Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conventional Methods for the Diagnosis of Dermatophytosis

  • Published:
Mycopathologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dermatophytes are keratinolytic fungi responsible for a large variety of diseases that can affect glabrous skin, nails and hair. In many cases, the diagnosis is not clinically obvious, and mycological analysis is required. This includes both direct microscopic examination and cultures. First of all, clinical specimens have to be sampled according to localization and characteristics of the lesions. Direct microscopic examination is usually performed using clearing reagents (KOH or Amman’s chloral-lactophenol), but its sensitivity may be greatly enhanced by the use of stains or fluorochromes such as Congo red or Calcofluor white. Histological analysis is an efficient method, but it is constraining for the patients and, as direct examination, it does not allow precise identification of the pathogen. Cultures are therefore needed, and specific culture media may be used to overcome the growth of rapidly growing contaminating moulds which may hamper the recovery of dermatophytes. Identification at the species level which may be useful to initiate an appropriate treatment or for setting prophylactic measures, relies on macroscopic and microscopic morphology. Subcultures on culture media which stimulate conidiation and, for some species, the production of pigments, are often necessary. Additionally, in case of atypical isolates, some biochemical or physiological tests may be performed such as the search for urease activity or the in vitro hair perforation test. However, their contribution to species identification is rather limited, and progress is still needed for the development of biochemical or immunological tests allowing an accurate identification at the species level, pending for the availability of molecular biology-based kits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Elewski BE. Onychomycosis: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1998;11:415–29.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Miranda MF, Silva AJ. New uses of vinyl tape for reliable collection and diagnosis of common superficial mycoses. Skinmed. 2003;2:156–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Qureshi HS, Ormsby HA, Kapadia N. Effects of modified sample collection technique on fungal culture yield: nail clipping/scraping versus microdrill. J Pak Med Assoc. 2004;54:301–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Moriello KA. Diagnostic techniques for dermatophytosis. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract. 2001;16:219–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Panasiti V, Borroni RG, Devirgiliis V, Rossi M, Fabbrizio L, Masciangelo R, Bottoni U, Calvieri S. Comparison of diagnostic methods in the diagnosis of dermatomycoses and onychomycoses. Mycoses. 2006;49:26–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lilly KK, Koshnick RL, Grill JP, Khalil ZM, Nelson DB, Warshaw EM. Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests for toenail onychomycosis: a repeated-measure, single-blinded, cross-sectional evaluation of 7 diagnostic tests. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;55:620–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Slifkin M, Cumbie R. Congo red as a fluorochrome for the rapid detection of fungi. J Clin Microbiol. 1988;26:827–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Monod M, Baudraz-Rosselet F, Ramelet AA, Frenk E. Direct mycological examination in dermatology: a comparison of different methods. Dermatologica. 1989;179:183–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Abdelrahman T, Letscher Bru V, Waller J, Noacco G, Candolfi E. Dermatomycosis: comparison of the performance of calcofluor and potassium hydroxide 30% for the direct examination of skin scrapings and nails. J Mycol Méd. 2006;16:87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weinberg JM, Koestenblatt EK, Tutrone WD, Tishler HR, Najarian L. Comparison of diagnostic methods in the evaluation of onychomycosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:193–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Suarez SM, Silvers DN, Scher RK, Pearlstein HH, Auerbach R. Histologic evaluation of nail clippings for diagnosing onychomycosis. Arch Dermatol. 1991;127:1517–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Feuilhade de Chauvin M. New diagnostic techniques. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2005;19(Suppl 1):20–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lousbergh D, Buntinx F, Pierard G. Diagnosing dermatomycosis in general practice. Fam Pract. 1999;16:611–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. De Kock CA, Sampers GH, Knottnerus JA. Diagnosis and management of cases of suspected dermatomycosis in The Netherlands: influence of general practice based potassium hydroxide testing. Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45:349–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brun S, Bouchara JP, Bocquel A, Basile AM, Contet-Audonneau N, Chabasse D. Evaluation of five commercial Sabouraud gentamicin-chloramphenicol agar media. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2001;20:718–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Taplin D, Zaias N, Rebell G, Blank H. Isolation and recognition of dermatophytes on a new medium (DTM). Arch Dermatol. 1969;99:203–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Taplin D. Dermatophyte test medium. J Invest Dermatol. 