, Volume 176, Issue 3–4, pp 237–241 | Cite as

Comparison of Dermatophyte PCR Kit with Conventional Methods for Detection of Dermatophytes in Skin Specimens

  • Nahid KondoriEmail author
  • Parisa Afshari Tehrani
  • Louise Strömbeck
  • Jan Faergemann


The laboratory diagnosis of dermatophytosis is usually based on direct microscopic examination and culturing of clinical specimens. A commercial polymerase chain reaction kit (Dermatophyte PCR) has had favorable results when used for detection of dermatophytes and identification of Trichophyton rubrum in nail specimens. This study investigated the efficacy of the Dermatophyte PCR kit for detecting dermatophytosis in 191 hair or skin specimens from patients with suspected dermatophytosis. PCR was positive for 37 % of samples, whereas 31 and 39 % of the specimens were positive by culturing and direct microscopy, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for PCR analysis were 83, 84, 71, and 91 %, respectively. The sensitivity of the PCR test was higher in specimens obtained from skin (88 %) than in those obtained from hair (58 %), while the specificity remained almost the same (84 and 86 % for skin and hair, respectively). Our results show that the Dermatophyte PCR kit is a promising diagnostic tool for detection of dermatophytosis in skin samples, providing clinicians with a rapid diagnosis.


Dermatophyte PCR Dermatophytosis Skin Fungal infection 


  1. 1.
    Weitzman I, Summerbell RC. The dermatophytes. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1995;8:240–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borman AM, Campbell CK, Fraser M, Johnson EM. Analysis of the dermatophyte species isolated in the British Isles between 1980 and 2005 and review of worldwide dermatophyte trends over the last three decades. Med Mycol. 2007;45:131–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garg J, Tilak R, Garg A, Prakash P, Gulati AK, Nath G. Rapid detection of dermatophytes from skin and hair. BMC Res Notes. 2009;2:60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wisselink GJ, van Zanten E, Kooistra-Smid AM. Trapped in keratin; a comparison of dermatophyte detection in nail, skin and hair samples directly from clinical samples using culture and real-time PCR. J Microbiol Methods. 2011;85:62–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brillowska-Dabrowska A, Saunte DM, Arendrup MC. DNA preparation from nail samples. Denmark, Patent WO2006133701. 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brillowska-Dabrowska A, Saunte DM, Arendrup MC. Five-hour diagnosis of dermatophyte nail infections with specific detection of Trichophyton rubrum. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:1200–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kondori N, Abrahamsson AL, Ataollahy N, Wenneras C. Comparison of a new commercial test, Dermatophyte-PCR kit, with conventional methods for rapid detection and identification of Trichophyton rubrum in nail specimens. Med Mycol. 2010;48:1005–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nahid Kondori
    • 1
    Email author
  • Parisa Afshari Tehrani
    • 1
  • Louise Strömbeck
    • 2
  • Jan Faergemann
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Infectious DiseaseUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Dermatology and VenereologySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations