4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Current section and species complex concepts in Aspergillus: recommendations for routine daily practice

期刊

ADVANCES AGAINST ASPERGILLOSIS II
卷 1273, 期 -, 页码 18-24

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE PUBL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06822.x

关键词

Aspergillus; resistance; molecular identification

资金

  1. REIPI (Red Espanola de Investigacion en Patologia Infecciosa [MPY 1022/07_1]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  3. European Development Regional Fund A way to achieve Europe ERDF, Spanish Network for the Research in Infectious Diseases [REIPI RD06/0008]
  4. Astellas Pharma
  5. BioMerieux
  6. Gilead Sciences
  7. Merck Sharp and Dohme
  8. Pfizer
  9. Schering Plough
  10. Soria Melguizo SA
  11. Ferrer International
  12. European Union
  13. ALBAN program
  14. Spanish Agency for International Cooperation
  15. Spanish Ministry of Culture and Education
  16. Spanish Health Research Fund
  17. Ramon Areces Foundation
  18. The Mutua Madrilena Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The identification of fungi by molecular techniques has generated important changes in fungal taxonomy. The use of molecular tools in taxonomic studies has led to the description of some cryptic species that were placed into a complex of morphologically similar organisms and were subsequently misidentified. There are still limited data available on the prevalence of cryptic species of Aspergillus in the clinical setting, although some studies report 10-14% of the total number of Aspergillus species. In addition, the main concern about the emergence of Aspergillus cryptic species is that they can be more resistant to antifungal agents. The rise in the incidence of fungal infections and the changing landscape of epidemiology, together with the description of new pathogens and their different susceptibility profiles, make the identification by molecular methods and/or antifungal susceptibility testing the best options available for the correct management of these infections.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据