1887

Abstract

Clinical isolates of that were investigated by isoenzyme and randomly amplified polymorphic DNA analyses represented two distinct species. The two species were distinguished on the basis of delayed fermentation of galactose. The larger group of isolates was closely related to the anamorph ATCC 6260 (T = type strain) and its teleomorph, ATCC 46036. The remaining group, whose members fermented galactose, was very similar to CBS 2022, which had for many years been placed in synonymy with . Three additional groups were represented by individual strains; these strains included var. ATCC 20216, which was found to represent . The type strain of is redefined.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-47-2-385
1997-01-01
2022-05-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijsem/47/2/ijs-47-2-385.html?itemId=/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-47-2-385&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bai F.-Y. 1996; Separation of Candida fermentati comb. nov. from Candida guilliermondii by DNA base composition and electrophoretic karyotyping. Syst. Appl. Microbiol 19:178–181
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnett J. A., Payne R. W., Yarrow D. 1990 Yeasts: characteristics and identification. , 2nd. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, England:
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Batista A. C., Silveira J. S., Silveira G. L. 1959; Um novo Trichosporon isolado do apendice cecal humano. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras 5:351–352
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Billon-Grand G. 1989; A new ascosporogenous yeast genus: Yamadazyma gen. nov. Mycotaxon 35:201–204
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bradford M. M. 1976; A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem 72:248–254
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Branchini M. L., Pfaller M. A., Rhine-Chalberg J., Frem pong T., Isenberg H. D. 1994; Genotypic variation and slime production among blood and catheter isolates of Candida parapsilosis. J. Clin. Microbiol 32:452–456
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Buesching W. J., Kurek K., Roberts G. D. 1979; Evaluation of the modified API 20C system for identification of clinically important yeasts. J. Clin. Microbiol 9:565–569
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Castellani A. 1912; Observations on the fungi found in tropical bronchomycosis. Lancet i:13–15
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Castellani A. 1912; Note on the importance of hyphomycetes and other fungi in tropical pathology. Br. Med. J ii:1208–1212
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Castellani A. 1920; The etiology of thrush. J. Trop. Med. Hyg 23:17–22
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Christensen G. D., Simpson W. A., Bisno A. L., Beachy E. H. 1982; Adherence of slime-producing strains of Staphylococcus epidermidis to smooth surfaces. Infect. Immun 37:318–326
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Davenport D. S., Massanari R. M., Pfaller M. A., Bale M. J., Streed S. A., Hierholzer W. J. 1986; Usefulness of a test for slime production as a marker for clinically significant infections with coagulase-negative staphylococci. J. Infect. Dis 153:332–339
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Diddens H. A., Lodder J. 1942 Die Hefesammlung des “Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures.” Beiträge zu einer Monographie der Hefearten. II. Die anaskosporogenen Hefen, part 2. 246–265 N. V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij; Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fromtling R. A., Galgiani J. N., Pfaller M. A., Espinel-Ingroff A., Bartizal K. F., Bartlett M. S., Body B. A., Frey C., Hall G., Roberts G. D., Nolte F. B., Odds F. C., Rinaldi M. G., Sugar A. M., Villareal K. 1993; Multicenter evaluation of a broth macrodilution antifungal susceptibility test for yeast. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother 37:39–45
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kemker B. J., Lehmann P. F., Lee J. W., Walsh T. J. 1991; Distinction of deep versus superficial clinical and nonclinical isolates of Trichosporon beigelii by isoenzymes and restriction fragment length polymorphisms of rDNA generated by polymerase chain reaction. J. Clin. Microbiol 29:1677–1683
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kimura K., Takayama K., Nakanishi T.April 1974; Process for producing citric acid by fermentation. U.S. patent 3,806,414
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kurtzman C. P. 1992; DNA relatedness among phenotypically similar species of Pichia. Mycologia 84:72–76
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Längerem M., Guerra P. 1938; Nouvelles recherches de zymologie médicale. Ann. Parasitol. Hum. Comp 16:36–179429–476481–525
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lehmann P. F., Hsiao C.-B., Salkin I. F. 1989; Protein and enzyme electrophoresis profiles of selected Candida species. J. Clin. Microbiol 27:400–404
