Сomparison of the main methods of clinical and laboratory diagnostics of dermatophytosis
https://doi.org/10.32634/0869-8155-2022-360-6-33-36
Abstract
Relevance. A number of methods are used to diagnose dermatophytosis in the practice of doctors, but their effectiveness varies. The aim of the study was to compare different methods of clinical and laboratory diagnosis of dermatophytosis.
Methods. 54 clinical hair samples taken from small pets were examined for the presence of dermatophytes. Diagnostics was carried out using a Wood lamp, direct microscopy, fluorescent microscopy with calcofluor, and by sowing on nutrient environment — Saburo and DTM.
Results. When sowing, 16 dermatophytes were isolated from 54 wool samples. The efficiency of the “DTM-Expert” environment was 100%. 13 (81.3%) dermatophytes grew on the Saburo environment, of which 2 crops were heavily contaminated with mold fungi. In the study of wool with the help of Wood’s lamp, 62.5% (10 out of 16) ofpositive samples were detected. False positive —16.7% (9 out of 54). Using direct microscopy, dermatophytoses were confirmed only in 56.3% (9 out of 16) ofcases. False positive results — 7.4% (4 out of 54). Microscopy with calcofluor revealed the causative agent in 15 cases, which is 93.8%. At the same time, there were 5 (9.3%) false positive results.
About the Authors
V. A. Savinov
Russian Research Institute of Experimental Veterinary Medicine named after K.I. Scriabin and Ya.R. Kovalenko of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Savinov Vasily Alexandrovich, researcher of laboratory of mycology and antibiotics named after A. H. Sarkisov
Ryazansky prospect, 24, building 1, Moscow, 109428
R. S. Ovchinnikov
Russian Research Institute of Experimental Veterinary Medicine named after K.I. Scriabin and Ya.R. Kovalenko of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ovchinnikov Roman Sergeevich, PhD, leading Researcher of laboratory of mycology and antibiotics named after A. H. Sarkisov
Ryazansky prospect, 24, building 1, Moscow, 109428
A. I. Laishevtsev
Russian Research Institute of Experimental Veterinary Medicine named after K.I. Scriabin and Ya.R. Kovalenko of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Laishevtsev Alexey Ivanovich, PhD, head of the laboratory of microbiology
Ryazansky prospect, 24, building 1, Moscow, 109428
A. M. Gulyukin
Russian Research Institute of Experimental Veterinary Medicine named after K.I. Scriabin and Ya.R. Kovalenko of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Gulyukin Alexey Mikhailovich, PhD, director of Federal State Budget Scientific Institution "Federal Scientific Centre VIEV"
Ryazansky prospect, 24, building 1, Moscow, 109428
A. V. Kapustin
Russian Research Institute of Experimental Veterinary Medicine named after K.I. Scriabin and Ya.R. Kovalenko of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kapustin Andrey Vladimirovich, PhD, assistant Director
Ryazansky prospect, 24, building 1, Moscow, 109428
References
1. Savinov VA, Kapustin AV, Ovchinnikov RS, Shastin PN, Laishevtsev AI. Incidence and seasonal variation of pet dermatophytosis in Moscow region. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science – IOP Publishing. 2020;548(7): 072048.
2. Abdelrahman T, Bru VL, 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. Journal de mycologie médicale. 2006;16(2): 87-91.
3. Moriello K. Dermatophytosis in cats and dogs: a practical guide to diagnosis and treatment. In Practice. 2019;41(4): 138- 147.
4. Begum J, Mir NA, Lingaraju MC, Buyamayum B, Dev K. Recent advances in the diagnosis of dermatophytosis. Journal of basic microbiology. 2020;60(4): 293-303.
5. Piri F, Zarei Mahmoudabadi A, Ronagh A, Ahmadi B, Makimura K, Rezaei‐Matehkolaei A. Assessment of a pan‐ dermatophyte nested‐PCR compared with conventional methods for direct detection and identification of dermatophytosis agents in animals. Mycoses. 2018;61(11): 837-844.
6. Dąbrowska I, Dworecka-Kaszak B, Brillowska-Dąbrowska A. The use of a one-step PCR method for the identification of Microsporum canis and Trichophyton mentagrophytes infection of pets. Acta Biochimica Polonica. 2014;61(2): 375-8.
7. Moriello KA. Diagnostic techniques for dermatophytosis. Clinical Techniques In Small Animal Practice. 2001;16(4): 219-24.
8. Taplin D, Zaias N, Rebell G, Blank H. Isolation and recognition of dermatophytes on a new medium (DTM). Archives Of Dermatology. 1969;99(2): 203-9.
9. Kaufmann R, Blum SE, Elad D, Zur G. Comparison between pointéofécare dermatophyte test medium and mycology laboratory culture for diagnosis of dermatophytosis in dogs and cats. Veterinary Dermatology. 2016;27(4): 284-e68.
10. Singh S, Beena PM. Comparative study of different microscopic techniques and culture media for the isolation of dermatophytes. Indian J. Med. Microbiol. 2003;21: 21–4.
11. Gnat S, Łagowski D, Nowakiewicz A, Dyląg M. A global view on fungal infections in humans and animals: opportunistic infections and microsporidioses. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2021;131(5): 2095-2113.
12. Pihet M, Le Govic Y. Reappraisal of conventional diagnosis for dermatophytes. Mycopathologia. 2017;182(1-2): 169-80
Review
For citations:
Savinov V.A., Ovchinnikov R.S., Laishevtsev A.I., Gulyukin A.M., Kapustin A.V. Сomparison of the main methods of clinical and laboratory diagnostics of dermatophytosis. Agrarian science. 2022;(6):33-36. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32634/0869-8155-2022-360-6-33-36
Views:
370
Email this article 