Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

The Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology (한국미생물·생명공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Identification of Uncommon Candida Species Using Commercial Identification Systems

  • Kim, Tae-Hyoung (Department of Urology, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kweon, Oh Joo (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Hye Ryoun (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Mi-Kyung (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2016.09.08
  • Accepted : 2016.09.28
  • Published : 2016.12.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, several studies have revealed that commercial microbial identification systems do not accurately identify the uncommon causative species of candidiasis, including Candida famata, Meyerozyma guilliermondii, and C. auris. We investigated the accuracy of species-level identification in a collection of clinical isolates previously identified as C. famata (N = 38), C. lusitaniae (N = 1 2), and M. guilliermondii (N = 5) by the Vitek 2 system. All 55 isolates were re-analyzed by the Phoenix system (Becton Dickinson Diagnostics), two matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry analyzers (a Vitek MS and a Bruker Biotyper), and by sequencing of internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions or 26S rRNA gene D1/D2 domains. Among 38 isolates previously identified as C. famata by the Vitek 2 system, the majority (27/38 isolates, 71.1%) were identified as C. tropicalis (20 isolates) or C. albicans (7 isolates) by ITS sequencing, and none was identified as C. famata. Among 20 isolates that were identified as C. tropicalis, 17 (85%) were isolated from urine. The two isolates that were identified as C. auris by ITS sequencing originated from ear discharge. The Phoenix system did not accurately identify C. lusitaniae, C. krusei, or C. auris. The correct identification rate for 55 isolates was 92.7% (51/55 isolates) for the Vitek MS and 94.6% (52/55 isolates) for the Bruker Biotyper, as compared with results from ITS sequencing. These results suggest that C. famata is very rare in Korea, and that the possibility of misidentification should be noted when an uncommon Candida species is identified.

Keywords

References

  1. Castanheira M, Woosley LN, Diekema DJ, Jones RN, Pfaller MA. 2013. Candida guilliermondii and other species of Candida misidentified as Candida famata: assessment by Vitek 2, DNA sequencing analysis, and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry in two global antifungal surveillance programs. J. Clin. Microbiol. 51: 117-124. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01686-12
  2. Chao QT, Lee TF, Teng SH, Peng LY, Chen PH, Teng LJ, Hsueh PR. 2014. Comparison of the accuracy of two conventional phenotypic methods and two MALDI-TOF MS systems with that of DNA sequencing analysis for correctly identifying clinically encountered yeasts. PLoS One 9: e109376. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109376
  3. Desnos-Ollivier M, Ragon M, Robert V, Raoux D, Gantier JC, Dromer F. 2008. Debaryomyces hansenii (Candida famata), a rare human fungal pathogen often misidentified as Pichia guilliermondii (Candida guilliermondii). J. Clin. Microbiol. 46: 3237-3242. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01451-08
  4. Diekema D, Arbefeville S, Boyken L, Kroeger J, Pfaller M. 2012. The changing epidemiology of healthcare-associated candidemia over three decades. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 73: 45-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.02.001
  5. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2008. Interpretive criteria for identification of bacteria and fungi by DNA target sequencing; approved guideline. CLSI document MM18-A. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  6. Jamal WY, Ahmad S, Khan ZU, Rotimi VO. 2014. Comparative evaluation of two matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) systems for the identification of clinically significant yeasts. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 26: 167-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2014.05.031
  7. Kathuria S, Singh PK, Sharma C, Prakash A, Masih A, Kumar A, et al. 2015. Multidrug-resistant Candida auris misidentified as Candida haemulonii: characterization by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS), and DNA sequencing and its antifungal susceptibility profile variability by VITEK 2, CLSI broth microdilution, and E-test method. J. Clin. Microbiol. 53: 1823-1830. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00367-15
  8. Kim HY, Huh HJ, Choi R, Ki CS, Lee NY. 2015. Three cases of candidiasis misidentified as Candida famata by the Vitek 2 system. Ann. Lab. Med. 35: 175-177. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2015.35.1.175
  9. Kim SH, Shin JH, Mok JH, Kim SY, Song SA, Kim HR, et al. 2014. Misidentification of Candida guilliermondii as C. famata among strains isolated from blood cultures by the VITEK 2 system. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014: 250408.
  10. Kim T-H, Chung D-S, Lee M-K. 2007. Risk factors for hospital-acquired urinary tract infection due to Candida species. Kor. J. Med. Mycol. 12: 156-162.
  11. Lacroix C, Gicquel A, Sendid B, Meyer J, Accoceberry I, Francois N, et al. 2014. Evaluation of two matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) systems for the identification of Candida species. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 20: 153-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12210
  12. Leaw SN, Chang HC, Sun HF, Barton R, Bouchara JP, Chang TC. 2006. Identification of medically important yeast species by sequence analysis of the internal transcribed spacer regions. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44: 693-699. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.44.3.693-699.2006
  13. Lee MK, Yong D, Kim M, Kim MN, Lee K. 2010. [Species distribution and antifungal susceptibilities of yeast clinical isolates from three hospitals in Korea, 2001 to 2007]. Kor. J. Lab. Med. 30: 364-372. https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2010.30.4.364
  14. Lee WG, Shin JH, Uh Y, Kang MG, Kim SH, Park KH, Jang HC. 2011. First three reported cases of nosocomial fungemia caused by Candida auris. J. Clin. Microbiol. 49: 3139-3142. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00319-11
  15. Marcos JY, Pincus DH. 2013. Fungal diagnostics: review of commercially available methods. Methods Mol. Biol. 968: 25-54.
  16. Miceli MH, Diaz JA, Lee SA. 2011. Emerging opportunistic yeast infections. Lancet Infect. Dis. 11: 142-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70218-8
  17. Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ, Gibbs DL, Newell VA, Ellis D, Tullio V, et al. 2010. Results from the artemis disk global antifungal surveillance study, 1997 to 2007: a 10.5-year analysis of susceptibilities of Candida species to fluconazole and voriconazole as determined by CLSI standardized disk diffusion. J. Clin. Microbiol. 48: 1366-1377. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.02117-09
  18. Posteraro B, Ruggeri A, De Carolis E, Torelli R, Vella A, De Maio F, et al. 2013. Comparative evaluation of BD Phoenix and Vitek 2 systems for species identification of common and uncommon pathogenic yeasts. J. Clin. Microbiol. 51: 3841-3845. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01581-13
  19. Putignani L, Del Chierico F, Onori M, Mancinelli L, Argentieri M, Bernaschi P, et al. 2011. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry proteomic phenotyping of clinically relevant fungi. Mol. Biosyst. 7: 620-629. https://doi.org/10.1039/C0MB00138D
  20. Satoh K, Makimura K, Hasumi Y, Nishiyama Y, Uchida K, Yamaguchi H. 2009. Candida auris sp. nov., a novel ascomycetous yeast isolated from the external ear canal of an inpatient in a Japanese hospital. Microbiol. Immunol. 53: 41-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1348-0421.2008.00083.x
  21. Won EJ, Shin JH, Lee W-K, Koo SH, Kim SY, Park Y-J, et al. 2013. Distribution of yeast and mold species isolated from clinical specimens at 12 hospitals in Korea during 2011. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. 16: 92-100. https://doi.org/10.5145/ACM.2013.16.2.92

