Identification of fungi in dermatological samples using PCR is reliable and provides significantly improved results in comparison with cultures. It is possible to identify the infectious agent when negative results are obtained from cultures. In addition, identification of the infectious agent can be obtained in 1 day. Conventional and real-time PCR methods used for direct fungus identification in collected samples vary by DNA extraction methods, targeted DNA and primers, and the way of analysing the PCR products. The choice of a unique method in a laboratory is complicated because the results expected from skin and hair sample analysis are different from those expected in cases of onychomycosis. In skin and hair samples, one dermatophyte among about a dozen possible species has to be identified. In onychomycosis, the infectious agents are mainly Trichophyton rubrum and, to a lesser extent, Trichophyton interdigitale, but also moulds insensitive to oral treatments used for dermatophytes, which renders fungal identification mandatory. The benefits obtained with the use of PCR methods for routine analysis of dermatological samples have to be put in balance with the relative importance of getting a result in a short time, the price of molecular biology reagents and equipment, and especially the time spent conducting laboratory manipulations.

A fast and reliable assay for the identification of dermatophyte fungi and nondermatophyte fungi (NDF) in onychomycosis is essential, since NDF are especially difficult to cure using standard treatment. Diagnosis is usually based on both direct microscopic examination of nail scrapings and macroscopic and microscopic identification of the infectious fungus in culture assays. In the last decade, PCR assays have been developed for the direct detection of fungi in nail samples. In this study, we describe a PCR-terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (TRFLP) assay to directly and routinely identify the infecting fungi in nails. Fungal DNA was easily extracted using a commercial kit after dissolving nail fragments in an Na 2 S solution. Trichophyton spp., as well as 12 NDF, could be unambiguously identified by the specific restriction fragment size of 5=-end-labeled amplified 28S DNA. This assay enables the distinction of different fungal infectious agents and their identification in mixed infections. Infectious agents could be identified in 74% (162/219) of cases in which the culture results were negative. The PCR-TRFLP assay described here is simple and reliable. Furthermore, it has the possibility to be automated and thus routinely applied to the rapid diagnosis of a large number of clinical specimens in dermatology laboratories.

Although the gold standard dermatophyte identification from clinical samples remains fungal cultures, the assay developed in the present study is especially suitable for tinea capitis. Improved sensitivity for the identification of dermatophyte species was obtained as it is possible to identify the dermatophyte when the fungus fails to grow in cultures.

Background: Fusarium onychomycoses are weakly responsive or unresponsive to standard onychomycosis treatments with oral terbinafine and itraconazole. Objective: To examine whether the use of terbinafine and itraconazole, which are highly effective in fighting Trichophyton onychomycoses, could be a cause of the high incidence of Fusarium nail infections. Methods: Polymerase chain reaction methods were used to detect both Fusarium spp. and Trichophyton spp. in nails of patients who had either received treatment previously or not. Results: No significant microbiological differences were found between treated and untreated patients. In 24 of 79 cases (30%), Fusarium spp. was detected in samples of patients having had no previous antifungal therapy and when Trichophyton spp. grew in culture. Conclusion: Oral terbinafine and itraconazole treatments do not appear to favor the establishment of Fusarium spp. in onychomycosis.