Skip to main content
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 2016 Sep 23;54(10):2491–2497. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01170-16

Schizophyllum radiatum, an Emerging Fungus from Human Respiratory Tract

J P Z Siqueira a,b, D Sutton c, J Gené a,, D García a, M Guevara-Suarez a, C Decock d, N Wiederhold c, J Guarro a
Editor: D W Warnocke
PMCID: PMC5035413  PMID: 27440814

Abstract

Schizophyllum is an important genus of basidiomycetes that, apart from being of genetic and biotechnological interest, is also reported to be a plant and animal pathogen. Schizophyllum commune is the best-known species and the only one reported from clinical specimens thus far, being recovered mainly from the respiratory tract. The aim of this study was to determine the species diversity of 23 clinical isolates of Schizophyllum from the United States using multilocus phylogenetic analysis and their in vitro susceptibilities to six drugs. The markers used for sequencing were the internal transcribed spacer (ITS), a portion of the nuclear large subunit (LSU) of ribosomal DNA, the RNA polymerase II second-largest subunit (RPB2), and the translation elongation factor 1α (EF-1α) gene. The analyses revealed that 22 of the clinical isolates were in the Schizophyllum radiatum clade with high support values and 1 isolate was in the S. commune clade. This is the first report of this species in clinical samples. The two species mentioned above showed very similar morphological features in culture (i.e., white, cottony, unsporulated colonies composed of hyphae with clamp connections), making morphological discrimination between the two impossible. An epitype is designed for S. radiatum, and its sequences have been deposited in GenBank. The antifungal that showed the greatest in vitro activity against the strains tested was shown to be amphotericin B. In general, the strains of S. radiatum showed higher MICs than S. commune.

INTRODUCTION

Schizophyllum (Schizophyllaceae, Agaricales) comprises one of the most commonly found mushrooms on the planet (1). The most common species of the genus is Schizophyllum commune, a ubiquitous fungus well-known as a wood decay organism able to cause white rot (1, 2) but also by its biotechnological applications (3). It has been used as an ethanol producer (4), and some of its metabolites have anticancer (5) and antimicrobial (6, 7) properties. It also has been studied for many years as a model for understanding mating interactions (8, 9). In recent years, S. commune has become clinically relevant as an etiological agent of respiratory infections in humans (1015). However, it has been reported to be an etiological agent of other types of infections and conditions, such as a brain abscess (16, 17), meningitis (18), an eye infection (19), palate ulceration (20), and onychomycosis (21). Infections have also been reported in other mammals (2224) and in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent individuals (25, 26).

The most effective treatment options for infections by S. commune are yet to be determined, although various treatment modalities have been used (14, 2529). Most susceptibility patterns for these fungi are restricted to individual cases; however, studies by Gonzalez et al. (30) and Chowdhary et al. (31) with 5 and 26 strains, respectively, indicated that amphotericin B (AMB), itraconazole (ITC), and voriconazole (VRC) had good in vitro activity against the isolates tested, while elevated MICs were observed for flucytosine and fluconazole.

The identification of S. commune and other filamentous basidiomycetes from clinical specimens is often problematic. Key morphological features necessary for the recognition of these fungi are the presence of clamp connections on hyphae and the development of fruiting bodies (32). However, many clinical isolates of S. commune do not form such structures and in culture only show colonies with white cottony surfaces, a high growth rate, and droplets of exudate (33), which are clearly not distinctive for either species or genus recognition. Schizophyllum includes nearly 20 species (http://www.mycobank.org). However, ex-type strains for many of those species do not exist; only a limited number of strains for a few species identified by specialists (i.e., S. commune, S. fasciatum, S. radiatum, and S. umbrinum) have been deposited into different public culture collections. In addition, some species, such as S. commune and S. radiatum, have long been considered conspecific due to their morphological similarity (2). Recently, molecular methods have more successfully discriminated between various basidiomycetous molds (13, 33, 34). Singh et al. (34) proposed sequencing the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) and D1/D2 regions for the identification of basidiomycetes. However, when the sequences of these two regions are submitted to the GenBank database for comparison, there is a low level of discrimination mainly due to the lack of reliable sequences, therefore making a conclusive identification impossible (35). Although it is well-known that databases may contain poor-quality sequences, the discordant results may also be related to the deposition of misidentified strains. Therefore, the occurrence of S. commune may have been overestimated and other species may in fact have been involved in both human and animal infections. Hence, the real distribution of the species of this genus in clinical samples is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the spectrum of Schizophyllum spp. in a set of clinical isolates from the United States by comparing representative reference strains of different Schizophyllum species and using a multilocus phylogenetic analysis to clarify their taxonomy. Additionally, the in vitro antifungal susceptibilities of the fungi investigated to six antifungal agents were evaluated to determine if the susceptibility profiles of the U.S. strains differ from those of strains isolated from other parts of the world.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fungal isolates.

