用胶带取样法实时荧光定量PCR检测皮肤真菌病的评价。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 DERMATOLOGY
Sophie Walter, Dedee F. Murrell, Ryanbi Pratama, Alice E. Kizny Gordon, Christopher J. McIver
{"title":"用胶带取样法实时荧光定量PCR检测皮肤真菌病的评价。","authors":"Sophie Walter,&nbsp;Dedee F. Murrell,&nbsp;Ryanbi Pratama,&nbsp;Alice E. Kizny Gordon,&nbsp;Christopher J. McIver","doi":"10.1111/ajd.14415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Dermatophytosis is a very common fungal infection [<span>1</span>]. Prompt and accurate diagnosis utilising newer technologies [<span>2, 3</span>] may facilitate early commencement of suitable treatment. We previously reported the development and validation of a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay targeting the chitin-synthase 1 gene (CHS-1) specific for common dermatophytes, including species of the <i>Microsporum</i>, <i>Epidermophyton</i> and <i>Trichophyton</i> genera [<span>4</span>]. Since implementation, this assay has been efficacious in screening clinical samples for dermatophytes and for early detection (i.e., &lt; 6 weeks) in filamentous cultures. However, the assay was limited in its ability to detect <i>Microsporum canis</i> due to the inefficient binding of the primers and probe used in the PCR assay [<span>4</span>].</p><p>Also developed was an adhesive tape sampling technique to facilitate the collection of genomic material for the RT-PCR assay and circumvent practical issues that can be associated with traditional use of scalpel blades and clippers (e.g., operator injury, patient antipathy to ‘sharps’, suitability of the infected site) [<span>5</span>]. Adhesive tape strips have been used in dermatology research as a minimally invasive technique for epidermal transcriptomics and proteomics, particularly in atopic dermatitis [<span>6-9</span>].</p><p>In our initial study of 16 patients, the RT-PCR results for the adhesive tape impressions correlated with those obtained by microscopy and culture [<span>4</span>]. Here, we report an assessment of the utility of the RT-PCR assay for detection of dermatophyte CHS-1 gene on adhesive tape impressions of lesions undertaken from April 2018 to February 2024 (approximately 5.8 years). Impressions were taken from 308 lesions located on a variety of specified anatomical sites (274 lesions) and unspecified sites (34 lesions) in patients attending dermatology clinics at a tertiary teaching hospital and an academic private practice in Australia (Appendix S1). Using fungal culture results as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated for RT-PCR assay alone, microscopic detection of fungal elements alone, and when both methods were used (Table 1).</p><p>Fifty-two dermatophyte strains were cultured from 308 samples (16.9%). The most common strain cultured was <i>Trichophyton rubrum</i> (<i>n</i> = 25), followed by <i>Trichophyton tonsurans</i> (<i>n</i> = 11), <i>Trichophyton</i> sp. (<i>n</i> = 8), <i>Trichophyton mentagrophytes</i> (<i>n</i> = 5), <i>Microsporum canis</i> (<i>n</i> = 2) and <i>Epidermophyton floccosum</i> (<i>n</i> = 1). Among the dermatophytes isolated, 46 of 52 (88.5%) were RT-PCR positive (Appendix S1). The remaining six RT-PCR negative isolates included <i>Trichophyton rubrum</i> (<i>n</i> = 2), <i>Trichophyton tonsurans</i> (<i>n</i> = 1), <i>Trichophyton</i> sp. (<i>n</i> = 1) and <i>Microsporum canis</i> (<i>n</i> = 2). As mentioned, failure to detect <i>Microsporum canis</i> by RT-PCR was anticipated. However, failure to detect the other four fungi could be due to inadequate collection of genomic material by the adhesive tape. Excess DNA collected by adhesive tape could also compromise the assay's sensitivity [<span>10</span>], but was excluded as the internal control was co-amplified. It was also noted that 20 of 256 (7.8%) dermatophyte-negative cultures were RT-PCR positive, possibly due to poor sample quality (i.e., scraping/clippings) used to inoculate culture media or previous treatment of the lesion with antifungal agents.