca= Candida).
Why was B2 less effective in vivo and more effective in vitro than fluconazole?
As far as I understand the concentration used in-vivo was fairly high (0.4 /0.8mg/ml) and the dosage used in vivo was fairly low, only translating to a human equvialent dose of a couple mgs of B2.
I don't know why the researchers used such a low dose of B2 in-vivo, since the dosages used previously and successfully for other infections were much higher. But, interestingly B2 was still effective even in relatively low dosages.
Would B2 be more effective in vivo at higher doses ?
I guess yes. Because in-vitro there is a clear dose-dependant effect, meaning higher dose of b2 --> higher inhibition of pathogen, causing a stronger inhibition than fluconazole. So by taking higher doses in vivo one might be able to increase the effectiveness and restore the superiority of b2 over fluconazole in terms of candida inhbtion.
- Riboflavin Targets the Cellular Metabolic and Ribosomal Pathways of Candida albicans In Vitro and Exhibits Efficacy against Oropharyngeal Candidiasis
As it seems B2 also has potent anti-fungal effects. The researchers first looked at its effects in vivo finding that :
" The formation of C. albicans hyphae and biofilm was inhibited by RF. Mechanistically, RF disrupted membrane and cell wall integrity, as well as promoting reactive oxygen species and pyruvate accumulation."
B2 was actually more effective than the common anti-fungal fluconazole!
"Compared with the control group, 1× MIC of RF inhibited more than 90% of C. albicans, Candida krusei, and Candida parapsilosis grwoth between 2 and 24 h (Fig. 1B), and the antifungal activity of 1× MIC of RF was more effective than that of the FCZ group (64 μg/mL)."
Riboflavin also strongly inhibited early biofilm formation, less so mature biofilm.
The expression of biofilm-related genes was strongly downregulated:
Another mechanism of action was the accumualtion ROS inside the fungus, which can lead to cell death down the road.
"Flow cytometry further confirmed that 65.45% and 77.23% of cells were ROS positive after RF treatment with 1× MIC and 2× MIC, respectively, while only 10.95% of cells were ROS positive in the control group (Fig. 4B). These results suggested that RF markedly promotes the excessive production of ROS (Fig. 4C)."
Then they looked at the effects of riboflavin on candida infected, immuno-suppressed mice. And there as well: b2 inhibited cell count and growth of candida, not as much as fluconazole, but still significantly. Which can be seen when you compare the tongues of mice in the different study groups (Ca= Candida).
Why was B2 less effective in vivo and more effective in vitro than fluconazole?
As far as I understand the concentration used in-vivo was fairly high (0.4 /0.8mg/ml) and the dosage used in vivo was fairly low, only translating to a human equvialent dose of a couple mgs of B2.
I don't know why the researchers used such a low dose of B2 in-vivo, since the dosages used previously and successfully for other infections were much higher. But, interestingly B2 was still effective even in relatively low dosages.
Would B2 be more effective in vivo at higher doses ?
I guess yes. Because in-vitro there is a clear dose-dependant effect, meaning higher dose of b2 --> higher inhibition of pathogen, causing a stronger inhibition than fluconazole. So by taking higher doses in vivo one might be able to increase the effectiveness and restore the superiority of b2 over fluconazole in terms of candida inhbtion.
- Riboflavin Targets the Cellular Metabolic and Ribosomal Pathways of Candida albicans In Vitro and Exhibits Efficacy against Oropharyngeal Candidiasis
Last edited: