| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 435.7 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Objectives:
Dermatophytes are a challenging group of fungi that infect the keratinized tissues. The taxonomy of these
fungi has changed recently with the reclassification of some species and description of new ones. However,
many clinical laboratories still base the identification of dermatophytes on their phenotype. Since
dermatophytes are very pleomorphic, macro and micromorphology are often insufficient to reach a correct
classification and may lead to misidentifications. The identification based on MALDI-TOF relies on the protein
profile of the microorganism. Thus, this study aims to summarize our current laboratorial experience of
dermatophyte identification using MALDI-TOF MS.
Methods:
From january to april 2018, 95 dermatophytes isolates, collected from human keratinized samples and also
from quality control programs were characterized by phenotypic analysis, and by VITEK MS V3.2 bioMerieux.
Before identification procedure, isolates were inoculated on Sabouraud Dextrose agar plates and incubated at
27°C during 5 to 10 days. Species were identified taking into account clinical features, as well as cultural,
microscopic and physiological characteristics. Prior to MALDI-TOF MS analysis, the samples were pre-treated
according to the manufacturer’s protocol for filamentous fungi. Molecular identification by sequencing of the
internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS1) was performed in 34 of those isolates
Results:
Through phenotypic analysis eight different species were identified (54 Trichophyton rubrum; 4 T.soudanense;
22 T.interdigitale; 1 T.mentagrophytes; 3 T.tonsurans; 7 Microsporum canis; 3 M.audouinii; 1 Microsporum
spp.- (non canis or audouinii). MALDI-TOF analysis showed an identification agreement in 80 cases (84,2%)
with a confidence level of 99,9%. Eight isolates showed divergent identification results: three T.rubrum were
identified as T.violaceum, three T.soudanense were identified as T.rubrum, one T.mentagrophytes was
identified as T.interdigitale and one T.tonsurans was identified as T.rubrum. In four cases MALDI-TOF analysis
did not get a profile. The ITS sequencing analysis of discrepant results corroborated the MALDI-TOF
identification in five of them. On the other hand, T.soudanense was only identified by phenotypic analysis since
MALDI-TOF and ITS sequencing result was T.rubrum. MALDITOF identification of T.violaceum was not
confirmed by ITS sequencing that identified T. rubrum instead, in accordance with the phenotypic
identification.
Conclusion:
Correct identification of dermatophytes to species level requires sequencing of the ITS, LSU, and/or betatubulin
regions. The implementation of this methodology in a clinical laboratory is expensive and time
consuming. MALDI-TOF identification is a good option for dermatophytes’ identification performed in
laboratory routine, since costs of consumables as well as time of sample preparation are lower than for PCR
analysis and doesn’t require long training period as phenotypic identification does. In this study, however, both
methods failed to identify some species variants like Trichophyton soudanense or T. violaceum. The combined
use of both MALDI-TOF and phenotypic methods seems to be the better approach for dermatophytes’
identification since some species show significant phenotypic and clinical differences.
Description
Keywords
Dermatophytes MALDI-TOF MS Infecções Sistémicas e Zoonoses
Pedagogical Context
Citation
J. Fungi. 2019;5(4):95; doi:10.3390/jof5040095