</p><p>As shown in Table 1, the RT-PCR assay is more sensitive than microscopy for predicting cultural isolation of dermatophyte species. Also evident is the potential compromise to the assay's specificity and positive predictive value, which may be due to sample quality or pre-treatment with antifungals inhibiting viability when cultured. However, of note was marked improvement of the sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) when both microscopy and the RT-PCR assay were used to predict a culture-positive sample, using traditional sampling techniques and adhesive tape impressions. Especially remarkable was the high NPV (with a high probability) which shows the potential benefit of performing both methods on clinical samples as a screen for the likelihood of failure to isolate a dermatophyte species on culture.</p><p>We found that the RT-PCR assay is able to detect a wide diversity of dermatophytes. We have also demonstrated the feasibility of molecular testing using adhesive tape impressions of suspect fungal lesions as assessed over 5.8 years. During this period, we have shown this method to allow safe sampling of a wide range of lesion surfaces differing in presentation (i.e., dried or highly suppurative) without the risks and limitations associated with using sharp implements. Furthermore, this adhesive sampling allows the usually limited specimens collected by traditional means to be used exclusively for microscopy and culture. Here, we have shown that, combined with microscopy, the RT-PCR assay using adhesive tape sampling is conducive to reliable, rapid laboratory diagnosis of dermatophytosis if supported by strong clinical evidence, and thus prompt treatment. In this study, we have also demonstrated, with a high level of certainty, that this rapid testing algorithm can be used to exclude the likelihood of cultivating a targeted dermatophyte.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":8638,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Dermatology","volume":"66 2","pages":"e60-e61"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajd.14415","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of a Real-Time PCR Assay for the Detection of Dermatophytosis by Sampling With an Adhesive Tape Technique\",\"authors\":\"Sophie Walter,&nbsp;Dedee F. Murrell,&nbsp;Ryanbi Pratama,&nbsp;Alice E. Kizny Gordon,&nbsp;Christopher J. McIver\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajd.14415\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Dermatophytosis is a very common fungal infection [<span>1</span>]. Prompt and accurate diagnosis utilising newer technologies [<span>2, 3</span>] may facilitate early commencement of suitable treatment. We previously reported the development and validation of a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay targeting the chitin-synthase 1 gene (CHS-1) specific for common dermatophytes, including species of the <i>Microsporum</i>, <i>Epidermophyton</i> and <i>Trichophyton</i> genera [<span>4</span>]. Since implementation, this assay has been efficacious in screening clinical samples for dermatophytes and for early detection (i.e., &lt; 6 weeks) in filamentous cultures. However, the assay was limited in its ability to detect <i>Microsporum canis</i> due to the inefficient binding of the primers and probe used in the PCR assay [<span>4</span>].</p><p>Also developed was an adhesive tape sampling technique to facilitate the collection of genomic material for the RT-PCR assay and circumvent practical issues that can be associated with traditional use of scalpel blades and clippers (e.g., operator injury, patient antipathy to ‘sharps’, suitability of the infected site) [<span>5</span>]. Adhesive tape strips have been used in dermatology research as a minimally invasive technique for epidermal transcriptomics and proteomics, particularly in atopic dermatitis [<span>6-9</span>].</p><p>In our initial study of 16 patients, the RT-PCR results for the adhesive tape impressions correlated with those obtained by microscopy and culture [<span>4</span>]. Here, we report an assessment of the utility of the RT-PCR assay for detection of dermatophyte CHS-1 gene on adhesive tape impressions of lesions undertaken from April 2018 to February 2024 (approximately 5.8 years). Impressions were taken from 308 lesions located on a variety of specified anatomical sites (274 lesions) and unspecified sites (34 lesions) in patients attending dermatology clinics at a tertiary teaching hospital and an academic private practice in Australia (Appendix S1). Using fungal culture results as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated for RT-PCR assay alone, microscopic detection of fungal elements alone, and when both methods were used (Table 1).</p><p>Fifty-two dermatophyte strains were cultured from 308 samples (16.9%). The most common strain cultured was <i>Trichophyton rubrum</i> (<i>n</i> = 25), followed by <i>Trichophyton tonsurans</i> (<i>n</i> = 11), <i>Trichophyton</i> sp. (<i>n</i> = 8), <i>Trichophyton mentagrophytes</i> (<i>n</i> = 5), <i>Microsporum canis</i> (<i>n</i> = 2) and <i>Epidermophyton floccosum</i> (<i>n</i> = 1). Among the dermatophytes isolated, 46 of 52 (88.5%) were RT-PCR positive (Appendix S1). The remaining six RT-PCR negative isolates included <i>Trichophyton rubrum</i> (<i>n</i> = 2), <i>Trichophyton tonsurans</i> (<i>n</i> = 1), <i>Trichophyton</i> sp. (<i>n</i> = 1) and <i>Microsporum canis</i> (<i>n</i> = 2). As mentioned, failure to detect <i>Microsporum canis</i> by RT-PCR was anticipated. However, failure to detect the other four fungi could be due to inadequate collection of genomic material by the adhesive tape. Excess DNA collected by adhesive tape could also compromise the assay's sensitivity [<span>10</span>], but was excluded as the internal control was co-amplified. It was also noted that 20 of 256 (7.8%) dermatophyte-negative cultures were RT-PCR positive, possibly due to poor sample quality (i.e., scraping/clippings) used to inoculate culture media or previous treatment of the lesion with antifungal agents.</p><p>As shown in Table 1, the RT-PCR assay is more sensitive than microscopy for predicting cultural isolation of dermatophyte species. Also evident is the potential compromise to the assay's specificity and positive predictive value, which may be due to sample quality or pre-treatment with antifungals inhibiting viability when cultured. However, of note was marked improvement of the sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) when both microscopy and the RT-PCR assay were used to predict a culture-positive sample, using traditional sampling techniques and adhesive tape impressions. Especially remarkable was the high NPV (with a high probability) which shows the potential benefit of performing both methods on clinical samples as a screen for the likelihood of failure to isolate a dermatophyte species on culture.</p><p>We found that the RT-PCR assay is able to detect a wide diversity of dermatophytes. We have also demonstrated the feasibility of molecular testing using adhesive tape impressions of suspect fungal lesions as assessed over 5.8 years. During this period, we have shown this method to allow safe sampling of a wide range of lesion surfaces differing in presentation (i.e., dried or highly suppurative) without the risks and limitations associated with using sharp implements. Furthermore, this adhesive sampling allows the usually limited specimens collected by traditional means to be used exclusively for microscopy and culture. Here, we have shown that, combined with microscopy, the RT-PCR assay using adhesive tape sampling is conducive to reliable, rapid laboratory diagnosis of dermatophytosis if supported by strong clinical evidence, and thus prompt treatment. In this study, we have also demonstrated, with a high level of certainty, that this rapid testing algorithm can be used to exclude the likelihood of cultivating a targeted dermatophyte.