Five laboratory procedures: 1) immunodiffusion, 2) immunofluorescence, 3) in vitro hair perforation, 4) pigment stimulation, and 5) a urease test were compared for their ability to differentiateT. rubrum fromT. mentagrophytes. Of the physiological tests, thein vitro hair perforation technique was the most reliable for differentiating the two species. With the serological tests, the organisms were not differentiated by immunodiffusion, but if appropriate dilutions of the conjugates were used in immunofluorescence testing, most isolates could be differentiated.
Perforation Serological Test Laboratory Procedure Physiological Test Trichophyton Rubrum
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Ajello, L. & L. K. Georg (1957) In vitro hair cultures for differentiating between atypical isolates of Trichophyton mentagrophytes and Trichophyton rubrum. Mycopath. Mycol. Appl. 8: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajello, L., L. K. Georg, W. Kaplan & L. Kaufman (1966) Laboratory Manual for Medical Mycology. U.S. Dept. HEW.Google Scholar
Bocobo, F. C. & R. W. Benham (1949) Pigment production in the differentiation of Trichophyton mentagrophytes and Trichophyton rubrum. Mycologia 41: 291–302.Google Scholar
Coons, A. H. & M. H. Kaplan (1950) Localization of antigen in tissue cells. II. Improvements in a method for the detection of antigen by means of fluorescent antibody. J. Exper. Med. 91: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, J. E. & M. E. Landay (1963) Differentiation of Trichophyton rubrum from Trichophyton mentagrophytes. Mycopath. Mycol. Appl. 20: 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, M. (1957) Staining Toxoplasma gondii with fluorescein-labeled antibody. II A new serologic test for antibodies to Toxoplasma based upon inhibition of specific staining. J. Exper. Med. 105: 557–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, W. & M. S. Ivens (1960) Fluorescent antibody staining of Sporotrichum schenckii in cultures and clinical materials. J. Invest. Dermat. 35: (3) 151–159.Google Scholar
Landay, M. E. (1961) A morphological, physiological, and serological study of Trichophyton rubrum and Trichophyton mentagrophytes. M. S. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.Google Scholar
Landay, M. E., R. W. Wheat, N. F. Conant & E. P. Lowe (1967) Serological comparison of the three morphological phases of Coccidioides immitis by the agar gel diffusion method. J. Bact. 93: 1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Miura, T. & T. Kasai (1967) Immunofluorescent studies on Trichophyton asteroides compared with Trichophyton interdigitale. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 93: 49–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Philpot, C. (1967) The differentiation of Trichophyton mentagrophytes from T. rubrum by a simple urease test. Sabouraudia 5 (3): 189–193.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Pinetti, P. & A. Lostia (1966) L'infezione dermatofitica del pelo in vitro. Rassegua Medica Sarda Ed. Collana di Monografie N. 13.Google Scholar
Richards, O. W. & P. A. Waters (1967) A new interference exciter filter for fluorescence microscopy of fluorescein tagged substances. Stain. Tech. 42: 320–321.Google Scholar