Cited by

  1. Drug development challenges and strategies to address emerging and resistant fungal pathogens vol.15, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2017.1328279
  2. MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry as a Useful Tool for Identification of Enterococcus spp. from Wild Birds and Differentiation of Closely Related Species vol.27, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1612.12036
  3. Candida auris: a worrisome, globally emerging pathogen vol.15, pp.9, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2017.1364992
  4. Containment strategies to address the expanding threat of multidrug-resistant Candida auris vol.15, pp.12, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2017.1402678
  5. Bilateral Candida endophthalmitis accompanying Candida lusitaniae bloodstream infection: A case report vol.24, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiac.2017.10.002
  6. Candida auris: a Review of the Literature vol.31, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.00029-17
  7. Identification of nine cryptic species of Candida albicans , C. glabrata , and C. parapsilosis complexes using one-step multiplex PCR vol.18, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3381-5
  8. Clinical and Microbiological Characteristics of Candida guilliermondii and Candida fermentati vol.62, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.02528-17
  9. Candida auris : A systematic review and meta‐analysis of current updates on an emerging multidrug‐resistant pathogen vol.7, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/mbo3.578
  10. Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, resistance, and treatment of infections by Candida auris vol.6, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-018-0342-4
  11. Identification of Drug Resistant Candida auris vol.10, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01918
  12. Reidentification and antifungal susceptibility profile of Candida guilliermondii and Candida famata clinical isolates from a culture collection in Argentina vol.57, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1093/mmy/myy038
  13. Reagent-Free Identification of Clinical Yeasts by Use of Attenuated Total Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy vol.57, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01739-18
  14. Candida auris—the growing menace to global health vol.62, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/myc.12904
  15. Molecular characterisation of emerging pathogens of unexplained infectious disease syndromes vol.19, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2019.1651200
  16. Antifungal Resistance: a Concerning Trend for the Present and Future vol.21, pp.12, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-019-0702-9
  17. External Quality Assessment Evaluating the Ability of Dutch Clinical Microbiological Laboratories to Identify Candida auris vol.5, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/jof5040094
  18. Candida auris : From Multidrug Resistance to Pan-Resistant Strains vol.13, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2147/idr.s249864
  19. A decade after the emergence of Candida auris: what do we know? vol.39, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-020-03886-9
  20. Evaluation of Microsatellite Typing, ITS Sequencing, AFLP Fingerprinting, MALDI-TOF MS, and Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy Analysis of Candida auris vol.6, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/jof6030146
  21. Neonatal Candida auris infection: Management and prevention strategies – A single centre experience vol.56, pp.10, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.15019
  22. Is the superbug fungus really so scary? A systematic review and meta-analysis of global epidemiology and mortality of Candida auris vol.20, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-05543-0
  23. A case-series of bloodstream infections caused by the Meyerozyma guilliermondii species complex at a reference center of oncology in Brazil vol.59, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1093/mmy/myaa044
  24. High rates of misidentification of uncommon Candida species causing bloodstream infections using conventional phenotypic methods vol.120, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2020.11.002