This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kiehn, T E Articles by Armstrong, D Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kiehn, T E Articles by Armstrong, D

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1985 August; 22(2): 216-219

Evaluation of the Quantum II yeast identification system.

ABSTRACT

We compared three methods for identifying clinical yeast isolates: Abbott Quantum II, API 20C, and a modified BBL Minitek system. The API 20C and modified Minitek systems agreed on the identification of 243 of 245 yeasts (99.2%). The Quantum II system correctly identified 197 (80.4%), incorrectly identified 19 (7.8%), and did not identify 29 (11.8%) of the yeasts. Most of the misidentifications with the Quantum II occurred because assimilation or biochemical results were false-positive. Sixteen different species of yeasts and 16 different Quantum II substrates contributed to the discrepancies. On retesting with the Quantum II, 31% of the discrepant strains were correctly identified, while the remaining 69% were incorrectly identified or were not identified. Erroneous biochemical and assimilation results were also noted with yeasts that were correctly identified by the Quantum II system.