TABLE 3.
Species distribution of 814 yeast strains isolates and comparison of molecular and initial identification results
| Organism | No. of isolates (% of all yeast isolates) | Molecular vs initial identification resultsa |
No. of blood/nonblood isolates | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % agreement | % of identification errorsb |
||||
| Major | Minor | ||||
| Candida species | 737 (90.5) | 84.3 | 12.2 | 3.5 | 322/415 |
| C. albicans | 282 (34.6) | 97.2 | 2.8 | 74/208 | |
| C. parapsilosis species complex | |||||
| C. parapsilosis sensu stricto | 143 (17.6) | 91.6 | 7 | 1.4 | 90/53 |
| C. metapsilosis | 22 (2.7) | 36.4 | 63.6 | 11/11 | |
| C. orthopsilosis | 4 (0.5) | 100 | 4/0 | ||
| L. elongisporus | 3 (0.4) | 100 | 2/1 | ||
| C. tropicalis | 123 (15.1) | 86.2 | 11.4 | 2.4 | 48/75 |
| C. glabrata species complex | |||||
| C. glabrata sensu stricto | 90 (11.1) | 86.7 | 12.2 | 1.1 | 50/40 |
| C. nivariensis | 2 (0.2) | 50 | 50 | 1/1 | |
| C. krusei | 18 (2.2) | 83.3 | 16.7 | 5/13 | |
| C. guilliermondii | 12 (1.5) | 41.7 | 50 | 8.3 | 8/4 |
| C. pelliculosa | 12 (1.5) | 25 | 75 | 8/4 | |
| C. lipolytica | 10 (1.2) | 100 | 9/1 | ||
| C. lustitaniae | 6 (0.7) | 83.3 | 16.7 | 4/2 | |
| C. quercitrusa | 3 (0.4) | 100 | 3/0 | ||
| C. catenulata | 2 (0.2) | 100 | 2/0 | ||
| C. fabianii | 1 (0.1) | 100 | 1/0 | ||
| C. famata | 1 (0.1) | 100 | 1/0 | ||
| C. haemulonii | 1 (0.1) | 100 | 1/0 | ||
| C. kefyr | 1 (0.1) | 100 | 0/1 | ||
| C. norvegensis | 1 (0.1) | 100 | 0/1 | ||
| C. neoformans | 63 (7.7) | 93.7 | 6.3 | 20/43 | |
| Other yeast species | 14 (1.7) | 57.1 | 35.7 | 7.1 | 7/7 |
| Geotrichum capitum | 2 (0.2) | 100 | 1/1 | ||
| Kodamaea ohmeri | 2 (0.2) | 100 | 1/1 | ||
| Meyerozyma caribbica | 1 (0.1) | 100 | 1/0 | ||
| Rhodotorula mucilaginosa | 1 (0.1) | 100 | 1/0 | ||
| Trichosporon asahii | 7 (0.9) | 85.7 | 14.3 | 3/4 | |
| Trichosporon dermatis | 1 (0.1) | 100 | 0/1 | ||
| Total | 814 (100) | 84.5 | 12.2 | 3.3 | 349/465 |
Initial identification was performed at each surveillance site by phenotypic and biochemical methods; molecular identification was performed by sequencing of the ITS region and/or D1/D2 domain of the 28S rRNA gene.
A minor error was defined as (i) correct identification of an isolate to the genus level but inability to identify it to the species level (e.g., C. catenulata identified as Candida spp. by phenotypic methods) or (ii) initial correct identification of an isolate to the species complex level but not to the species level (e.g., C. metapsilosis or C. orthopsilosis identified as C. parapsilosis complex and C. nivariensis as C. glabrata complex). A major error was defined as other disagreements between the initial identification and molecular identification.