English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The ability of the rapid, computerized Microbial Identification System (MIS; Microbial ID, Inc.) to identify a variety of clinical isolates of yeast species was compared to the abilities of a combination of tests including the Yeast Biochemical Card (bioMerieux Vitek), determination of microscopic morphology on cornmeal agar with Tween 80, and when necessary, conventional biochemical tests and/or the API 20C Aux system (bioMerieux Vitek) to identify the same yeast isolates. The MIS chromatographically analyzes cellular fatty acids and compares the results with the fatty acid profiles in its database. Yeast isolates were subcultured onto Sabouraud dextrose agar and were incubated at 28°C for 24 h. The resulting colonies were saponified, methylated, extracted, and chromatographically analyzed (by version 3.8 of the MIS YSTCLN database) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Of 477 isolates of 23 species tested, 448 (94%) were given species names by the MIS and 29 (6%) were unidentified (specified as “no match” by the MIS). Of the 448 isolates given names by the MIS, only 335 (75%) of the identifications were correct to the species level. While the MIS correctly identified only 102 (82%) of 124 isolates ofCandida glabrata , the predictive value of an MIS identification of unknown isolates asC. glabrata was 100% (102 of 102) because no isolates of other species were misidentified asC. glabrata . In contrast, while the MIS correctly identified 100% (15 of 15) of the isolates ofSaccharomyces cerevisiae , the predictive value of an MIS identification of unknown isolates asS. cerevisiae was only 47% (15 of 32), because 17 isolates ofC. glabrata were misidentified asS. cerevisiae . The low predictive values for accuracy associated with MIS identifications for most of the remaining yeast species indicate that the procedure and/or database for the system need to be improved.

Limitations of the Current Microbial Identification System for Identification of Clinical Yeast Isolates