TABLE 1.
Comparison of rep-PCR and conventional test analyses for isolates in phase 1 with initially discrepant rep-PCR and conventional test results
| Specimen no. | Result with:
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional testing
|
Rep-PCRb
|
|||
| Initial | Repeat | Initial | Repeat | |
| 10 | T. mentagrophytes | T. rubrum | T. rubrum | T. rubrum |
| 30 | T. mentagrophytes | T. tonsurans | T. tonsurans | T. tonsurans |
| 58 | M. gypseum | E. floccosum | E. floccosum | E. floccosum |
| 56a | M. gypseum | M. gypseum | No ID | No ID |
a
Sample 56 appears to be a M. gypseum with a fingerprint pattern that is different from the other 2 M. gypseum samples tested.
b
No ID, isolate could not be identified.