1972;58:412.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sinski JT, Swanson JR, Kelley LM. Dermatophyte test medium: clinical and quantitative appraisal. J Invest Dermatol. 1972;58:405–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Singh D, Patel DC, Rogers K, Wood N, Riley D, Morris AJ. Epidemiology of dermatophyte infection in Auckland, New Zealand. Australas J Dermatol. 2003;44:263–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Salkin IF, Padhye AA, Kemna ME. A new medium for the presumptive identification of dermatophytes. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35:2660–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gromadzki S, Ramani R, Chaturvedi V. Evaluation of new medium for identification of dermatophytes and primary dimorphic pathogens. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:467–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Guillot J, Latie L, Deville M, Halos L, Chermette R. Evaluation of the dermatophyte test medium RapidVet-D. Vet Dermatol. 2001;12:123–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Weitzman I, Summerbell RC. The dermatophytes. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1995;8:240–59.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kane J, Blakeman JM, Fischer JB. Tinea cruris: diagnostic confusion due to isolation of Candida albicans alone. Can Med Assoc J. 1976;114:797–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kane J, Smitka C. Early detection and identification of Trichophyton verrucosum. J Clin Microbiol. 1978;8:740–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Jennings MB, Rinaldi MG. Confirmation of dermatophytes in nail specimens using in-office dermatophyte test medium cultures. Insights from a multispecialty survey. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2003;93:195–202.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Elewski BE, Leyden J, Rinaldi MG, Atillasoy E. Office practice-based confirmation of onychomycosis: a US nationwide prospective survey. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:2133–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rich P, Harkless LB, Atillasoy ES. Dermatophyte test medium culture for evaluating toenail infections in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:1480–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pariser D, Opper C. An in-office diagnostic procedure to detect dermatophytes in a nationwide study of onychomycosis patients. Manag Care. 2002;11:43–8, 50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Scherer WP, Kinmon K. Dermatophyte test medium culture versus mycology laboratory analysis for suspected onychomycosis. A study of 100 cases in a geriatric population. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2000;90:450–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Nakashima T, Nozawa A, Ito T, Majima T, Yamaguchi H. Development of a new medium useful for the recovery of dermatophytes from clinical specimens by minimizing the carryover effect of antifungal agents. Microbiol Immunol. 2002;46:83–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Adachi M, Watanabe S. Evaluation of combined deactivators-supplemented agar medium (CDSAM) for recovery of dermatophytes from patients with tinea pedis. Med Mycol. 2007;45:347–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Summerbell RC. Epidemiology and ecology of onychomycosis. Dermatology. 1997;194(Suppl 1):32–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Summerbell RC, Cooper E, Bunn U, Jamieson F, Gupta AK. Onychomycosis: a critical study of techniques and criteria for confirming the etiologic significance of nondermatophytes. Med Mycol. 2005;43:39–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaminski GW. The routine use of modified Borelli’s lactrimel agar (MBLA). Mycopathologia. 1985;91:57–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Summerbell RC, Rosenthal SA, Kane J. Rapid method for differentiation of Trichophyton rubrum, Trichophyton mentagrophytes, and related dermatophyte species. J Clin Microbiol. 1988;26:2279–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Pipkin JL. Tinea capitis in the adult and adolescent. AMA Arch Derm Syphilol. 1952;66:9–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Shadomy HJ, Philpot CM. Utilization of standard laboratory methods in the laboratory: diagnosis of problem dermatophytes. Am J Clin Pathol. 1980;74:197–201.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kane J, Fischer JB. The differentiation of Trichophyton rubrum and T. mentagrophytes by use of Christensen’s urea broth. Can J Microbiol. 1971;17:911–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Philpot CM. The differentiation of Trichophyton mentagrophytes from T. rubrum by a single urease test. Sabouraudia. 1967;5:189–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Weitzman I, Rosenthal S. Studies in the differentiation between Microsporum ferrugineum Ota and Trichophyton soudanense Joyeux. Mycopathologia. 1984;84:95–101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Ajello L, Georg L. In vitro hair cultures for differentiating between atypical isolates of Trichophyton mentagrophytes and Trichophyton rubrum. Mycopathol Mycol Appl. 1957;8:3–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. de Hoog GS, Guarro J, Gene J, Figueras MJ. Atlas of clinical fungi. 2nd ed. Utrecht/Reus: Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures /universitat Roviar i Virgili, 2002; 1126 pp.

