Buchaille L, Freydière A M, Guinet R, Gille Y
Laboratoire de Bactériologie, Hôpital de L'Antiquaille, Lyon, France.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1998 Jul;17(7):479-88. doi: 10.1007/BF01691130.
Six commercially available systems for the identification of yeasts were evaluated using 133 clinical isolates and four reference strains that had been previously identified by conventional methods and 19 recent clinical isolates that had been identified by the ID32C system (bioMérieux, France). The total identification rates (TIR) established for the total number of strains tested and the database identification rates (DBIR) established for the strains included in the respective manufacturer databases were both determined. After incubation for 4 h, the TIR and DBIR were 78% and 84%, respectively, for the RapID Yeast Plus system (Innovative Diagnostic Systems, USA). After incubation for 24 h, the TIR and DBIR were 32% and 32%, respectively, for the ID32C, 65% and 67% for the Auxacolor system (Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur, France), 62% and 65% for the Fungichrom I system (International Microbio, France), 52% and 65% for the Fungifast I twin system (International Microbio), and 62% and 68% for the API Candida system (bioMérieux). The maximum TIR and DBIR (+/- 1%) obtained after incubation for 48 h were 86% and 88% for the Auxacolor, 85% and 89% for the Fungichrom I, 78% and 98% for the Fungifast I twin, and 82% and 91% for the API Candida. For the ID32C, the maximum TIR and DBIR were 98% and 98%, respectively, but these values were obtained only after 72 h of incubation. In addition, the six systems varied in their ease of use and readings. In conclusion, based on results obtained with 156 strains, the Auxacolor and Fungichrom systems seem the most appropriate for use in a clinical microbiology laboratory, due to their ease of use and reading, their rapidity, their cost per test, and their relatively high TIR results, which indicated acceptable performance with strains frequently isolated in our hospital. For a reference identification, the ID32C remains the sole system usable.
使用133株临床分离株和4株先前已通过传统方法鉴定的参考菌株，以及19株最近已通过ID32C系统（法国生物梅里埃公司）鉴定的临床分离株，对六种市售酵母鉴定系统进行了评估。确定了针对所测试菌株总数的总鉴定率（TIR）以及针对各制造商数据库中包含的菌株确定的数据库鉴定率（DBIR）。培养4小时后，RapID Yeast Plus系统（美国创新诊断系统公司）的TIR和DBIR分别为78%和84%。培养24小时后，ID32C系统的TIR和DBIR分别为32%和32%，Auxacolor系统（法国赛诺菲巴斯德诊断公司）为65%和67%，Fungichrom I系统（法国国际微生物公司）为62%和65%，Fungifast I twin系统（国际微生物公司）为52%和65%，API Candida系统（生物梅里埃）为62%和68%。培养48小时后获得的最高TIR和DBIR（±1%），Auxacolor系统为86%和88%，Fungichrom I系统为85%和89%，Fungifast I twin系统为78%和98%，API Candida系统为82%和91%。对于ID32C系统，最高TIR和DBIR分别为98%和98%，但这些值仅在培养72小时后获得。此外，这六种系统在易用性和读数方面各不相同。总之，基于156株菌株的结果，Auxacolor和Fungichrom系统似乎最适合在临床微生物实验室使用，因为它们易用且读数方便、快速、每次测试成本低，以及TIR结果相对较高，这表明对我院经常分离的菌株表现可接受。对于参考鉴定，ID32C仍然是唯一可用的系统。