A total of 33 Schizophyllum strains were included in this study; 23 of these were clinical isolates recovered from across the United States and received in the Fungus Testing Laboratory at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA) for identification, antifungal susceptibility testing, or both. The U.S. isolates were of human (n = 21) and animal (n = 2) origin and were mainly recovered from the respiratory tract (n = 19, 82.6%), i.e., sinuses (43.5%), bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (26.1%), sputum (8.7%), and lung (4.3%). Additionally, one isolate was from a lymph node, another isolate was from a spinal mass, and two other isolates were of unknown origin. The remaining 10 isolates were obtained from different international culture collections as reference strains for comparison (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Origins and GenBank accession numbers of the sequences of Schizophyllum strains included in this studya

Species (no. isolates) Strain Origin GenBank accession no.
ITS LSU EF-1α RPB2
S. commune (8) CBS 132304 Human, India LT217530 LT217561 LT217595 LT217629
CBS 476.64 Unknown, USA LT217531 LT217562 LT217596 LT217630
FMR 14713 Sputum, India LT217532 LT217563 LT217597 LT217631
MUCL 20578 Fagus sylvatica, Belgium LT217564 LT217598 LT217632
MUCL 29305 Human, Brazil LT217533 LT217565 LT217599 LT217633
MUCL 30748 Saccharum officinarum, Africa LT217534 LT217566 LT217600 LT217634
MUCL 31016 Hay, Belgium LT217535 LT217567 LT217601 LT217635
UTHSCSA DI14-5 Sinus-nasal cavity, USA LT217536 LT217568 LT217602 LT217636
S. radiatum (23) CBS 301.32 Unknown, Panama LT217537 LT217569 LT217603 LT217637
UTHSCSA DI14-1 Unknown, USA LT217539 LT217571 LT217605 LT217639
UTHSCSA DI14-2 Lymph node,b USA LT217540 LT217572 LT217606 LT217640
UTHSCSA DI14-3 Lung,b USA LT217541 LT217573 LT217607 LT217641
UTHSCSA DI14-4 BAL, USA LT217574 LT217608 LT217642
UTHSCSA DI14-6 Sputum, USA LT217542 LT217575 LT217609 LT217643
UTHSCSA DI14-7 Maxillary sinus, USA LT217576 LT217610 LT217644
UTHSCSA DI14-8 BAL, USA LT217543 LT217577 LT217611 LT217645
UTHSCSA DI14-9 Sinus-nasal cavity, USA LT217544 LT217578 LT217612 LT217646
UTHSCSA DI14-10 BAL, USA LT217545 LT217579 LT217613 LT217647
UTHSCSA DI14-11 Sinus-nasal cavity, USA LT217546 LT217580 LT217614 LT217648
UTHSCSA DI14-12 Sphenoid sinus, USA LT217547 LT217581 LT217615 LT217649
UTHSCSA DI14-13 Spinal mass, USA LT217548 LT217582 LT217616 LT217650
UTHSCSA DI14-14 Sphenoid sinus, USA LT217549 LT217583 LT217617 LT217651
UTHSCSA DI14-15 BAL, USA LT217550 LT217584 LT217618 LT217652
UTHSCSA DI14-16 BAL, USA LT217551 LT217585 LT217619 LT217653
UTHSCSA DI14-17 Sputum, USA LT217552 LT217586 LT217620 LT217654
UTHSCSA DI14-18 Abscess, USA LT217553 LT217587 LT217621 LT217655
UTHSCSA DI14-19 BAL, USA LT217554 LT217588 LT217622 LT217656
UTHSCSA DI14-20 Maxillary sinus LT217555 LT217589 LT217623 LT217657
UTHSCSA DI14-22 Sinus-nasal cavity, USA LT217556 LT217590 LT217624 LT217658
UTHSCSA DI14-23 Ethmoid sinus, USA LT217557 LT217591 LT217625 LT217659
UTHSCSA DI14-26 Maxillary sinus, USA LT217558 LT217592 LT217626 LT217660
S. fasciatum CBS 267.60 Unknown, USA LT217559 LT217593 LT217627 LT217661
S. umbrinum MUCL 43017 Unknown, USA LT217560 LT217594 LT217628 LT217662
a

BAL, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid specimen; CBS, CBS Fungal Biodiversity Centre (The Netherlands); FMR, Facultat de Medicina de Reus (Spain); MUCL, Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium); UTHSCSA, University of Texas Health Science Center (San Antonio, TX, USA); ITS, internal transcribed spacer regions of the rDNA and 5.8S regions; LSU, partial large subunit of the rDNA; EF-1α, partial translation elongation factor gene; RPB2, partial RNA polymerase II second largest subunit.

b

Animal origin.

DNA extraction, amplification, and sequencing.

Total genomic DNA was extracted from potato dextrose agar (PDA; Pronadisa, Madrid, Spain) cultures after 7 days of incubation at 25°C using a FastDNA kit and a FastPrep instrument (MP Biomedicals, Irvine, CA, USA), according to the manufacturer's specifications. Four DNA targets were amplified using the following primer pairs: ITS4 and ITS5 for internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS1), the 5.8S gene, and the ITS2 regions (36); LR0R and LR5 for a portion of the large subunit (LSU) gene of ribosomal DNA (rDNA) (37); EF-983F and EF-2218R for the translation elongation factor 1α (EF-1α) gene (38); and 5F and 7CR for the RNA polymerase II second-largest subunit (RPB2) gene (39). PCR products were sequenced in both directions, using the same primers, at Macrogen Europe (Macrogen Inc., Amsterdam, The Netherlands). The sequences were assembled and edited using the Sequencher (v.4.1.4) program (Gene Codes Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI, USA).

