Fenn J P, Segal H, Barland B, Denton D, Whisenant J, Chun H, Christofferson K, Hamilton L, Carroll K
Associated Regional and University Pathologists, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah 84108.
J Clin Microbiol. 1994 May;32(5):1184-7. doi: 10.1128/jcm.32.5.1184-1187.1994.
The updated Vitek Yeast Biochemical Card (YBC) was compared with the API 20C by using 409 germ tube-negative yeasts and Geotrichum spp. that were either clinical or proficiency sample isolates. The API 20C was the reference standard. The 409 isolates represented nine genera and 21 species. Morphology agars were inoculated and interpreted for each isolate. The API 20C identified 406 isolates (99.3%), while the Vitek YBC identified 367 (89.7%). Both systems identified the majority of yeasts after 24 h of incubation--73.4% were identified by the API 20C and 77.4% were identified by the Vitek YBC. The Vitek 24-h reading had some incorrect identifications. These included 14 isolates of Candida tropicalis that were identified as Candida parapsilosis (91 to 97% reliability) and 3 isolates of Candida krusei that were called Blastoschizomyces capitatus (Geotrichum capitatum), Candida rugosa, and Candida zeylanoides. In total, the Vitek YBC misidentified 30 isolates, while the API 20C misidentified 3 isolates. In addition, results for 14 isolates with the Vitek YBC were listed under the category "no identification." Morphology agars were required for identification with 89 isolates (21.9%) when the API 20C was used and with 50 isolates (12.6%) when the Vitek YBC was used. Apart from the price of the Vitek instrument, the API 20C costs $1.28 more per test than the Vitek YBC. Overall, the updated Vitek YBC compares favorably with the API 20C in the identification of common yeasts such as Torulopsis glabrata, C. parapsilosis, and Cryptococcus neoformans. However, problems were encountered with the Vitek system in the identification of C. tropicalis, C. krusei, Trichosporon spp., and some Cryptococcus spp. The routine use of morphology agars with either method is recommended.
使用409株芽管阴性酵母和地霉属菌株(临床或能力验证样本分离株),将更新后的Vitek酵母生化鉴定卡(YBC)与API 20C进行比较。以API 20C作为参考标准。这409株分离株代表9个属和21个种。对每个分离株接种并解读形态学琼脂。API 20C鉴定出406株分离株(99.3%),而Vitek YBC鉴定出367株(89.7%)。两个系统在孵育24小时后鉴定出了大多数酵母——API 20C鉴定出73.4%,Vitek YBC鉴定出77.4%。Vitek 24小时读数存在一些错误鉴定。这些错误鉴定包括14株热带念珠菌被鉴定为近平滑念珠菌(可靠性为91%至97%),以及3株克鲁斯念珠菌被鉴定为头裂芽生菌(头状地霉)、皱落念珠菌和锡兰念珠菌。总体而言,Vitek YBC错误鉴定了30株分离株,而API 20C错误鉴定了3株。此外,Vitek YBC对14株分离株的结果列为“未鉴定”类别。使用API 20C时,89株(21.9%)分离株的鉴定需要形态学琼脂,使用Vitek YBC时,50株(12.6%)分离株的鉴定需要形态学琼脂。除了Vitek仪器的价格外,API 20C每次检测的成本比Vitek YBC高1.28美元。总体而言,在鉴定光滑假丝酵母、近平滑念珠菌和新型隐球菌等常见酵母方面,更新后的Vitek YBC与API 20C相比具有优势。然而,在鉴定热带念珠菌、克鲁斯念珠菌、丝孢酵母属和一些隐球菌属时,Vitek系统遇到了问题。建议两种方法常规使用形态学琼脂。