Introduction
Dermatophytes are the most commonly encountered fungi in humans and other vertebrates spreading through direct or indirect contacts with infected individuals and soil [
1,
2]. Epidemiological studies have documented a varied prevalence rate of dermatophytosis ranging from 14 to 26.8% in North America, Asia, and Europe and from 5 to 31.6% in Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Tanzania) [
3‐
7]. An alarming upward trend in the incidence of superficial dermatophytosis has been especially noticed in Europe and Asia over the past 5–10 years [
8,
9]. Although the high prevalence of dermatophytosis is a consequence of climate change and new living habits of society, a dramatic change in the clinical features of patients is also noted, as these infections are characterized by recalcitrant response to treatment and increasing relapse rates [
10,
11]. The cause of this phenomenon is not yet clear.
Considering the enormous number of taxonomic differences between dermatophytes that can be tested and the importance of species-level identification, the “gold standard” to use for routine mycological identification has still become the topic of a debate, and no uniform position of microbiologists has been developed [
8,
12,
13]. Nonetheless, the advent of molecular methods in mycology facilitates identification of dermatophytes to the species level in a rapid and accurate manner [
14‐
16]. However, other major problems remain, i.e. the lack of a well-standardized antifungal susceptibility testing method and the low consistency of in vitro and clinical minimal inhibitory concentration values [
16‐
21]. In addition, although many studies of the mechanism of the pathogenicity of dermatophytes have been carried out over the years, there have been no concrete proposals whether it is possible to construct a profile of animal hosts susceptible to individual species of dermatophytes [
22‐
25]. In this context, it is difficult to clearly determine whether the growing prevalence of dermatophytoses is caused only by changes observed in the natural environment and lifestyles or also by increased host sensitivity, a higher degree of dermatophyte pathogenicity, or the weakness of the currently available antifungal arsenal [
18,
19,
22,
26].
Recent studies have demonstrated emerging predominance of members of the
Trichophyton mentagrophytes species complex as the causative organisms in many cases of dermatophytoses [
9,
18,
27‐
30].
Trichophyton mentagrophytes is primarily a zoophilic dermatophyte which often attacks humans through direct or indirect transmission from animals and can rarely survive saprophytically in the soil [
1,
2]. Infections caused by this species have been reported in a large number of wild and domestic animals including pets (guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, chinchillas) and fur animals (foxes, ferrets, wolf, mink) [
29,
31,
32]. Interestingly, zoophilic fungal infections caused by
T. mentagrophytes commonly occur especially in 3–7-year-old children and the elderly through purchase of asymptomatic pet carriers in zoological shops [
33,
34].
Herein, we identified and investigated recalcitrant T. mentagrophytes infections in humans and animals. The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical isolates of dermatophytes in terms of their genomic diversity, phenotypic degree of pathogenicity, and in vitro susceptibility to antifungal drugs.
Discussion
Given the growing prevalence of superficial dermatophyte infections, especially in immunocompromised patients, these diseases are regarded as a public health issue worldwide [
8]. The immune status of the host has been referred to as the main factor determining the outcome of the courses of the disease, which may range from limited cutaneous or subcutaneous infections to invasive disseminated life-threatening symptoms [
45]. Despite their availability, the arsenal of antifungal drugs for clinical use acts on a limited number of cellular targets [
46]. Moreover, the overlapping mechanisms of action of the commonly used drugs may contribute to emergence of multidrug resistance (MDR) phenotypes observed for several pathogenic fungi [
47]. Additionally, it is common for a large group of patients and animal breeders to neglect and abandon treatment due to its cost, duration, and many side effects [
48]. In this study, we present the characteristics of
T. mentagrophytes dermatophytes obtained from patients and animals undergoing antifungal therapy (Table
1). Among the positive tests in 24 patients and 35 animals of different species selected by the real-time PCR technique, dermatophyte cultures were obtained in 17 and 27 cases, respectively. This represents a very high percentage (70.8% and 77.1%), indicating that living elements of the fungus are still present in the affected areas despite the treatment.