Molecular identification and phylogenetic analyses.

The phylogenetic analyses were carried out first individually for each gene, and after the topologies proved to be congruent, a concatenated study was performed. All sequences used for the analyses were obtained from the strains included in this study. For multiple-sequence alignment, the ClustalW tool was used together with the MUSCLE tool in MEGA (v.6) software (40) with manual adjustments. The maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic method, as well as the estimation of the best nucleotide substitution method, was also run with MEGA (v.6) software. Support of the internal branches was assessed by the bootstrap (bs) method with 1,000 replications, where values of ≥70 were considered significant. The Bayesian inference (BI) method was performed using MrBayes (v.3.1.2) software (41). The evolutionary models that best fit each gene were assessed by MrModelTest (v.2) software (42). Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling was performed with two simultaneous runs for 3 million generations, with samples taken every 100 generations. The 50% majority rule consensus trees and posterior probability (pp) values were calculated after removing the first 25% of the resulting trees for burn-in. A pp value of ≥0.95 was considered in the tree.

Antifungal susceptibility testing.

The in vitro susceptibility profiles of the isolates were determined by the CLSI M38-A2 method with a few modifications (43). The modifications included working inocula, obtained from colonies on PDA with 7 to 10 days of incubation at 30°C, of 2.5 × 104 to 5.0 × 104 hyphal fragments/ml, and the microplates were incubated at 35°C for 72 h. The six antifungal agents tested were amphotericin B (AMB; Sigma-Aldrich Quimica S.A., Madrid, Spain), itraconazole (ITC; Jansen Pharmaceuticals, Beerse, Belgium), posaconazole (PSC; Schering-Plough Research Institute, NJ, USA), voriconazole (VRC; Pfizer S.A., Madrid, Spain), caspofungin (CFG; Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, USA), and terbinafine (TBF; Sigma-Aldrich Química S.A., Madrid, Spain). The MIC was defined as the lowest drug concentration that produced 100% inhibition of visible fungal growth for AMB and the azoles (ITC, PSC, and VRC) or 80% inhibition for TBF. The minimum effective concentration (MEC) was determined for CFG and was defined microscopically to be the lowest concentration of drug that led to the growth of small, rounded, compact hyphal forms rather than the long, unbranched hyphal clusters that were seen in the growth control. Two quality control strains (Candida parapsilosis ATCC 22019 and Candida krusei ATCC 6258) were used in each test, and their MIC ranges were within the CLSI reference ranges. All tests were carried out in duplicate on different days for determination of reproducibility. Results were statistically analyzed using Prism software for Windows (v.6.0; GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA).

Accession numbers.

The sequences newly generated in this study were deposited in GenBank under the accession numbers shown in Table 1.

RESULTS

The phylogenetic analyses of the individual markers proved that the rDNA regions tested (ITS and LSU) were much conserved and did not discriminate well between the closely related species S. commune and S. radiatum. The LSU, EF-1α, and RPB2 markers showed consistency and were used to perform a concatenated study. The ITS region was not included in the combined alignment because, apart from not being informative for differentiating between the above-mentioned species, some strains were difficult to amplify and sequence. For example, the ITS sequence could not be obtained for MUCL 20578, UTHSCSA DI14-4, and UTHSCSA DI14-7 (Table 1).

The concatenated sequence alignment consisted of 2,622 bp (LSU, 838 bp; EF-1α, 971 bp; RPB2, 813 bp), from which 539 bp were variable sites (LSU, 30 bp; EF-1α, 248 bp; RPB2, 261 bp) and 282 bp were parsimony informative (LSU, 2 bp; EF-1α, 116 bp; RPB2, 164 bp). The topologies of the trees obtained with ML and BI analyses were basically the same, with only minor differences in the support values of internal nodes being observed. Figure 1 shows the phylogenetic tree constructed using the LSU, EF-1α, and RPB2 markers. Two main clades were observed in the phylogenetic tree. One clade included the strains of S. commune (i.e., 7 reference strains and 1 clinical isolate), and the other clade included the only reference strain of S. radiatum (CBS 301.32) used in the study together with the 22 remaining clinical isolates. Both clades showed high support values (values of bs/pp of 99/1 and 100/0.87, respectively). The reference strains of S. umbrinum and S. fasciatum acted as outgroups since the genetic distance to the clades of S. radiatum and S. commune were elevated (about 11.5% for S. umbrinum and about 9% for S. fasciatum for the LSU, EF-1α, and RPB2 markers). The average genetic distance between the clades of S. radiatum and S. commune was 4.0%, and the differences within the clades were 1.8% and 2.7% for S. radiatum and S. commune, respectively.

FIG 1.