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lehmann P. F., Kemker B. J., Hsiao C.-B., Dev S. 1989; Isoenzyme biotypes of Candida species. J. Clin. Microbiol 27:2514–2521
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lehmann P. F., Lin D., Lasker B. A. 1992; Genotypic identification and characterization of species and strains within the genus Candida by using random amplified polymorphic DNA. J. Clin. Microbiol 30:3249–3254
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lehmann P. F., Wu L.-C. Unpublished data
  23. Lehmann P. F., Wu L.-C., Pruitt W. R., Meyer S. A., Ahearn D. G. 1993; Unrelatedness of groups of yeasts within the Candida haemulonii complex. J. Clin. Microbiol 31:1683–1687
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lin D., Wu L.-C., Rinaldi M. A., Lehmann P. F. 1995; Three distinct genotypes within Candida parapsilosis from clinical sources. J. Clin. Microbiol 33:1815–1821
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lodder J., Kreger-van Rij N. J. W. 1952 The yeasts: a taxonomic study. 518–524 North-Holland Publishing Co.; Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Meyer S. A., Ahearn D. G., Yarrow D. 1984 Genus 4. Candida Berkhout. 585–844 Kreger-van Rij N. J. W.ed The yeasts: a taxonomic study, 3rd. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.; Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Meyer S. A, Phaff H. J. 1972; DNA base composition and DNA-DNA homology studies as tools in yeast systematics. 375–386 Kocková-Kratochvílová A., Minárik E.ed Yeasts; models in science and technicsProceedings of the First Specialized International Symposium on Yeasts, SmoleniceJune 1-4, 1971Publishing House of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Negroni P., Fischer I. 1941; Contribución al conocimiento de la flora micològica (microfitos) del delta de Paraná. Rev. Inst. Bacteriol. Dep. Hig 10:334–342
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Odds F. C., Bernaerts R. 1994; CHROMagar Candida, a new differential isolation medium for presumptive identification of clinically important Candida species. J. Clin. Microbiol 32:1923–1929
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Polonelli L., Archibusacci C., Sestito M., Morace G. 1983; Killer system: a simple method for differentiating Candida albicans strains. J. Clin. Microbiol 17:774–780
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rüchel R., Tegeler R., Trost M. 1982; A comparison of secretory proteinases from different strains of Candida albicans. Sabouraudia 20:233–244
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rudek W. 1978; Esterase activity in Candida species. J. Clin. Microbiol 6:756–758
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Saito K. 1922; Untersuchungen über die atmosphärischen Pilzkeime. Jpn. J. Bot 1:1–54
    [Google Scholar]
  34. San Millan R., Salkin I. F., Lehmann P. F. 1996 Genetic heterogeneity detected within Candida guilliermondii, abstr. F-674 Abstracts of the 96th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology 1996 American Society for Microbiology; Washington, D.C.:
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Scarr M. P., Rose D. 1966; Study of osmophilic yeasts producing invertase. J. Gen. Microbiol 45:9–16
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sullivan D. J., Westerneng T. J., Haynes K. A., Bennett D. E., Coleman D. C. 1995; Candida dubliniensis sp. nov.: phenotypic and molecular characterization of a novel species associated with oral candidosis in HIV-infected individuals. Microbiology 141:1507–1521
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Tirunarayanan M. O., Lundbeck H. 1968; Investigations on the enzymes and toxins of staphylococci: assay of lipase using Tween as the substrate. Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand 72:263–276
    [Google Scholar]
  38. van der Walt J. P., Yarrow D. 1984 Methods for the isolation, maintenance, classification and identification of yeast. IIC. Physiological and biochemical characteristics. 76–97 Kreger-van Rij N. J. W.ed The yeasts: a taxonomic study, 3rd. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.; Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
    [Google Scholar]
  39. van Uden N., Buckley H. 1971 Genus 2. Candida Berkhout. 893–1087 Lodder J.ed The yeasts: a taxonomic study, 2nd. North-Holland Publishing Co.; Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wickerham L. J. 1966; Validation of the species Pichia guilliermondii. J. Bacteriol 92:1269
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Wickerham L. J., Burton K. A. 1954; A clarification of the relationship of Candida guilliermondii to other yeasts by a study of their mating types. J. Bacteriol 68:594–597
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Zeng S., Wu L.-C., Lehmann P. F. 1996; Random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis of culture collection strains of Candida species. J. Med. Vet. Mycol 34:293–297
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-47-2-385
Loading
/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-47-2-385
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error