Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, October 1999, p. 3387-3389, Vol. 37, No. 10
Associated Regional and University
Pathologists,1 and Department of
Pathology, University of Utah School of
Medicine,2 Salt Lake City, Utah
Received 1 April 1999/Returned for modification 5 May 1999/Accepted 26 June 1999
To improve turnaround time and decrease the cost of the
identification of Candida glabrata, we evaluated four
methods for the detection of trehalose assimilation or fermentation.
These methods were compared with the API 20C method (bioMERIEUX,
Hazelwood, Mo.) to determine accuracy. We recommend the use of Remel
Rapid Trehalose Assimilation Broth because of its rapid, 3-h results, reasonable sensitivity, and low number of false positives.
Candida glabrata has
emerged as an opportunistic pathogen in neonates and an important
pathogen in patients with solid tumors as well as nononcologic diseases
(3, 5). It ranks fourth among the Candida species
isolated from blood and has a mortality rate as high as that of
C. albicans infections (2, 5, 13). A multicenter
study showed that C. glabrata was responsible for 20% of
the Candida urinary tract infections (2), and it
is also a cause of vaginitis (10, 14). In our setting,
C. glabrata is the second-most-frequently-isolated yeast
from clinical specimens at Associated Regional and University
Pathologists (ARUP) Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah. Significantly,
C. glabrata is resistant to many azole antifungal agents,
particularly fluconazole (2, 4, 5, 11). Because of its
frequency of isolation and decreased sensitivity to the imidazole
antifungal agents, a rapid diagnostic test could theoretically impact
patient care by affecting therapy selection, especially in cases of candidemia.
Four methods for rapid screening and identification of C. glabrata were compared The guiding criteria for the selection of yeasts to be screened for
C. glabrata were germ tube negativity, the absence of pseudohyphae in the germ tube, and microscopically small size. From the
ARUP laboratory facility, a total of 320 clinical and proficiency
sample yeast isolates were tested by all four methods. Among the
samples, 119 were archived from a previous yeast study (1)
and 201 were recent patient isolates. The samples included 293 C. glabrata isolates, 6 C. lusitaniae isolates, 5 C. parapsilosis isolates, 5 C. tropicalis isolates, 3 C. guillermondii isolates, 2 C. albicans
isolates, 2 C. lipolytica isolates, 2 S. cerevisiae isolates, 1 C. krusei isolate, and 1 C. rugosa isolate. All 320 isolates were identified by using
the API 20C Yeast Identification System (bioMERIEUX, Hazelwood, Mo.)
and rice and cornmeal morphology agars. Manufacturer's directions were
followed when the API 20C system was used, and morphology agars were
streaked according to the Dalmau plate technique (6). The
morphology agars were evaluated for the production of chlamydospores,
blastoconidia, arthroconidia, pseudohyphae, and true hyphae. It is
important that two isolates of C. glabrata gave the API 20C
profile index number of 2000000, indicating that they did not
assimilate trehalose. The profile index number also gave the
interpretation of GLLS (good likelihood low selectivity) and then
listed the possible identifications as Blastoschizomyces
capitatus, C. krusei, C. glabrata, and
C. lambica. Final identification of these two isolates was
done by using the morphology agars. Both isolates tested negative by
all four screening methods.
The interpretation of each of the four methodologies for the
identification of C. glabrata are as follows. For the two
assimilation tests, a color change from blue to yellow indicates
trehalose utilization. A positive Hardy fermentation test requires the
development of gas bubbles in the Durham Tube, with a color change from
blue to yellow, while the Remel fermentation test requires only gas development in the Durham Tubes.
Table 1 lists the isolates that tested
positive for each rapid screening test. The number of
Candida species that were not C. glabrata and
tested positive for the Mayo Clinic Assimilation test is noteworthy.
Table 2 shows the sensitivity and
specificity of each rapid screening test. Obviously, yeasts other than
C. glabrata met the initial screening criteria for this
study
0095-1137/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Comparison of Four Methodologies for Rapid and
Cost-Effective Identification of Candida glabrata
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
the Remel Rapid Trehalose Assimilation
Broth and the Remel Yeast Fermentation Broth (Remel Laboratories,
Lenexa, Kans.), the Trehalose Fermentation Broth (Hardy Diagnostics,
Santa Maria, Calif.), and the Mayo Clinic Rapid Assimilation Trehalose Broth described by Stockman and Roberts (12).
