2015
DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.078832-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification and characterization of nine atypical Candida dubliniensis clinical isolates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a result, our assay circumvents the imperfections of phenotypic assays (CHROMagar, VITEK 2 and ID 32C) that suffer from the lack of specificity [ 38 , 39 ]. Additionally, subjecting various populations of the same species to phenotypic assay could showed various results [ 32 , 40 , 41 ]. Accordingly, as suggested by Griseo et al (2015), small clinical laboratories can take advantage of specific phenotypic methods supplemented with easy-to-perform PCR-based approaches to identify and report isolated cryptic Candia species [ 8 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, our assay circumvents the imperfections of phenotypic assays (CHROMagar, VITEK 2 and ID 32C) that suffer from the lack of specificity [ 38 , 39 ]. Additionally, subjecting various populations of the same species to phenotypic assay could showed various results [ 32 , 40 , 41 ]. Accordingly, as suggested by Griseo et al (2015), small clinical laboratories can take advantage of specific phenotypic methods supplemented with easy-to-perform PCR-based approaches to identify and report isolated cryptic Candia species [ 8 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Presumptive identification by these methods used routinely in low-complexity laboratories continues to be a problem because they do not provide definitive identification data. Distinction between these two species is important in terms of treatment, in order to understand the clinical and epidemiological significance of the role played by C. dubliniensis in human infections 4,5,22,[24][25][26][27] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Microscopic evaluation results are usually subjective and the decision on species identification depends on experience and species characteristics, and several factors such as incubation duration may influence morphological differentiation as well. Although Saeed et al [ 19 ] tested CMTA for direct inoculation of the samples, they have found that CMTA can easily differentiate common Candida species; however, identification of rare ones is still challenging [ 20 , 21 ]. The results of our study are also similar to that of the previous study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%