FIG 1

Maximum likelihood tree obtained from the combined LSU, EF-1α, and RPB2 sequences of the isolates. Branch lengths are proportional to the phylogenetic distance. Bootstrap support values/Bayesian posterior probability scores over 70/0.95 are indicated on the nodes. The fully supported branches (bootstrap support value/Bayesian posterior probability score, 100/1) and reference strains are shown in bold. CBS, CBS Fungal Biodiversity Centre (The Netherlands); FMR, Facultat de Medicina de Reus (Spain); MUCL, Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium); UTHSCSA, University of Texas Health Science Center (San Antonio, TX, USA).

In general, all the drugs tested showed activity against the Schizophyllum isolates studied. However, the antifungal with the greatest potency was AMB, followed by CFG and TBF (geometric mean [GM] MICs, 0.29 μg/ml, 0.58 μg/ml, and 0.79 μg/ml, respectively), while the least effective agents were ITC and PSC (GM MICs, 1.67 μg/ml and 2.93 μg/ml, respectively). Significant variation in in vitro activity was noted among the strains, especially for TBF, with MIC values ranging from 0.03 to 16.0 μg/ml. The drug displaying the most consistent results was CFG, with MEC values ranging from 0.25 to 1.0 μg/ml. Schizophyllum radiatum showed clearly higher GM MICs for all the antifungals tested than S. commune, especially for ITC and PSC. The results of the in vitro susceptibility test are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Results of in vitro antifungal susceptibility test for 31 isolates of Schizophyllum spp.

Species (no. isolates) Parameter MIC or MEC (μg/ml) fora:
AMB CFG ITC PSC TBF VRC
S. commune (8) GM 0.09 0.41 0.37 0.20 0.61 0.20
MIC range 0.03–0.25 0.25–1.0 0.25–1.0 0.12–0.5 0.12–>16 0.12–0.5
Mode 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
S. radiatum (23) GM 0.43 0.66 2.82 7.46 0.86 1.72
MIC range 0.06–2.0 0.25–1.0 0.12–>16.0 0.25–>16.0 0.03–>16.0 0.06–>16.0
Mode 0.5 1.0 >16.0 >16.0 0.5 >16.0
MIC90 2.0 1.0 >16.0 >16.0 >16.0 >16.0
Total (31) GM 0.29 0.58 1.67 2.93 0.79 0.99
MIC range 0.03–2.0 0.25–1.0 0.12–>16.0 0.12–>16.0 0.03–>16.0 0.06–>16.0
Mode 0.5 1.0 0.25 >16.0 0.25 0.12
MIC90 2.0 1.0 >16.0 >16.0 >16.0 >16.0
a

AMB, amphotericin B; CFG, caspofungin; ITC, itraconazole; PSC, posaconazole; TBF, terbinafine; VRC, voriconazole; MEC, minimum effective concentration, which is provided instead of the MIC for CFG; GM, geometric mean.

Taxonomy.

Schizophyllum was described by Fries in 1815 (44) with S. commune as the type species. The same author transferred the morphologically similar species Agaricus radiatum to Schizophyllum (45), which was accepted by Linder in 1933 (46). In contrast, Cooke in 1961 considered both to be varieties of the same species and treated S. radiatum as a synonym of S. commune (2). However, in the absence of modern taxonomic studies on this genus, due mainly to the lack of ex-type strains, the Index Fungorum (http://www.indexfungorum.org) and MycoBank (http://www.mycobank.org) databases list the species as different taxa.

According to our phylogenetic analysis, the clade formed by the confirmed strain of S. radiatum and most of the clinical isolates from the United States constitutes a well-supported monophyletic lineage with enough genetic differences to be considered a species distinct from S. commune, which forms a sister clade. For the purpose of taxonomic stability of the name S. radiatum and based on the current recommendations (47, 48), we selected strain CBS 301.32 as the epitype (CBS H-22699, MBT372269) for this species. This strain was collected in the same region as the type strain (Panama and Jamaica, respectively) and was identified by Linder (46) on the basis of the original description provided by Fries (45). Among numerous specimens, Linder examined the authentic material of S. radiatum, which is deposited in the Farlow Herbarium at Harvard University (46). Sequence data from the ex-epitype may be useful for future phylogenetic studies of Schizophyllum species, especially for the identification of nonsporulating isolates of S. radiatum involved in human infections, and to determine whether this species is also predominant among the Schizophyllum species in other parts of the world.

Our results also show that S. commune represents a species complex, which was already mentioned by Linder (46), since the genetic variation within the clade ranged from 0.9% (between MUCL 20578 and UTHSCSA DI14-5) to 3.5% (between MUCL 31016 and FMR 14713), with a mean variation of 2.7%. Nonetheless, further studies are needed to solve the taxonomic differentiation within the S. commune clade.