  44. Padhye AA, Young CN, Ajello L. Hair perforation as a diagnostic criterion in the identification of Epidermophyton, Microsporum, and Trichophyton species. Pan Am Health Org Sci Publ. 1980;396:115–20.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Takahashi Y, Haritani K, Sano A, Takizawa K, Fukushima K, Miyaji M, Nishimura K. An isolate of Arthroderma benhamiae with Trichophyton mentagrophytes var. erinacei anamorph isolated from a four-toed hedgehog (Atelerix albiventris) in Japan. Nippon Ishinkin Gakkai Zasshi. 2002;43:249–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sequeira H, Cabrita J, De Vroey C, Wuytack-Raes C. Contribution to our knowledge of Trichophyton megninii. J Med Vet Mycol. 1991;29:417–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Georg LK, Camp LB. Routine nutritional tests for the identification of dermatophytes. J Bacteriol. 1957;74:113–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Stockdale PM. Nutritional requirements of dermatophytes. Biol Rev. 1953;28:84–104.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Rezusta A, Rubio MC, Alejandre MC. Differentiation between Trichophyton mentagrophytes and T. rubrum by sorbitol assimilation. J Clin Microbiol. 1991;29:219–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Philpot CM. The use of nutritional tests for the differentiation of dermatophytes. Sabouraudia. 1977;15:141–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Bastert J, Korting HC, Traenkle P, Schmalreck AF. Identification of dermatophytes by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Workshop FTIR spectroscopy in microbiological and medical diagnostic. Robert Koch-Institute, Berlin (Germany), October 15–16, 1998.

  52. Verscheure M, Gofflot S, Beguin H, Marlier M, Belot JL, Nolard N, Lognay G. Evaluation of volatile metabolites as a taxonomic tool for identification of dermatophytes. Mycoses. 2002;45(Suppl 2):67.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Uchida K, Tanaka T, Yamaguchi H. Achievement of complete mycological cure by topical antifungal agent NND–502 in guinea pig model of tinea pedis. Microbiol Immunol. 2003;47:143–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Svecova D. Experimental Trichophyton rubrum infection in animals. Epidemiol Mikrobiol Imunol. 2000;49:75–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Blanz P, Buzina W, Ginter G, Graser Y. Molecular biological methods and their consequences in taxonomy and diagnosis of dermatophytes. Mycoses. 2000;43(Suppl 1):11–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Machouart-Dubach M, Lacroix C, de Chauvin MF, Le Gall I, Giudicelli C, Lorenzo F, Derouin F. Rapid discrimination among dermatophytes, Scytalidium spp., and other fungi with a PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism ribotyping method. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:685–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Harmsen D, Schwinn A, Brocker EB, Frosch M. Molecular differentiation of dermatophyte fungi. Mycoses. 1999;42:67–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Savin C, Huck S, Rolland C, Benderdouche M, Faure O, Noacco G, Menotti J, Candolfi E, Pelloux H, Grillot R, Coupe S, Derouin F. Multicenter evaluation of a commercial PCR-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay diagnostic kit (Onychodiag) for diagnosis of dermatophytic onychomycosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:1205–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Li HC, Bouchara JP, Hsu MM, Barton R, Chang TC. Identification of dermatophytes by an oligonucleotide array. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:3160–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Faculté de Pharmacie, Groupe d’Etude des Interactions Hôte-Pathogène, UPRES-EA 3142, Université d’Angers, 16 boulevard Daviers, 49100, Angers, France

    Raymond Robert

  2. Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Groupe d’Etude des Interactions Hôte-Pathogène, UPRES-EA 3142, Université d’Angers, 4 rue Larrey, 49933, Angers Cedex 9, France

    Marc Pihet

Authors
  1. Raymond Robert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc Pihet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymond Robert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robert, R., Pihet, M. Conventional Methods for the Diagnosis of Dermatophytosis. Mycopathologia 166, 295–306 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11046-008-9106-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11046-008-9106-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation