Kiehn T E, Edwards F F, Tom D, Lieberman G, Bernard E M, Armstrong D
J Clin Microbiol. 1985 Aug;22(2):216-9. doi: 10.1128/jcm.22.2.216-219.1985.
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.
雅培Quantum II、API 20C和改良的BBL Minitek系统。API 20C和改良的Minitek系统对245株酵母中的243株(99.2%)鉴定结果一致。Quantum II系统正确鉴定了197株(80.4%),错误鉴定了19株(7.8%),未鉴定出29株(11.8%)酵母。Quantum II系统的大多数错误鉴定是因为同化或生化结果为假阳性。16种不同的酵母和16种不同的Quantum II底物导致了差异。再次使用Quantum II进行检测时,31%的差异菌株被正确鉴定,而其余69%被错误鉴定或未被鉴定。在被Quantum II系统正确鉴定的酵母中也发现了错误的生化和同化结果。