Mycopathologia

, Volume 84, Issue 2–3, pp 95–101 | Cite as

Studies in the differentiation between Microsporum ferrugineum Ota and Trichophyton soudanense Joyeux

  • Irene Weitzman
  • Stanley Rosenthal

Abstract

A study, conducted with 20 isolates of Microsporum ferrugineum and 12 isolates of Trichophyton soudanense, revealed that some of the discrepancies in the literature regarding their characteristics and differentiation were due to methodology, strain variation and the use of an insufficient number of isolates. We found all isolates of T. soudanense to be urease negative and gelatinase positive (usually by the first week); to produce brown to black colonies on Lowenstein-Jensen medium; to rapidly decompose casein and more slowly tyrosine; to grow well or better at 37°C as compared to room temperature; to produce reflexive branching on cornmeal Tween agar and abundant microconidia on casero medium and to exhibit no sexual reaction with either mating type of Arthroderma simii. All but one isolate demonstrated restricted growth on lactose agar and only three isolates perforated hair.

In contrast, we found 18 of 20 isolates of M. ferrugineum to be urease positive in urea broth (most isolates were negative on urea agar); all produced light-colored colonies on Lowenstein-Jensen medium; spreading colonies on lactose agar and failed to perforate hair in vitro or to produce reflexive branching. Most isolates manifested poorer to no growth at 37°C compared to room temperature and all but one failed to decompose casein and tyrosine. A few strains produced macroconidia and/ or microconidia on casero medium and some reacted sexually with A. simii (a) or (−) mating type. Gelatin hydrolysis was variable.

We suggest the following key tests to differentiate M. ferrugineum from T. soudanense: urease activity in urea broth; colony color on Lowenstein-Jensen medium; growth on lactose agar; growth at 37° C compared to room temperature; presence of reflexive branching on cornmeal Tween agar.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ajello, L. & Georg, L. K., 1957. In vitro hair cultures for differentiating between atypical isolates of Trichophyton mentagrophytes and Trichophyton rubrum. Mycopath. Mycol. Appl. 8: 3–17.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borelli, D. & Feo, M., 1966. Diagnostico morfologico de Candida albicans con los terrenos casero y tritmel. Acta Medica Venezolana. Nov.–Dec.: 448–450.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell, M. C. & Stewart, J. L., 1980. The Medical Mycology Handbook. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gordon, R., 1955. Proposed group of characters for the separation of Streptomyces and Nocardia. J. Bacteriol. 69: 147–150.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hazen, E. L., Gordon, M. A. & Reed, F. C., 1970. Laboratory Identification of Pathogenic Fungi Simplified. Third ed., C. C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kane, J. & Fischer, J. B., 1971. The differentiation of Trichophyton rubrum and T. mentagrophytes by use of Christensen's urea broth. Can. J. Microbiol. 17: 911–913.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kane, J., Salkin, I. F., Weitzman, I. & Smitka, C., 1981. Trichophyton raubitschekii, Sp. Nov., Mycotaxon. 13: 259–266.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Padhye, A. A., Young, C. N. & Ajello, L., 1980. Hair perforation as a diagnostic criterion in the identification of Epidermophyton, Microsporum and Trichophyton species. Proc. P.A.H.O. Sci. Public No. 396, 1980.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Philpot, C. M., 1977. The use of nutritional tests for the differentiation of dermatophytes. Sabouraudia 15: 141–150.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rebell, G. & Taplin, D., 1970. Dermatophytes: Their recognition and identification. Univ. of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenthal, S. A. & Sokolsky, H., 1965. Enzymatic studies with pathogenic fungi. Dermatologia Internationalis 4: 72–79.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shadomy, H. J. & Philpot, C. M., 1980. Utilization of standard laboratory methods in the laboratory diagnosis of problem dermatophytes. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 74: 197–201.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stockdale, P. M., 1968. Sexual stimulation between Arthroderma simii Stockd., MacKenzie & Austwick and related species. Sabouraudia 6: 176–181.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takashio, M. & DeVroey, Ch., 1976. Reproduction sexuée de certain dermatophytes sur milieu à base de graines de niger (Guizotia abyssinica). Bull. Soc. Fr. Mycol. Med. 5: 141–144.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tavares, D., 1978. Utilizacao do ‘testa de urease’, na caracterizacao de fungos patogenicos para o homen. In: Reconhecimento Cientifico de Angola, pp. 233–245. Estudos de Geologia, de Paleontologia e de Micologia, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vanbreuseghem, R., 1968. Trichophyton soudanense in and outside Africa. Br. J. Dermatol. 80: 140–147.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vanbreuseghem, R. & Zaman, R., 1963. Contribution à l'identifcation du Trichophyton (Langeronia) soudanense et du Trichophyton ferrugineum. Ann. Soc. Belge Méd. Trop. 3: 259–270.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vanbreuseghem, R., DeVroey, C. & Takashio, M., 1970. Production of macroconidia by Microsporum ferrugineum. Sabouraudia 7: 252–256.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weitzman, I. & Silva-Hutner, M., 1967. Non-keratinous agar media as substrates for the ascigerous state in certain members of the gymnoascaceae pathogenic for man and animals. Sabouraudia 5: 335–340.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Weitzman
    • 1
  • Stanley Rosenthal
    • 2
  1. 1.City of New York, Department of Health Bureau of LaboratoriesNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.New York University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Mycology Laboratory University HospitalNYU Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations