Candida and Torulopsis: A blinded evaluation of use of pseudohypha formation as basis for identification of medically important yeasts

F. C. Odds, M. G. Rinaldi, Jr Cooper, A. Fothergill, L. Pasarell, M. R. McGinnis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Scopus citations

Abstract

Seventy yeast isolates representing species in the genera Candida and Torulopsis but excluding Candida albicans were examined in three laboratories for production of pseudohyphae in Dalmau cultures. The microscopic morphology of the isolates was scrutinized by four individuals experienced in yeast identification and three inexperienced persons, all of whom were blinded as to the putative identification of the yeasts. For 49 (70%) of the 70 isolates, the seven observers recorded comparable scores for morphology, but 5 (7%) of the isolates showed extreme variation in recorded morphologies, from true hyphae formed to no pseudohyphae formed. Isolates of Candida parapsilosis and Torulopsis glabrata consistently did and did not form pseudohyphae, respectively: however, other Candida and Torulopsis spp. did not always express their expected morphologies. In 48 (19%) of 252 readings (seven observers), 36 isolates of Candida spp. were scored as forming no pseudohyphae, and in 22 (9.2%) of 238 readings, 34 isolates of Torulopsis spp. were recorded as forming true hyphae or pseudohyphae. These results show that pseudohypha formation is not a reliable characteristic for identification of yeasts at the genus level; we suggest that the merger of Torulopsis spp. into the genus Candida should be finally accepted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)313-316
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of clinical microbiology
Volume35
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1997

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Microbiology (medical)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Candida and Torulopsis: A blinded evaluation of use of pseudohypha formation as basis for identification of medically important yeasts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this