DISCUSSION

Schizophyllum is a very common and cosmopolitan genus of basidiomycetes that has been associated with human infections for over 60 years (11, 21). The most recent reviews of infections by S. commune were by Buzina et al. (33), who reported 16 published cases, and Chowdhary et al. (13), who reported 71 cases. More recently, 15 additional cases have been reported (14, 15, 17, 19, 4959). Here, we studied 23 isolates of Schizophyllum from different clinical specimens, and although histopathological evidence for the corresponding infections is not available, this number of isolates from a single country reinforces the growing importance of Schizophyllum in the clinical setting. The different clinical manifestations highlight the versatility of this pathogen (13); however, the pulmonary and respiratory sites appear to be the most common sites of recovery. In Colombia, S. commune was the second most common agent of fungal rhinosinusitis, following Aspergillus (60). In our study, 43.5% of the strains were isolated from sinuses, and a total of 82.6% of strains were from patients with respiratory conditions. Interestingly, in a study on the distribution and seasonal diversity of pathogenic fungi in outdoor air in the northeastern United States, which used quantitative real-time PCR plus pyrosequencing, S. commune was the most abundant species, particularly in spring (61). However, the identification of S. commune exclusively in all those studies should be taken with caution due to the lack of phylogenic studies that have clarified the taxonomy of closely related species in Schizophyllum, such as S. commune and S. radiatum.

Although in nature these fungi mainly adopt the form of a gilled mushroom (62), when they are isolated from clinical specimens and growing in culture, Schizophyllum strains often remain sterile (63). This precludes their morphological identification. In routine laboratories, the induction of sporulation usually requires about 3 weeks and is associated with high failure rates (34). Therefore, molecular methods, such as DNA sequence analysis, are required for accurate identification of this kind of fungus that fails to sporulate (13). The most commonly sequenced markers in Schizophyllum are the ITS and D1/D2 regions of the LSU (13, 33, 34). However, Schizophyllum has a highly conserved ITS region, which is often difficult to amplify and to sequence. Singh et al. (34) reported this difficulty, being unable to amplify 3 of 27 strains that they identified as S. commune. Although the LSU region is more informative, in general, its resolution is only at the genus level. In addition, Romanelli et al. (35) demonstrated, with filamentous basidiomycetes that included Schizophyllum, that a comparison with sequences in the GenBank database can cause disagreement between results when both the ITS and LSU regions of the same strain are searched; of the 15 Schizophyllum strains (9 S. commune and 6 S. radiatum strains) identified by ITS sequencing, only 1 strain of S. radiatum agreed with the identification by use of the LSU region. Moreover, two strains identified as belonging to Phlebia by use of the ITS were identified to be Schizophyllum spp. by use of the LSU region. The inconsistency of results made it impossible to assign a conclusive identification to over 70% of the isolates included in that study (35). It would seem clear, then, that other, more appropriate markers need to be adopted for reliable species identification. In the present study, the use of three markers combined (LSU, EF-1α, and RPB2) provided enough phylogenetic information for this purpose. We were able to demonstrate that more than one species may be involved in Schizophyllum infections, and, contrary to general belief, S. radiatum was shown to be, almost exclusively, the species identified from clinical isolates of a U.S. reference center. In addition, this study provides a set of 33 strains (4 species) of Schizophyllum spp. for future comparison.

The optimum management of infections by S. commune has not yet been determined (14, 31, 34). However, treatment with antifungal drugs has given encouraging results. AMB is reported to be the most potent in vitro against S. commune, and other antifungal drugs have also shown good activity (14, 16, 31, 64). It is worth mentioning, however, that at least one patient with allergic bronchopulmonary infection treated with ITC for 10 months showed no clinical improvement (65, 66). In fact, a correlation between in vitro data and clinical efficacy has not been well established (54). In agreement with the findings of other studies (30, 31), AMB showed the highest in vitro potency against most Schizophyllum isolates tested. The strains of S. commune tested here had low MICs for PSC and VRC (0.20 μg/ml for both), similar to previous reports (30, 31). For S. radiatum, our results revealed high degrees of variability in the activities of the agents tested among strains, especially for the azoles and for TBF (Table 2). In the case of PSC, MIC values of S. radiatum were significantly higher than those of S. commune (GM MICs, 7.46 μg/ml and 0.20 μg/ml, respectively; P < 0.0001) when they were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. For ITC and VRC, the differences were not statistically significant, even though the MICs of S. radiatum were apparently higher than those of S. commune (GM MICs, 2.82 μg/ml and 0.37 μg/ml, respectively, for ITC, and 1.72 μg/ml and 0.20 μg/ml, respectively, for VRC). For the echinocandin tested, CSP, in general, low MECs were observed (range, 0.25 to 1.0 μg/ml), contrary to the findings of Singh et al. (34), who reported high values (range, 2 to 8 μg/ml) of the same drug for S. commune. Considering that echinocandins have been reported to be ineffective against clinically relevant basidiomycetes (67, 68), our discrepant results might be due to variations in the methods used (variations in incubation times, methods of preparation of the inoculum with hyphal fragments, etc.). Since there is no standardized method for antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous basidiomycetes and nonsporulating fungi (68), studies often modify the CLSI protocol (31, 34) in an attempt to obtain reproducible results, as in our case. Therefore, before standardization of these protocols, interlaboratory results cannot be properly compared.

