Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology logoLink to Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology
. 2019 Dec 11;12:887–893. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S220849

Outbreaks And Epidemics Of Superficial Dermatophytosis Due To Trichophyton mentagrophytes Complex And Microsporum canis: Global And Indian Scenario

Rameshwari Thakur 1,✉, Avneet Singh Kalsi 1
PMCID: PMC6913057  PMID: 31849509

Abstract

Until recently, superficial dermatophytosis, also known as tinea, was considered as a minor skin infection, which was easy to treat. There used to be rare outbreaks and epidemics of superficial dermatophytosis. Lately, there is a sweeping change in the clinical presentation due to extensive, atypical and recalcitrant dermatophytosis. Treating such infections poses a great challenge to the clinicians. Dermatophytosis is a superficial fungal infection of keratinized tissue (skin, hairs and nails) by dermatophytes (fungus). It is caused by the three genera of dermatophytes: Trichophyton, Epidermophyton and Microsporum. The conventional methods of laboratory diagnosis have now been substantiated by molecular characterization. Earlier epidemics were usually due to anthropophilic dermatophytes. Now, zoophilic dermatophytes are also responsible for many outbreaks and epidemics. We need to be equipped with the tools to face the current scenario, because this depends upon the competence of the staff working in the state-of-the-art laboratories, which is needed for the study of the epidemiology and appropriate treatment.

Keywords: Trichophyton mentagrophytes (T. mentagrophytes), Microsporum canis (M. canis), epidemic, outbreak

Video abstract

graphic file with name CCID-12-887-g0001.jpg

Open in a new tab

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/JcIoo7zry50

Introduction

Dermatophytes are fungi that have the ability to invade keratinized tissue such as skin, hair and nails and thus are the main cause of mycoses of the integument in humans and animals.1

Classification of dermatophytes is being updated as the new species are evolving. According to the new classification of dermatophytes by de Hoog et al, dermatophyte species have been grouped into seven genera : Trichophyton, Epidermophyton, Arthroderma, Nannizzia, Microsporum, Paraphyton and Lophophyton and this taxonomy of dermatophytes includes 16 species of Trichophyton, one species of Epidermophyton, 9 species of Nannizzia, 3 species of Microsporum, one species of Lophophyton, 21 species of Arthroderma and one species of Ctenomyces.2

Epidemics and outbreaks due to dermatophytes have been reported in the literature from time to time.3,4 Large-scale epidemic of inflammatory dermatophytosis due to Trichophyton mentagrophytes var. mentagrophytes occurred among American troops in Vietnam during 1966–1969. The source of this epidemic was traced to the rats trapped near the army living quarters.5

Among the recent epidemics and outbreaks are: T. mentagrophytes genotype VIII in India, which has been reported by Nenoff et al6 and two articles have mentioned genital infection due to T. mentagrophytes genotype VII from Switzerland and Germany.7,8 Also, an outbreak due to M. canis and with human-to-human transmission has been stated in Israel.9

As cited by Rippon JW (1985) in one of his papers titled “The changing epidemiology and emerging patterns of dermatophytes species”

The only evidence of active evolution among the dermatophytes is seen in M. canis and T. mentagrophytes. In both, host-specific strains have emerged and will probably separate as species. This probably has happened already in the case of the variety interdigitale of T. mentagrophytes.10

Now, we see that it holds true and it has actually happened even before we realized. The zoophilic species like M. canis and T. mentagrophytes can infect virtually every mammal.11

Current Epidemics

The current epidemics over different geographical regions of the world are due to T. mentagrophytes complex and M. canis. Until recently, it was thought that the anthropophilic species are responsible for most of the epidemics, but sometimes humans infected by zoophiles remain contagious, leading to small, self-limiting outbreaks and epidemics.4,6 In some of the outbreaks, person-to-person (anthropophilic) transmission has been implicated either through direct contact or through contaminated fomites.4,12–14

Confusion Due To Frequent Changes In The Nomenclature Of Trichophyton mentagrophytes Complex

There have been frequent changes in the nomenclature of T. mentagrophytes complex. The anthropophilic form was known as Trichophyton mentagrophytes var. interdigitale and zoophilic form as T. mentagrophytes var. mentagrophytes.11 Later, Trichophyton interdigitale (anthropophilic strains) and Trichophyton interdigitale (zoophilic strains)15 Trichophyton mentagrophytes complex has been divided into Trichophyton mentagrophytes containing eight genotypes, which are zoophilic, and two genotypes of Trichophyton interdigitale (anthropophilic species)16,17 (Table 1). Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) cannot differentiate the two species, but it is possible with sequencing of the internal transcribed spacer region (ITS) of fungal DNA.6 Even in many journals, the nomenclature of T. mentagrophytes and T. interdigitale has been used interchangeably. So, the actual prevalence of these two closely related species is not known. Molecular typing of dermatophytes is available in very few laboratories all over the world.

Table 1.

Trichophyton Mentagrophytes Complex. Nomenclature (Old And current)

Author Anthropophilic Zoophilic
Kwon-Chung et al11 1992 Trichophyton mentagrophytes var. interdigitale Trichophyton mentagrophytes var. mentagrophytes
Nenoff et al15 2007 Trichophyton interdigitale (anthropophilic strains) Trichophyton interdigitale (zoophilic strains)
Heidemann et al16 2010
Ninet et al.17 2003		 Current ITS-based genotypes of Trichophyton mentagrophytes complex
Trichophyton interdigitale (anthropophilic genotypes) genotype I & II Trichophyton mentagrophytes (zoophilic genotypes) genotypes III–VIII
Open in a new tab

Microsporum canis Complex

M. canis has retained teleomorphs (teleomorph or sexual states) (Figures 1 and 2). It has been found that the distribution of the two compatible mating types is of little importance for propagation and survival in these two species.11 Most of the isolates of M. canis throughout the world are known to be the (−) type of Arthroderma otae. The positive (+) type was found to be in a ratio of 113 (−) to 1 (+) in Japan, but was not found elsewhere.18 It is possible that one mating type had selective advantage while the other mating type died out in the process of geophilic to zoophilic evolution.11

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

M. canis: Whitish fluffy and fur-like surface having yellow pigment at the periphery.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

M. canis: LPCB mount showing septate hyphae with thick-walled spindle-shaped macro-conidia and slightly curved tip.

Person-to-person transmission has been recently reported in Israel.9

Indian Scenario

India had been facing a challenging scenario of recurrent, extensive and recalcitrant superficial dermatophytosis due to T. mentagrophytes genotype VIII.6

T. mentagrophytes complex consists of several anamorphs and three teleomorphs (Arthroderma vanbreuseghemii, A. benhamiae and A. simii) and are usually isolated from pets, such as guinea pigs and rabbits.19

India has recently witnessed a change in the epidemiology of dermatophytes. Earlier, Trichophyton rubrum was found to be the predominant species.20 During the past four-five years, T. mentagrophytes (Figures 3 and 4) is showing a rising trend in several states of North India (Table 2). In this table, the nomenclature Trichophyton interdigitale and T. mentagrophytes have been used interchangeably except in Chandigarh22 and Delhi,29 where molecular typing was done. Due to reasons unexplored, the prevalence of dermatophytosis due to M. canis is less prevalent in India (0.76–4.5%) (Table 2).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Growth of T. mentagrophytes on SDA after 7 days of incubation. Powdery to fluffy cottony, cream to white on obverse and beige to brown on reverse.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

T. mentagrophytes: LPCB mount showing septate fungal hyphae, with numerous spherical micro-conidia arranged in grape-like clusters, cigar-shaped macro-conidia and spiral hyphae.

Table 2.