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8638,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Journal of Dermatology\",\"volume\":\"66 2\",\"pages\":\"e60-e61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajd.14415\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Journal of Dermatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajd.14415\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajd.14415","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

皮肤真菌病是一种非常常见的真菌感染。利用更新的技术[2,3]进行及时和准确的诊断可能有助于尽早开始适当的治疗。我们之前报道了一种实时聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)方法的开发和验证,该方法针对常见皮肤真菌(包括小孢子菌、表皮植物和毛菌属)特异性的几丁质合成酶1基因(CHS-1)。自实施以来,该试验在筛选皮肤真菌临床样本和丝状培养物的早期检测(即6周)方面有效。然而,由于在PCR检测中使用的引物和探针结合效率低下,该检测方法检测犬小孢子虫的能力受到限制。此外,还开发了一种胶带取样技术,以方便收集用于RT-PCR测定的基因组材料,并避免与传统使用手术刀刀片和剪刀相关的实际问题(例如,操作人员受伤、患者对“利器”的反感、感染部位的适用性)。胶带条作为表皮转录组学和蛋白质组学的微创技术已被用于皮肤科研究,特别是在特应性皮炎中[6-9]。在我们对16例患者的初步研究中,胶带印迹的RT-PCR结果与显微镜和培养[4]的结果相关。在这里,我们报告了RT-PCR检测方法在2018年4月至2024年2月(大约5.8年)的皮损胶带印痕中检测皮肤真菌CHS-1基因的效用评估。在澳大利亚一家三级教学医院和一家学术私人诊所皮肤科就诊的患者中,308个病灶位于各种指定的解剖部位(274个病灶)和未指定的部位(34个病灶)(附录S1)。以真菌培养结果为参比标准,计算单独RT-PCR法、显微镜下单独检测真菌成分、两种方法同时使用时的敏感性和特异性(表1)。从308份样品中培养52株皮癣菌(16.9%)。最常见的菌种是rubbrum毛癣菌(n = 25),其次是tonsurans毛癣菌(n = 11)、Trichophyton sp. (n = 8)、mentagrophytes毛癣菌(n = 5)、canis Microsporum (n = 2)和絮体表皮菌(n = 1)。在分离的52株皮癣菌中,有46株(88.5%)RT-PCR阳性(附录S1)。其余6株RT-PCR阴性菌株为:rubrum毛癣菌(n = 2)、tonsurans毛癣菌(n = 1)、Trichophyton sp. (n = 1)和canis Microsporum (n = 2)。如前所述,预料到RT-PCR检测犬小孢子菌的失败。然而,未能检测到其他四种真菌可能是由于胶带没有充分收集基因组物质。用胶带收集的过量DNA也可能影响检测的灵敏度,但由于内部控制是共同放大的,因此排除了这种可能性。同样值得注意的是,256个皮肤真菌阴性培养物中有20个(7.8%)呈RT-PCR阳性,可能是由于接种培养基时使用的样品质量差(即刮/剪)或以前用抗真菌药物治疗病变所致。如表1所示,RT-PCR法在预测皮肤真菌物种的培养分离方面比显微镜法更敏感。同样明显的是,检测的特异性和阳性预测值可能会受到损害,这可能是由于样品质量或抗真菌预处理在培养时抑制了活力。然而,值得注意的是,当使用显微镜和RT-PCR检测来预测培养阳性样本时,使用传统的采样技术和胶带印模,灵敏度、特异性和阴性预测值(NPV)都有显著提高。特别值得注意的是高净现值(高概率),这表明在临床样本上执行这两种方法作为筛选在培养中分离皮肤真菌物种失败的可能性的潜在益处。我们发现RT-PCR检测能够检测到多种皮肤真菌。我们也证明了分子测试的可行性,使用胶带印迹可疑真菌病变评估超过5.8年。在此期间,我们已经证明了这种方法可以对表现不同的大范围病变表面(即干燥或高度化脓)进行安全采样,而没有使用尖锐工具相关的风险和限制。此外,这种粘接取样允许通过传统方法收集的通常有限的标本专门用于显微镜和培养。 在这里,我们已经证明,结合显微镜,如果有强有力的临床证据支持,使用胶带取样的RT-PCR检测有助于可靠,快速的实验室诊断皮肤癣,从而及时治疗。在这项研究中,我们还高度肯定地证明,这种快速测试算法可以用来排除培养目标皮肤真菌的可能性。作者声明无利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of a Real-Time PCR Assay for the Detection of Dermatophytosis by Sampling With an Adhesive Tape Technique

Dermatophytosis is a very common fungal infection [1]. Prompt and accurate diagnosis utilising newer technologies [2, 3] may facilitate early commencement of suitable treatment. We previously reported the development and validation of a real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay targeting the chitin-synthase 1 gene (CHS-1) specific for common dermatophytes, including species of the Microsporum, Epidermophyton and Trichophyton genera [4]. Since implementation, this assay has been efficacious in screening clinical samples for dermatophytes and for early detection (i.e., < 6 weeks) in filamentous cultures. However, the assay was limited in its ability to detect Microsporum canis due to the inefficient binding of the primers and probe used in the PCR assay [4].

Also developed was an adhesive tape sampling technique to facilitate the collection of genomic material for the RT-PCR assay and circumvent practical issues that can be associated with traditional use of scalpel blades and clippers (e.g., operator injury, patient antipathy to ‘sharps’, suitability of the infected site) [5]. Adhesive tape strips have been used in dermatology research as a minimally invasive technique for epidermal transcriptomics and proteomics, particularly in atopic dermatitis [6-9].

