Article Text

Download PDFPDF

From the patient to the clinical mycology laboratory: how can we optimise microscopy and culture methods for mould identification?
Free
  1. Timoleon-Achilleas A Vyzantiadis1,
  2. Elizabeth M Johnson2,
  3. Christopher C Kibbler3
  1. 11st Department of Microbiology, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
  2. 2Mycology Reference Laboratory, Health Protection Agency, Bristol, UK
  3. 3Department of Medical Microbiology, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Timoleon-Achilleas A Vyzantiadis, 1st Department of Microbiology, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece; avyz{at}med.auth.gr

Abstract

The identification of fungi relies mainly on morphological criteria. However, there is a need for robust and definitive phenotypic identification procedures in order to evaluate continuously evolving molecular methods. For the future, there is an emerging consensus that a combined (phenotypic and molecular) approach is more powerful for fungal identification, especially for moulds. Most of the procedures used for phenotypic identification are based on experience rather than comparative studies of effectiveness or performance and there is a need for standardisation among mycology laboratories. This review summarises and evaluates the evidence for the major existing phenotypic identification procedures for the predominant causes of opportunistic mould infection. We have concentrated mainly on Aspergillus, Fusarium and mucoraceous mould species, as these are the most important clinically and the ones for which there are the most molecular taxonomic data.

  • Mycology
  • fungi
  • methodology
  • diagnosis
  • morphology

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.