4.7 Article

Identification of Fungi Isolated from Oral Cavity of Patients with HIV Using MALDI-TOF MS

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10081570

Keywords

Candida; MALDI– TOF MS; HIV; oral cavity fungal flora

Funding

  1. Wroclaw Medical University [STM.A130.18.008]
  2. Students Scientific Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared classical microbiological methods with MALDI-TOF MS in fungi identification, showing that MALDI-TOF MS is an effective alternative, especially for HIV-positive patients, due to the different morphology of fungal colonies.
Background: A growing incidence of invasive fungal infections, especially among immunocompromised patients, has given increased significance to microbiological diagnostics of yeast-like fungi. More accurate and faster fungi identification methods that can compete with classical methods are being searched for. In this paper, classical microbiological methods are compared to MALDI-TOF MS (matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry). Methods: The diagnostic material was collected from buccal mucosa from 98 adults, including 69 with HIV. Only positive cultures were included in the study. Results: Matching results were obtained in 45 samples, and there were nonmatching results in 35 samples, with the majority of these in the study group, constituting 50% of identifications within this group. A particularly common mistake resulting from the use of classical methods is the false identification of C. dubliniensis as C. albicans. Additionally, C. tropicalis proves to be difficult to identify. Conclusions: Our results and literature data suggest that MALDI-TOF MS should be considered an effective alternative to classical methods in terms of fungi identification, especially among HIV-positive patients, due to the different morphology of fungal colonies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available