In our initial study of 16 patients, the RT-PCR results for the adhesive tape impressions correlated with those obtained by microscopy and culture [4]. Here, we report an assessment of the utility of the RT-PCR assay for detection of dermatophyte CHS-1 gene on adhesive tape impressions of lesions undertaken from April 2018 to February 2024 (approximately 5.8 years). Impressions were taken from 308 lesions located on a variety of specified anatomical sites (274 lesions) and unspecified sites (34 lesions) in patients attending dermatology clinics at a tertiary teaching hospital and an academic private practice in Australia (Appendix S1). Using fungal culture results as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated for RT-PCR assay alone, microscopic detection of fungal elements alone, and when both methods were used (Table 1).

Fifty-two dermatophyte strains were cultured from 308 samples (16.9%). The most common strain cultured was Trichophyton rubrum (n = 25), followed by Trichophyton tonsurans (n = 11), Trichophyton sp. (n = 8), Trichophyton mentagrophytes (n = 5), Microsporum canis (n = 2) and Epidermophyton floccosum (n = 1). Among the dermatophytes isolated, 46 of 52 (88.5%) were RT-PCR positive (Appendix S1). The remaining six RT-PCR negative isolates included Trichophyton rubrum (n = 2), Trichophyton tonsurans (n = 1), Trichophyton sp. (n = 1) and Microsporum canis (n = 2). As mentioned, failure to detect Microsporum canis by RT-PCR was anticipated. However, failure to detect the other four fungi could be due to inadequate collection of genomic material by the adhesive tape. Excess DNA collected by adhesive tape could also compromise the assay's sensitivity [10], but was excluded as the internal control was co-amplified. It was also noted that 20 of 256 (7.8%) dermatophyte-negative cultures were RT-PCR positive, possibly due to poor sample quality (i.e., scraping/clippings) used to inoculate culture media or previous treatment of the lesion with antifungal agents.

As shown in Table 1, the RT-PCR assay is more sensitive than microscopy for predicting cultural isolation of dermatophyte species. Also evident is the potential compromise to the assay's specificity and positive predictive value, which may be due to sample quality or pre-treatment with antifungals inhibiting viability when cultured. However, of note was marked improvement of the sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) when both microscopy and the RT-PCR assay were used to predict a culture-positive sample, using traditional sampling techniques and adhesive tape impressions. Especially remarkable was the high NPV (with a high probability) which shows the potential benefit of performing both methods on clinical samples as a screen for the likelihood of failure to isolate a dermatophyte species on culture.

We found that the RT-PCR assay is able to detect a wide diversity of dermatophytes. We have also demonstrated the feasibility of molecular testing using adhesive tape impressions of suspect fungal lesions as assessed over 5.8 years. During this period, we have shown this method to allow safe sampling of a wide range of lesion surfaces differing in presentation (i.e., dried or highly suppurative) without the risks and limitations associated with using sharp implements. Furthermore, this adhesive sampling allows the usually limited specimens collected by traditional means to be used exclusively for microscopy and culture. Here, we have shown that, combined with microscopy, the RT-PCR assay using adhesive tape sampling is conducive to reliable, rapid laboratory diagnosis of dermatophytosis if supported by strong clinical evidence, and thus prompt treatment. In this study, we have also demonstrated, with a high level of certainty, that this rapid testing algorithm can be used to exclude the likelihood of cultivating a targeted dermatophyte.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
186
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australasian Journal of Dermatology is the official journal of the Australasian College of Dermatologists and the New Zealand Dermatological Society, publishing peer-reviewed, original research articles, reviews and case reports dealing with all aspects of clinical practice and research in dermatology. Clinical presentations, medical and physical therapies and investigations, including dermatopathology and mycology, are covered. Short articles may be published under the headings ‘Signs, Syndromes and Diagnoses’, ‘Dermatopathology Presentation’, ‘Vignettes in Contact Dermatology’, ‘Surgery Corner’ or ‘Letters to the Editor’.
×
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