## 4 Discussion
### The Antifungal Activity of LIN
Anti-_Candida_ potential of this terpene was also assessed in a study by [PERSON] et al. [50] against thirty-nine isolates of _C. albicans_ and nine isolates other than _C. albicans_ that were differentially susceptible to fluuconazole. LIN inhibited their growth at a concentration of \(\leq\)0.064% (_v/v_), showing fungicidal activity. Other results confirmed the antifungal effect of LIN toward 50 clinical isolates of _C. albicans_ (28 oropharyngeal and 22 vaginal strains) and _C. albicans_ ATCC 3153 at mean MIC = 0.29% and MFC = 0.3% (oropharyngeal isolates), MIC = 0.09%, and MFC = 0.1% (vaginal isolates) [51]. According to further data, MICs of LIN ranged from 0.06 to 0.25% (_v/v_) against 32 different clinical non-_albicans_ _Candida_ spp. isolates (_C. krusei_, _C. parapsilosis_, _C. lusitaniae_, _C. norvegensis_, and _C. valida_) from various specimens (blood, body fluids, deep tissue, respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, and genital tract of hospitalized patients in Turin (Italy)) [8]. The subsequent studies presented by [PERSON] et al. [31] were consistent with the above results and indicated that the range of MICs of LIN was 0.03-0.25% against _Candida_ spp. strains (both reference and oral clinical isolates from denture wearers) with MIC\({}_{50}\) = 0.06% (_v/v_), MIC\({}_{90}\) = 0.025%, and MFC\({}_{90}\) = 0.5%. [PERSON] et al. [1] showed that LIN at minimal concentrations of 8 mM to 32 mM inhibited the growth of _C. albicans_ ATCC 14053 and 18 clinical isolates from blood samples of hospitalized patients (_C. albicans_, _C. tropicalis_, and _C. glabrata_). The anticandidal activity of LIN was similar with MIC = 16 mM for _C. tropicalis_ and _C. glabrata_ isolates, and 16-32 mM for _C. albicans_. The MFC values were equal to or twice the MICs (MFC = 16-32 mM), which suggest the fungicidal activity of terpene. In the case of _C. albicans_ ATCC 14053, the activity of LIN was slightly stronger (MIC = MFC = 8 mM). Moreover, its sub-MIC concentrations inhibited the formation of germ tubes and biofilms of this strain. Antifungal potential of LIN (MIC = 38.9 \(\mu\)M) towards _C. albicans_ was also evaluated in the next data [19]. Additionally, the sensitivity of _C. albicans_, _C. tropicalis_, and _C. glabrata_ strains to this terpene was studied by other authors, and according to them, its MFC values were the same at 3.12 \(\mu\)L/mL against these fungi [7]. The subsequent data [23] indicated the antifungal effect of LIN towards different oral _Candida_ isolates from patients with dental problems. It should be added that our results also demonstrated the potential activity of LIN against _C. auris_ CDC B11903 at MIC = 2-4 mg/mL and MFC = 4 mg/mL. This strain presents a new epidemiological problem with high mortality. In the available data, there are not many studies evaluating its susceptibility to LIN. Therefore, our research was fully justified [10; 11]. Moreover, our data confirmed some antifungal effect of LIN toward yeasts other than _Candida._ The strains belonging to _Cryptococcus_ spp. (_C. neoformans_ and _C. gatti_) were the most susceptible to terpen (MIC = MFC = 0.5 mg/mL, MFC/MIC = 1). _G. candidium_ showed a similar sensitivity with MIC in the range 0.5-1 mg/mL, and MFC = 1-2 mg/mL (MFC/MIC = 1-2). In accordance with other studies against clinical _C. neoformans_ isolates, the MIC value of LIN was 0.79 mg/mL [16] or ranged from 0.5% to 1% [8]. Our results also showed that the activity of LIN toward _S. cerevisiae_ with MIC = 2 mg/mL and MFC was two times greater than the MIC. In turn, data presented by other researchers against _S. cerevisiae_ exhibited that LIN was effective at MIC of 50 \(\mu\)L/mL [47] and a much lower value of 3.12 \(\mu\)L/mL [7], or MIC in the range 0.12-0.25% [8].