4.5 Article

Multidrug resistant yeasts in synanthropic wild birds

Journal

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1476-0711-9-11

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of multidrug resistant yeasts in the faeces of synanthropic wild birds from the Bangsar suburb of Kuala Lumpur. Methods: Species characterisations of yeast isolates and determinations of antimycotic susceptibility profiles were undertaken using the commercial characterization kit, Integral System Yeasts Plus (Liofilchem, Italy). Results: Fourteen species of yeasts were detected in the bird faecal samples. Candida albicans was present in 28.89% of bird faecal samples, Candida krusei (13.33%), Candida tropicalis (4.44%), Candida glabrata (4.44%), Candida parapsilosis (2.22%), Candida lambica (2.22%), Candida stellatoidea (2.22%), Candida rugosa (2.22%) and Candida lusitaniae (2.22%). Amongst the non-candidal yeast isolates, Cryptococcus laurentii was present in 6.67% of bird faecal samples, Cryptococcus uniguttulatus (4.44%), Saccharomyces cerevisiae (4.44%), Trichosporon pullulans (2.22%), Trichosporon pullulans/Cryptococcus albidus (8.89%) and Rhodotorula rubra/Rhodotorula glutinis (4.44%). Of the isolated yeasts, 18.1% (or 26/144) were found to be resistant to all 11 antimycotic agents they were tested against i.e. Nystatin, Amphotericin B, Flucytosine, Econazole, Ketoconazole, Clotrimazole, Miconazole, Itraconazole, Voriconazole, Fluconazole 16 and Fluconazole 64. 45.8% (or 66/144) of the bird faecal yeast isolates were resistant to four or more of the 11 antimycotic agents they were tested against. Conclusions: This finding is of public health significance as these synanthropic wild birds may be reservoirs for transmission of drug resistant yeast infections to humans.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available