In conclusion, the importance of Schizophyllum in the clinical setting has been demonstrated by the number of reported cases and strains isolated. The present study with a collection of isolates from the United States has shown that S. radiatum, rather than S. commune, is the most frequently recovered species and provides informative targets for molecular discrimination between the two species.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, grant CGL2013-43789-P, and by CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brazil), grant BEX 0623/14-8.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Schmidt O, Liese W. 1980. Variability of wood degrading enzymes of Schizophyllum commune. Holzforschung 34:67–72. doi: 10.1515/hfsg.1980.34.2.67. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cooke WB. 1961. The genus Schizophyllum. Mycologia 53:575–599. doi: 10.2307/3756459. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ghosh S, Sachan A, Mitra A. 2005. Degradation of ferulic acid by a white rot fungus Schizophyllum commune. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 21:385–388. doi: 10.1007/s11274-004-3621-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Horisawa S, Ando H, Ariga O, Sakuma Y. 2015. Direct ethanol production from cellulosic materials by consolidated biological processing using the wood rot fungus Schizophyllum commune. Bioresour Technol 197:37–41. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Liu X, Frydenvang K, Liu H, Zhai L, Chen M, Olsen CE, Christensen SB. 2015. Iminolactones from Schizophyllum commune. J Nat Prod 78:1165–1168. doi: 10.1021/np500836y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jayakumar GC, Kanth SV, Chandrasekaran B, Raghava Rao J, Nair BU. 2010. Preparation and antimicrobial activity of scleraldehyde from Schizophyllum commune. Carbohydr Res 345:2213–2219. doi: 10.1016/j.carres.2010.07.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chen H, Li S, Wang P, Yan S, Hu L, Pan X, Yang C, Leung GP. 2014. Endothelium-dependent and -independent relaxation of rat aorta induced by extract of Schizophyllum commune. Phytomedicine 21:1230–1236. doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2014.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kothe E. 1996. Tetrapolar fungal mating types: sexes by the thousands. FEMS Microbiol Rev 18:65–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1996.tb00227.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nieuwenhuis BP, Nieuwhof S, Aanen DK. 2013. On the asymmetry of mating in natural populations of the mushroom fungus Schizophyllum commune. Fungal Genet Biol 56:25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2013.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ishiguro T, Takayanagi N, Tokunaga D, Kurashima K, Matsushita A, Harasawa K, Yoneda K, Tsuchiya N, Yamaguchi S, Miyahara Y, Yano R, Saito H, Ubukata M, Yanagisawa T, Sugita Y, Kawabata Y. 2007. Pulmonary Schizophyllum commune infection developing mucoid impaction of the bronchi. Yale J Biol Med 80:105–111. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.de Hoog GS, Guarro J, Gené J, Figueras MJ. 2011. Atlas of clinical fungi. CD-ROM, version 3.1 CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ogawa H, Fujimura M, Takeuchi Y, Makimura K. 2011. Two cases of Schizophyllum asthma: is this a new clinical entity or a precursor of ABPM? Pulm Pharmacol Ther 24:559–562. doi: 10.1016/j.pupt.2011.04.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chowdhary A, Randhawa HS, Gaur SN, Agarwal K, Kathuria S, Roy P, Klaassen CH, Meis JF. 2013. Schizophyllum commune as an emerging fungal pathogen: a review and report of two cases. Mycoses 56:1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0507.2012.02190.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Verma S, Gupta P, Singh D, Kanga A, Mohindroo NK, Jhobta A. 2014. Schizophyllum commune causing sinusitis with nasal polyposis in the sub-Himalayan region: first case report and review. Mycopathologia 177:103–110. doi: 10.1007/s11046-013-9717-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tsukatani T, Ogawa H, Anzawa K, Kobayashi E, Hasegawa H, Makimura K, Yoshizaki T, Ueda N. 2015. Schizophyllum commune-induced allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and sinobronchial mycosis. Med Mycol Case Rep 8:10–13. doi: 10.1016/j.mmcr.2015.02.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rihs JD, Padhye AA, Good CB. 1996. Brain abscess caused by Schizophyllum commune: an emerging basidiomycete pathogen. J Clin Microbiol 34:1628–1632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hoenigl M, Aspeck E, Valentin T, Heiling B, Seeber K, Krause R, Stammberger H, Beham A, Buzina W. 2013. Sinusitis and frontal brain abscess in a diabetic patient caused by the basidiomycete Schizophyllum commune: case report and review of the literature. Mycoses 56:389–393. doi: 10.1111/myc.12040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chaves-Batista A, Maia JA, Singer R. 1955. Basidioneuromycosis on man. An Soc Biol Pernambuco 13:52–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Saha S, Sengupta J, Banerjee D, Khetan A, Mandal SM. 2013. Schizophyllum commune: a new organism in eye infection. Mycopathologia 175:357–360. doi: 10.1007/s11046-013-9625-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Restrepo A, Greer DL, Robledo M, Osorio O, Mondragón H. 1973. Ulceration of the palate caused by a basidiomycete Schizophyllum commune. Sabouraudia 11:201–204. doi: 10.1080/00362177385190431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kligman AMM. 1950. A basidiomycete probably causing onychomycosis. J Investig Dermatol 14:67–70. doi: 10.1038/jid.1950.10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kano R, Oomae S, Nakano Y, Minami T, Sukikara M, Nakayama T, Hasegawa A. 2002. First report on Schizophyllum commune from a dog. J Clin Microbiol 40:3535–3537. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.9.3535-3537.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tanaka H, Takizawa K, Baba O, Maeda T, Fukushima K, Shinya K, Kosuge J. 2008. Basidiomycosis: Schizophyllum commune osteomyelitis in a dog. J Vet Med Sci 70:1257–1259. doi: 10.1292/jvms.70.1257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mori T, Seki A, Kano R, Sakai H, Nakagawa M, Hasegawa A, Maruo K. 2009. Mycotic osteomyelitis caused by Schizophyllum commune in a dog. Vet Rec 165:350–351. doi: 10.1136/vr.165.12.350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Buzina W, Braun H, Freudenschuss K, Lackner A, Schimpl K, Stammberger H. 2003. The basidiomycete Schizophyllum commune in paranasal sinuses. Mycoses 46(Suppl 1):S23–S27. (In German.) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Swain B, Panigrahy R, Panigrahi D. 2011. Schizophyllum commune sinusitis in an immunocompetent host. Indian J Med Microbiol 29:439–442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sigler L, Estrada S, Montealegre NA, Jaramillo E, Arango M, DeBedout C, Restrepo A. 1997. Maxillary sinusitis caused by Schizophyllum commune and experience with treatment. J Med Vet Mycol 35:365–370. doi: 10.1080/02681219780001431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kern ME, Uecker FA. 1986. Maxillary sinus infection caused by the homobasidiomycetous fungus Schizophyllum commune. J Clin Microbiol 23:1001–1005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Roh ML, Tuazon CU, Mandler R, Kwon-Chung KJ, Geist CE. 2005. Sphenocavernous syndrome associated with Schizophyllum commune infection of the sphenoid sinus. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 21:71–74. doi: 10.1097/01.IOP.0000148407.34784.6E. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gonzalez GM, Sutton DA, Thompson E, Tijerina R, Rinaldi MG. 2001. In vitro activities of approved and investigational antifungal agents against 44 clinical isolates of basidiomycetous fungi. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 45:633–635. doi: 10.1128/AAC.45.2.633-635.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chowdhary A, Kathuria S, Singh PK, Agarwal K, Gaur SN, Roy P, Randhawa HS, Meis JF. 2013. Molecular characterization and in vitro antifungal susceptibility profile of Schizophyllum commune, an emerging basidiomycete in bronchopulmonary mycoses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:2845–2848. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02619-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sigler L, de la Maza LM, Tan G, Egger KN, Sherburne RK. 1995. Diagnostic difficulties caused by a nonclamped Schizophyllum commune isolate in a case of fungus ball of the lung. J Clin Microbiol 33:1979–1983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Buzina W, Lang-Loidolt D, Braun H, Freudenschuss K, Stammberger H. 2001. Development of molecular methods for identification of Schizophyllum commune from clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol 39:2391–2396. doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.7.2391-2396.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Singh PK, Kathuria S, Agarwal K, Gaur SN, Meis JF, Chowdhary A. 2013. Clinical significance and molecular characterization of nonsporulating molds isolated from the respiratory tracts of bronchopulmonary mycosis patients with special reference to basidiomycetes. J Clin Microbiol 51:3331–3337. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01486-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Romanelli AM, Sutton DA, Thompson EH, Rinaldi MG, Wickes BL. 2010. Sequence-based identification of filamentous basidiomycetous fungi from clinical specimens: a cautionary note. J Clin Microbiol 48:741–752. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01948-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.White T, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J. 1990. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics, p 315–322. In Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ (ed), PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. Academic Press Inc., New York, NY. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Vilgalys R, Hester M. 1990. Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus species. J Bacteriol 172:4238–4246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Carbone I, Kohn LM. 1999. A method for designing primer sets for speciation studies in filamentous ascomycetes. Mycologia 91:553–556. doi: 10.2307/3761358. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Liu YJ, Whelen S, Hall BD. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships among Ascomycetes: evidence from an RNA polymerase II subunit. Mol Biol Evol 16:1799–1808. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S. 2013. MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30:2725–2729. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. 2003. MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Nylander JAA. 2004. MrModeltest v2. Program distributed by the author. Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2008. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of conidium-forming filamentous fungi: approved standard, 2nd ed M38-A2. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Fries EM. 1815. Observationes mycologicae. Gerhardi Bonnieri, Copenhagen, Denmark. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Fries EM. 1855. Schizophyllum radiatum Fr. Nov Acta Regiae Soc Sci Ups Ser 3 1:41. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Linder DH. 1933. The genus Schizophyllum. I. Species of the western hemisphere. Am J Bot 20:552–564. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hyde KD, Zhang Y. 2008. Epitypification: should we epitypify? J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 9:842–846. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B0860004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ariyawansa H, Hawksworth D, Hyde K, Jones EBG, Maharachchikumbura SN, Manamgoda D, Thambugala K, Udayanga D, Camporesi E, Daranagama A, Jayawardena R, Liu J-K, McKenzie EC, Phookamsak R, Senanayake I, Shivas R, Tian Q, Xu J-C. 2014. Epitypification and neotypification: guidelines with appropriate and inappropriate examples. Fungal Divers 69:57–91. doi: 10.1007/s13225-014-0315-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nazeri M, Mohammadi Ardehali M, Moazeni M, Jamal Hashemi S, Fallahi AA, Ehteram H, Rezaie S. 2012. A case of fungus ball type pansinusitis caused by Schizophyllum commune. Med Mycol Case Rep 1:115–118. doi: 10.1016/j.mmcr.2012.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ogawa H, Fujimura M, Takeuchi Y, Makimura K, Satoh K. 2012. The definitive diagnostic process and successful treatment for ABPM caused by Schizophyllum commune: a report of two cases. Allergol Int 61:163–169. doi: 10.2332/allergolint.11-CR-0325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sa H-SS, Ko KS, Woo KI, Peck KR, Kim Y-DD. 2012. A case of sino-orbital infection caused by the Schizophyllum commune. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 73:376–377. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Tagliarini JV, Bosco SMG, Assis CAJ, Yamashita S, Nakajima V, Javarone A, Bagagli E, Mendes RP. 2012. Case-report of rhinosinusitis caused by Schizophyllum commune. Mycoses 55:223–224. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Matsuse H, Tsuchida T, Fukahori S, Kawano T, Nishino T, Fukushima C, Kohno S. 2013. Dissociation between sensitizing and colonizing fungi in patients with allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 111:190–193. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2013.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Toya T, Shinohara A, Tatsuno K, Seo S, Nannya Y, Ichikawa M, Makimura K, Moriya K, Kurokawa M. 2013. A case of Schizophyllum commune sinusitis following unrelated cord blood transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Int J Hematol 98:261–263. doi: 10.1007/s12185-013-1362-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Chan JFW, Teng JLL, Li IWS, Wong SCY, Leung SSM, Ho P-OO, To KKW, Lau SKP, Woo PCY, Yuen K-YY. 2014. Fatal empyema thoracis caused by Schizophyllum commune with cross-reactive cryptococcal antigenemia. J Clin Microbiol 52:683–687. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02770-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Seki M, Ohno H, Gotoh K, Motooka D, Nakamura S, Iida T, Miyazaki Y, Tomono K. 2014. Allergic bronchopulmonary mycosis due to co-infection with Aspergillus fumigatus and Schizophyllum commune. IDCases 1:5–8. doi: 10.1016/j.idcr.2014.01.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Gupta P, Verma N, Singh AK, Agarwal SP. 24 May 2015. Molecular detection of Schizophyllum commune in a case of allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. BMJ Case Rep. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2015-209955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Michel J, Maubon D, Varoquaux DA, Boulze C, Normand AC, Righini CA, Piarroux R, Dessi P, Ranque S. 2016. Schizophyllum commune: an emergent or misdiagnosed fungal pathogen in rhinology? Med Mycol 54:301–309. doi: 10.1093/mmy/myv084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Yin X, Liang Y, Zeng L, Chen S. 2015. A case of sinusitis caused by Schizophyllum commune and bacteria in acute myelocytic leukemia. Clin Lab 61:1799–1801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zuluaga A, Ospina-Medina J, Castano-Gallego I, Arango K, Gonzalez A, Castaño-Gallego I, Arango K, González Á. 2015. Frequency of fungal agents identified in sinus samples from patients with clinically suspected rhinosinusitis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 81:208–212. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2014.11.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Yamamoto N, Bibby K, Qian J, Hospodsky D, Rismani-Yazdi H, Nazaroff WW, Peccia J. 2012. Particle-size distributions and seasonal diversity of allergenic and pathogenic fungi in outdoor air. ISME J 6:1801–1811. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2012.30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Raper JR, Miles PG. 1958. The genetics of Schizophyllum commune. Genetics 43:530–546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Sigler L, Abbott S. 1997. Characterizing and conserving diversity of filamentous basidiomycetes from human sources. Microbiol Cult Coll 13:21–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Ogawa H, Fujimura M, Ohkura N, Makimura K. 2013. Implications of high antifungal susceptibility on Schizophyllum commune-associated allergy in clinical practice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:5783. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01657-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kamei K, Unno H, Nagao K, Kuriyama T, Nishimura K, Miyaji M. 1994. Allergic bronchopulmonary mycosis caused by the basidiomycetous fungus Schizophyllum commune. Clin Infect Dis 18:305–309. doi: 10.1093/clinids/18.3.305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Premamalini T, Ambujavalli BT, Anitha S, Somu L, Kindo AJ. 2011. Schizophyllum commune a causative agent of fungal sinusitis: a case report. Case Rep Infect Dis 2011:821259. doi: 10.1155/2011/821259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Denning DW. 2003. Echinocandin fungal drugs. Lancet 362:1142–1151. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14472-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Brandt ME. 2013. Filamentous basidiomycetes in the clinical laboratory. Curr Fungal Infect Rep 7:219–223. doi: 10.1007/s12281-013-0148-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES