Discontinuation of DNA Probes for Identification of Dimorphic Fungi Growing in Culture: What's a Lab To Do?

Q3 Medicine
Tanis C. Dingle , Philippe J. Dufresne
{"title":"Discontinuation of DNA Probes for Identification of Dimorphic Fungi Growing in Culture: What's a Lab To Do?","authors":"Tanis C. Dingle ,&nbsp;Philippe J. Dufresne","doi":"10.1016/j.clinmicnews.2022.11.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The most common dimorphic fungi isolated from clinical specimens in North America are </span><span><span>Coccidioides immitis</span><span><em>, Coccidioides posadasii, </em><em>Blastomyces dermatitidis</em></span></span> species complex, and <span><em>Histoplasma capsulatum</em><em>.</em></span><span> These organisms are typically definitively identified at reference or public health<span><span> laboratories, as they are risk group 3 (RG3) pathogens requiring additional biosafety considerations compared to risk group 2 (RG2) pathogens. Reference and public health laboratories have been using organism-specific </span>DNA probes since the early 1990s as the primary method of confirming the identification of morphologically suspect dimorphic fungi growing in culture. At the end of November 2021, manufacturing of these probes was discontinued, leaving clinical laboratories responsible for dimorphic fungus identification with the task of validating and implementing a new identification method for these pathogens. Here, we discuss alternatives to DNA probes for identification of </span></span><em>Coccidioides</em> spp., <em>B. dermatitidis</em> species complex, and <em>H. capsulatum</em> growing in culture, including the strengths and limitations of each method.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":39211,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Microbiology Newsletter","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Microbiology Newsletter","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196439922000782","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The most common dimorphic fungi isolated from clinical specimens in North America are Coccidioides immitis, Coccidioides posadasii, Blastomyces dermatitidis species complex, and Histoplasma capsulatum. These organisms are typically definitively identified at reference or public health laboratories, as they are risk group 3 (RG3) pathogens requiring additional biosafety considerations compared to risk group 2 (RG2) pathogens. Reference and public health laboratories have been using organism-specific DNA probes since the early 1990s as the primary method of confirming the identification of morphologically suspect dimorphic fungi growing in culture. At the end of November 2021, manufacturing of these probes was discontinued, leaving clinical laboratories responsible for dimorphic fungus identification with the task of validating and implementing a new identification method for these pathogens. Here, we discuss alternatives to DNA probes for identification of Coccidioides spp., B. dermatitidis species complex, and H. capsulatum growing in culture, including the strengths and limitations of each method.

停止使用DNA探针鉴定培养中的二形真菌:实验室该怎么做?
从北美临床标本中分离出的最常见的二态真菌是球孢子虫、波萨达球孢子虫、皮炎芽孢菌种复合体和荚膜组织浆菌。这些生物通常在参考实验室或公共卫生实验室得到明确鉴定,因为与风险组2 (RG2)病原体相比,它们是风险组3 (RG3)病原体,需要额外的生物安全考虑。自20世纪90年代初以来,参考和公共卫生实验室一直使用生物特异性DNA探针作为确认鉴定培养中生长的形态可疑的二态真菌的主要方法。2021年11月底,这些探针的生产已停止,负责二态真菌鉴定的临床实验室的任务是验证和实施对这些病原体的新鉴定方法。在这里,我们讨论了DNA探针鉴定球虫、皮炎双歧杆菌和荚膜双歧杆菌的替代方法,包括每种方法的优势和局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Microbiology Newsletter
Clinical Microbiology Newsletter Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Highly respected for its ability to keep pace with advances in this fast moving field, Clinical Microbiology Newsletter has quickly become a “benchmark” for anyone in the lab. Twice a month the newsletter reports on changes that affect your work, ranging from articles on new diagnostic techniques, to surveys of how readers handle blood cultures, to editorials questioning common procedures and suggesting new ones.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信