Manufacturers' directions were followed for the performance of both
the Remel Rapid Trehalose Assimilation Broth and the Hardy Diagnostics
Trehalose Fermentation Broth with Durham Tube. Both tests require
incubation at 42°C, but the Remel Assimilation Broth is incubated for
only 3 h, while the Hardy Fermentation Broth is incubated for
24 h. For the Remel Yeast Fermentation Broth with Durham Tube, the
manufacturer's directions were modified according to a study by Land
et al. (7) that recommends increasing the incubation
temperature from 35 to 42°C, overlaying the tubes with mineral oil,
and incubating the tubes for 24 h instead of 7 to 24 days.
According to Land, the only taxa that ferment trehalose at 42°C are
C. glabrata and C. tropicalis. C. tropicalis,
however, is not consistent in fermentation and is larger than C. glabrata. The Mayo Clinic Rapid Assimilation Trehalose Broth
method was performed as outlined in the Mayo Clinic Mycology Procedure
Manual (8). The trehalose broth was prepared in-house
according to directions that included 20% yeast nitrogen base, 40%
trehalose, bromcresol green (0.02%), and cycloheximide (10,000 µg/ml). Three drops of broth were dispensed into each well of a
microtiter plate as needed for tests and controls. A heavy inoculum of
yeast was emulsified in the broth of a labeled well. The microtiter
plate was incubated for 1 h at 35°C. The Mayo Clinic procedure
has been cited in the literature, but to date the medium is not
commercially available, and there have been no published studies
evaluating it (7, 9). An important comment regarding the
inoculum size as described in the procedures for the Mayo Clinic and
Remel assimilation tests is that the procedures require either a heavy
inoculum or a cloudy suspension. In our experience, this means that the
inoculum must be creamy for these tests to work properly.
germ tube negative, no pseudohyphae in the germ tube, and small
size. Examples are C. guillermondii and C. lusitaniae. Theoretically, a screening test should be able to
separate C. glabrata from these yeasts. This study showed
that it is not always easy to determine if a yeast is considered small
in size. Even though they are usually considered to be larger yeasts
and similar in size to C. albicans, isolates of C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis, Saccharomyces
cerevisiae, and C. krusei were selected as germ
tube-negative yeasts that fit the screening criteria. Two isolates of
C. albicans were also selected, either because they did not
produce germ tubes or because the germ tube test was not correctly
performed or interpreted. These findings point out a potential weakness
in the protocol which must be considered in comparisons of the
specificities of the four screening tests. The highest number of
false-positive results was with the Mayo Clinic Assimilation Trehalose
Broth. Under the screening protocol, seven isolates were falsely
identified as C. glabrata. The seven isolates included two
C. tropicalis isolates, one C. krusei isolate,
one C. albicans isolate, one C. parapsilosis
isolate, one C. lipolytica isolate, and one C. guillermondii isolate. In this study, the Mayo Clinic Assimilation Broth was more difficult to interpret because of the various color shades. A recent publication cited difficulties in adjusting the buffer
capacity of this test, which is required to avoid false-positive results (9). The low specificity for the Mayo Clinic
assimilation test may be significant in terms of choice of antifungal
therapy.
TABLE 1.
Yeast isolates testing positive by
screening methodologies
TABLE 2.
Comparative results of four screening methodologies for
identification of C. glabrata
The highest number of false-negative results was seen in the Remel Rapid Trehalose Assimilation Broth, which failed to identify 25 of the 283 C. glabrata isolates. Following the screening protocol, these 25 isolates were identified by using the API 20C Yeast Identification System in conjunction with the morphology agars. In practice, if a C. glabrata isolate tested negative by the rapid trehalose screening procedure, it would then be identified by using the API 20C Yeast Identification System and morphology agars. Also, if a C. tropicalis isolate or another isolate tested negative by the screening procedure, as it should, in practice it would be correctly identified by using the API 20C and morphology agars. However, if, for example, a C. tropicalis isolate or a C. parapsilosis isolate tested positive by the screening procedure, it would be misidentified as a C. glabrata isolate. A false-positive result has greater significance in the screen, leading to incorrect identification.
The most impressive results occurred with the Hardy Diagnostics Trehalose Fermentation Broth. The sensitivity was 96%, with a specificity of 100%. However, the drawback of this test is the required 24-h incubation, which precludes its consideration as a rapid method. The other 24-h test, Remel Trehalose Fermentation Broth, had a sensitivity of 95% but a specificity of 89%. The current "gold standard" for yeast identification systems, the API 20C, yields results in 48 to 72 h and also utilizes the morphology plates (1).
