2007
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.00687-07
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reverse Line Blot Hybridization Assay for Identification of Medically Important Fungi from Culture and Clinical Specimens

Abstract: We evaluated a combined panfungal PCR-reverse line blot (RLB) hybridization assay based on internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS1) and ITS2 region polymorphisms to identify 159 Candida, Cryptococcus neoformans, and Aspergillus isolates (22 species). Its utility to identify fungal pathogens directly from 27 clinical specimens was also determined. ITS sequence analysis was performed to resolve discrepant identifications or where no RLB result was obtained. Species-specific ITS2-and ITS1-based probes correctly ident… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

1
44
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…33,34 To assess this notion, clinical implementation of methods facilitating reliable identification of these species at an adequate level of sensitivity would be required. A number of methods for rapid typing of fungal pathogens have been published, [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] and the development of novel and expectedly more potent methods is currently underway, including also approaches based on the exploitation of nano-technological devices, as currently pursued in our laboratory. Rapid and sensitive techniques for the identification of putatively non-or low-pathogenic environmental fungal species that may cause clinically silent fungemia could improve the interpretation of results obtained by broad-spectrum PCR screening methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…33,34 To assess this notion, clinical implementation of methods facilitating reliable identification of these species at an adequate level of sensitivity would be required. A number of methods for rapid typing of fungal pathogens have been published, [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] and the development of novel and expectedly more potent methods is currently underway, including also approaches based on the exploitation of nano-technological devices, as currently pursued in our laboratory. Rapid and sensitive techniques for the identification of putatively non-or low-pathogenic environmental fungal species that may cause clinically silent fungemia could improve the interpretation of results obtained by broad-spectrum PCR screening methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Probe hybridization technology has been successfully used for identification of fungal isolates. 13,14,19) Carlotti et al designed a DNA fingerprinting probe CkF1,2 to identify Candida krusei from different yeast species, 13) while Zeng and his colleagues evaluated a combined panfungal PCR-reverse line blot hybridization assay based on ITS1 and ITS2 region polymorphisms to identify yeasts and Aspergillus spp. in clinical specimens.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…in clinical specimens. 14) Lee et al based on the polymorphic region of mycobacterium rpoB gene and designed highly specific oligonucleotide probes of 14 mycobacterial species for the species identification of mycobacteria by dot blot hybridization. 19) There is as yet no report concerning the plant species identification using these methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Analysis of the ITS regions is the most commonly used molecular method for identification of molds (3,4,29). Studies reporting on the use of molecularly based identification procedures in diagnostic mycology have mainly focused on method development (12,25,30,40) and include anecdotal case reports (15,17,20). There are few studies addressing the use of systematic ITS sequencing implemented as a routine tool according to a defined work flow and its impact on diagnostic performance in a medical mycology laboratory (21).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%