Molecular typing methods can provide crucial insights into the epidemiology and pathogenicity of dermatophytes [
49,
50]. These techniques can also help to characterize infecting strains and monitor their occurrence and distribution [
31]. Moreover, the most important investigation in the molecular epidemiology of dermatophytes is to determine whether infections are caused by the same or different strains [
51]. In this aspect, disclosure of infection sources and transmission pathways in populations of humans and animals is necessary, and available techniques should allow deep genetic differentiation of strains within species, thus facilitating prompt and reliable identification of individual clones [
52]. Our investigation showed a relatively high genomic diversity revealed by the MP-PCR analysis of clinical isolates of
T. mentagrophytes of both human and animal origin. Although the MP-PCR method is widely described in the literature as a useful tool for the epidemiological analysis of the source of infection [
31,
49,
51,
53], it seems that it cannot be used to detect recalcitrant to treatment dermatophyte isolates. The molecular basis of terbinafine resistance is most widely described to result mostly from changes at the genome level [
18,
27,
54,
55]. However, in our study, out of 8 strains with in vitro resistance to this drug (MIC ≥1 μg/ml) obtained from patients treated with this substance, 4 different electrophoretic MP-PCR profiles were revealed. Thus, it is probably not possible to indicate one MP-PCR profile for
T. mentagrophytes isolates exhibiting terbinafine resistance. There are no similar results in the literature and therefore this aspect requires more extensive analysis.
Despite the superficial localization of dermatophyte colonization, the host-fungus relationship in these infections is complex and not fully elucidated [
22,
56]. Additionally, the pathophysiological mechanism is strictly correlated with the dermatophyte species, the host, and their immune status [
57,
58]. Remarkably, the pattern of enzymes secreted by dermatophytes may underlie their survival in the host stratum corneum and, consequently, in the clinical pictures of the infection, not only by providing nutrients to the detriment of the keratinized barrier, but also by triggering and modulating the immune response [
26,
40,
59]. The knowledge about the range of enzymes produced by dermatophytes with functions in pathogenesis is constantly growing; however, it is still not entirely clear whether the enzyme profile is the most important factor in the severity of symptoms [
22,
60]. The data presented in this article show that dermatophytes isolated from animals and humans with skin lesions are able to produce different enzymes in vitro. However, it is difficult to capture the clear host-related relationship and the enzyme that causes recalcitrance to treatment. All analysed isolates produced keratinases, which are used by most dermatophytes to establish infection on hosts [
44,
49]. However, as suggested by Mignon et al. [
61] and Cafarchia et al. [
62], it seems that keratinase activity is not associated with the presence of cutaneous lesions or any particular clinical picture of dermatophytosis. In contrast, the level of the activity of this enzyme might be correlated with the symptomatic infections of animals and humans, as shown in our research.
Furthermore, a distinct tendency indicating the highest keratinolytic activity of the
T. mentagrophytes strains in the 15–30-day incubation period was revealed in our study. Wawrzkiewicz et al. [
63] suggest that the keratinolytic activity of dermatophyte strains is connected with the fungal cell, and the enzyme is produced extracellularly only in the case of
T. verrucosum strains. Thus, keratinolytic activity can be directly linked to the presence of dermatophyte mycelium, and its increase is associated with stronger pathogenicity [
47,
64]. Additionally, another issue is the induction of the activity with a suitable substrate rather than the amount of enzyme protein in the culture [
44,
65]. Our results indicate that the activity of
T. mentagrophytes keratinase is induced by the substrate and the host range can be clearly determined (Fig.
4). This finding is in agreement with a study conducted by Mercer et al. [
66]. The researchers conclude that the accumulation of keratinase does not correlate positively with higher intensity of natural keratin degradation, and the predisposition of enzymes resulting from the adaptation of the fungus to the natural host may play a key role. This dependence is noticeable in our studies. The clinical isolates of
T. mentagrophytes showed higher in vitro keratinolytic activity against the fox, guinea pig, and human hairs than against the other ones. Initially, these observations were considered to indicate a source of fungal infection in humans, which was related to the high keratinolytic activity only for species-specific types of substrate [
32,
67,
68]. Contrarily, the range of dermatophyte hosts can be closely correlated with the similar structure of keratin in the hair of these species [
44,
69]. Final conclusions require more extensive research.