Table 3 compares the cost of each
methodology, including the API 20C. Certainly the least expensive
method ($0.045 per test) involves Mayo Clinic Rapid Assimilation
Trehalose Broth. This is based on the use of 96-well break-away
microtiter plates and reagent costs. The most expensive screening
method is Remel Yeast Fermentation Broth with Durham Tube ($4.15/tube);
it costs considerably more than Remel Assimilation Broth ($1.59/tube)
and Hardy Diagnostics Trehalose Fermentation Broth ($1.10/tube). All
these methods are less costly than the API 20C ($6.60/strip). However,
if the rapid trehalose test gives a false-negative result and the
isolate is then identified by using the API 20C and morphology agars,
the cost is more than that for the API 20C alone.
|
We recommend the Remel Rapid Trehalose Assimilation Broth method for C. glabrata screening. Although this method is the least sensitive of the four, it provides identification of this yeast in 3 h and is cost-effective, especially compared to the API 20C Yeast Identification System and the Remel Yeast Fermentation Broth, and the specificity is excellent (96.3%). If a C. glabrata isolate tests negative with this method, it will be correctly identified by using the API 20C. Also, this test was the easiest to interpret by all the technical staff who performed the screening protocols. We recommend that the manufacturer of the Remel Rapid Trehalose Assimilation Broth test use a McFarland standard to determine inoculum density.
If a laboratory implements both the 2- to 3-h germ tube test for identification of C. albicans and the 3-h trehalose assimilation test for identification of C. glabrata, the majority of clinical yeast isolates can be identified within a day of their sufficient growth.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank Remel Laboratories and Hardy Diagnostics for their generous donations of media.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: University of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, 50 N. Medical Dr., Salt Lake City, UT 84132. Phone: (801) 581-3971. Fax: (801) 585-2463. E-mail: JFenn{at}medschool.med.utah.edu.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. |
Fenn, J. P.,
H. Segal,
B. Barland,
D. Denton,
J. Whisenant,
H. Chun,
K. Christofferson,
L. Hamilton, and K. Carroll.
1994.
Comparison of updated Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card and API 20C yeast identification systems.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:1184-1187 |
| 2. |
Fidel, P. L., Jr.,
J. A. Vazquez, and J. D. Sobel.
1999.
Candida glabrata: review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical disease with comparison to Candida albicans.
Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
12:80-96 |
| 3. | Glick, C., G. R. Graves, and S. Feldman. 1993. Torulopsis glabrata in the neonate: an emerging fungal pathogen. S. Med. J. 86:969-970. |
| 4. |
Hitchcock, C. A.,
G. W. Pye,
P. F. Troke,
E. M. Johnson, and D. W. Warnock.
1993.
Fluconazole resistance in Candida glabrata.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
37:1962-1965 |
| 5. | Komshian, S. V., A. K. Uwaydah, J. D. Sobel, and L. R. Crane. 1989. Fungemia caused by Candida species and Torulopsis glabrata in the hospitalized patient: frequency, characteristics, and evaluation of factors influencing outcome. Rev. Infect. Dis. 11:379-390[Medline]. |
| 6. | Kwon-Chung, K. J., and J. E. Bennett. 1992. Medical mycology, p. 62. Lea & Febiger, Malvern, Pa. |
| 7. | Land, G., J. Burke, C. Shelby, J. Rhodes, J. Collett, I. Bennett, and J. Johnson. 1996. Screening protocol for Torulopsis (Candida) glabrata. J. Clin. Microbiol. 34:2300-2303[Abstract]. |
| 8. | Mayo Clinic. 1997. Mycology laboratory procedure manual, p. 71-73. Division of Clinical Microbiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. |
| 9. |
Peltroche-Llacsahuanga, H.,
N. Schnitzler,
R. Lutticken, and G. Haase.
1999.
Rapid identification of Candida glabrata by using a dipstick to detect trehalose-generated glucose.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
37:202-205 |
| 10. | Redondo-Lopez, V., M. Lynch, C. Schmitt, R. Cook, and J. D. Sobel. 1990. Torulopsis glabrata vaginitis: clinical aspects and susceptibility to antifungal agents. Obstet. Gynecol. 76:651-655[Medline]. |
| 11. | Rex, J. H., M. G. Rinaldi, and M. A. Pfaller. 1995. Resistance of Candida species to fluconazole. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39:1-8[Medline]. |
| 12. | Stockman, L., and G. Roberts. 1985. Rapid screening method for the identification of C. glabrata, abstr. F-80, p. 377. In Abstracts of the 85th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology 1985. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. |
| 13. |
Vasquez, J. A.,
L. M. Dembry,
B. Sanchez,
M. A. Vasquez,
J. D. Sobel,
C. Dmuchowske, and M. J. Zervos.
1998.
Nosocomial Candida glabrata colonization: an epidemiologic study.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
36:421-426 |
| 14. | White, D. J., E. M. Johnson, and D. W. Warnock. 1993. Management of persistent vulvo vaginal candidosis due to azole-resistant Candida glabrata. Genitourin. Med. 69:112-114[Medline]. |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»