In the last decades, various new antifungal drugs with increased efficacy and an associated anti-inflammatory effect have been introduced and have broadened the munition against dermatophytosis [
11,
70]. However, the treatment of this disease is still less successful than that of bacterial infections, especially because fungal cells are eukaryotic and much more similar to human and animal cells than bacteria [
2]. Furthermore, recalcitrant dermatophyte infections may be related to inadequate or discontinued treatment, difficulties in eliminating predisposing factors in hosts or infection sources, and re-infections [
17,
22,
49,
71]. According to experts, the minimum duration of therapy in recalcitrant cases of dermatophytoses should be 4 weeks [
72]. However, there is no single official position of dermatologists on this subject and individual studies differ in interpretations. Nonetheless, recalcitrant or recurrent infections after completion of a recommended therapy or antifungal drug-resistant dermatophytes are well known to dermatologist and veterinarians. In addition, scientific literature suggests that drug resistance is on the rise in dermatophytes, although correlation between in vitro resistance and therapeutic failure is noted in a very small number of cases [
19,
27,
46,
73‐
75]. The cases of dermatophytoses in humans and animals described in this study were recalcitrant to treatment. We employed the broth microdilution methodologies using the CLSI M38 [
76] standard to determine the MICs of the antifungal agents for the tested
T. mentagrophytes clinical isolates. Our results indicate that the in vitro antifungal activity of the drug used in oral therapy were above 1 μg/ml in 15 (82.8%) and 5 (35.7%) cases of the human and animal infections, respectively. The cutoff value of MIC equal or higher than 1 μg/ml is considered in many scientific reports as an indicator of dermatophyte resistance to a given substance [
17‐
19,
77]. Nonetheless, the term “resistance” and the breakpoint of 1 μg/ml for dermatophytes need an appropriate context and the limitation of wide use is the lack of a clear link to clinical failure of treatment. Indira [
78], Bhatia and Sharma [
79], and Poojary [
80] reported that MIC
90 ranges for griseofulvin, itraconazole, and fluconazole were significantly higher against
T. mentagrophytes isolates than against
T. rubrum. Generally, Tamura et al. [
81] suggested that
T. mentagrophytes strains were more resistant to azoles than
T. rubrum and the MIC ranges of the non-azole agents, i.e. amorolfine or terbinafine and butenafine, against
Trichophyton spp. were relatively narrow compared to those of azole agents. However, increasing numbers of cases from Asian and European countries can be found in literature reports on dermatophytoses that are difficult to treat with terbinafine, which indicates that microbial resistance to this substance is on the rise [
27,
54,
55,
82‐
86]. Similarly, recent reports in literature have revealed that the trend of increasing MIC values for terbinafine in the
T. mentagrophytes isolates is observed over the years. In the years 2009 to 2012, the MIC
50 for this drug was determined in the range of 0.06–0.125 μg/ml [
87‐
90], and in 2018, this value increased up to 1 μg/ml [
27]. Clinical evidence of relapse and incomplete mycological cure after standard oral terbinafine therapy, i.e. 250 mg, twice daily for 2 weeks have also been reported [
91]. Sakai et al. [
92] showed that the use of 250 mg of terbinafine twice daily was appropriate for treatment of dermatophyte infections caused by
T. mentagrophytes of animal origin with a MIC of 0.01 μg/ml. In the present study, we observed that approximately 65% of human and 48% of animal isolates had a terbinafine MIC higher than 0.01 μg/ml. Furthermore, the tissues infected by dermatophytes are avascular components of the skin; the time to attain therapeutic concentrations in them may differ greatly from plasma [
92,
93]. In consequence, a longer therapy strategy may be required to treat infections by
T. mentagrophytes isolates with higher MICs. Unfortunately, this may not be clinically practical due to the possibility of drug-related side effects. Therefore, the choice of a proper drug for the therapy of dermatophyte infections is increasingly complicated and requires extensive knowledge. Our results indicate that there is no one-size-fits-all treatment pattern and no ideal antifungal substance, and the difficulties in therapy can be directly related to drug resistance in dermatophytes.
Interestingly, resistance to antifungal drugs seems to be of much less importance in connection with the failure of therapy in animals than in humans. This may be correlated with the frequently noted status of an animal asymptomatic carrier of dermatophytes [
49,
53,
94]. Symptoms of infections in these animals can be observed only in certain host immune deficiency states, which are a major factor in subsequent treatment failures [
32,
95]. Moreover, more intensive contact of animals with soil may favour the easy acquisition of infectious elements of dermatophytes, for which soil is one of the most important reservoirs [
75,
96‐
98].
Finally, the difficulties in treating dermatophytoses may have a variety of causes that are not always related to the pathogen but result from the immunology of the host and his lifestyle. The increased frequency of reported refractory dermatophyte infections is now becoming a public health problem and the search for its key causes is necessary for new therapeutic approaches. Analysis of a large group of clinical isolates obtained from humans and animals with long-lasting dermatophytoses indicates that fungal drug resistance is increasing. The causes of recalcitrant cases should be sought mainly in this phenomenon, and monitoring the susceptibility to antifungal drugs should be almost a routine examination at every emerging outbreak of the disease.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.