Prevalence Of Dermatophytosis In Different States Of India

Authors, Year And Place Of Study Predominant Species Second Predominant Species Other Dermatophytes
Thakur et al 2018, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh21 T. interdigitale 98% (confirmed to be T. mentagrophytes genotype VIII) T. rubrum & T. violaceum 1%
Rudramurthy et al 2018, Chandigarh22 T. interdigitale 66.1% T.rubrum 26.3% T. tonsurans 3%
M. canis 1.5%
Singh et al 2018, Delhi23 T. interdigitale 94% T. rubrum 3% T. tonsurans 1.5%
T. violaceum 1.5%
Narain et al 2018, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh24 T. mentagrophytes 52.47% T. rubrum 34.98% T. violaceum 3.80%
T. verrucosum 1.52%
M. canis 0.76%
E, floccosum 0.76%
Vineetha et al 2018, Kerala25 T. rubrum 45% T. mentagrophytes 18% T. tonsurans 2%
Mahajan et al 2017, Banaras26 T. mentagrophytes 75.9% T. rubrum 21.9% T. tonsurans 0.7%
Sharma et al 2017, Sikkim27 T. mentagrophytes 40% T. schoenleinii 33.3% T. tonsurans 16.6%
T. rubrum 6.6%
E.floccosum 3.33%
Verma et al 2017, Shimla, H.P.28 T. mentagrophytes 62.28% T. rubrum 23.40% T. violaceum 6.85%
T. tonsurans 2.85%
Dabas et al 2017, New Delhi29 T. interdigitale 56% T. rubrum 7.5%
Kansra et al 2016, Amritsar, Punjab30 T. mentagrophytes 46.43% T. rubrum 24.29% T. verrucosum 12.14%
T. schoenleinii 11.43%
T. violaceum 3.57%
M. gypseum 2.14%
Pathania et al 2017, Chandigarh31 T. mentagrophytes 40% T. rubrum 32.2% T. interdigitale 11.1%
Noronha et al 2016, North Karnataka32 T. mentagrophytes 48.3% T. rubrum 38.3% T. verrucosum 8.3%
T. violaceum 5%
Putta et al 2016, Kolhapur, Maharashtra33 T. mentagrophytes 37.74% T. tonsurans 28.30% T. rubrum 24.53%
Penmetcha et al 2016, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh34 T. rubrum 37.64% T. mentagrophytes 30.58% T. violaceum 7.05%
T. tonsurans 7.05%
T. verrucosum 7.05%
T. schoenleinii 2.35%
E. floccosum 4.75%
M. audouinii 3.53%
Choudhary & Kumar 2016, Bihar35 T. rubrum 62.3% T. mentagrophytes 14.1% E. flocossum 7.05%
T. schoenleinii 3.5%
Poluri 2015, Telangana36 T. rubrum 58.06% T. mentagrophytes 22.58%
Lakshmanan et al 2015, Tamil Nadu37 T. rubrum 79% T. mentagrophytes 14.5% M. canis 3.2%
M. gypseum 3.2%
Naglot et al 2015, Assam (Northeast India)38 T. rubrum 50.15% T. mentagrophytes 29.2% E. floccosum 9.84%
Najotra et al 2015, Samba, Jammu & Kashmir39 T. rubrum 41.8% T. tonsurans 22.4% T. mentagrophytes 10.5%
T. violaceum 7.5%
T. schoenleinii 5.9%
M. gypseum 4.5%
M. canis 4.5%
E. floccosum 2.9%
Open in a new tab

In India, very few people keep pets due to various reasons like poor economic status, small houses and rarely cultural issues, though there are many stray dogs of mixed breed. So, the prevalence of M. canis could be less in India. There are lots of rodents, stray animals and monkeys, which could be possibly associated as a source or the agents for the spread of T. mentagrophytes infection. Also, many people dry their clothes and bed linen/bedding outside their houses, and there is every possibility of the clothes and linen getting contaminated either directly or indirectly from the environment.

There could be some genetic factors, because the first author (R. Thakur) had extensive experience in dermatophytosis in Botswana (Africa) and India and has not reported even a single case of dermatophytosis due to M. canis from the areas where she worked. M. canis is widespread worldwide (particularly in Europe, the eastern Mediterranean and South America) and plays an important zoonotic role.1 Most of the infections have been reported from the countries with predominance of Caucasians.

Conclusion

Identification of the dermatophyte is important for the sake of appropriate treatment, prevention and epidemiology. Conventional methods may not be adequate for the differentiation of T. mentagrophytes, T. interdigitale and T. benhamiae, because there are not many characteristics distinguishing microscopic features. Some of these zoophilic dermatophytes, e.g. T. mentagrophytes (genotype VIII) and T. mentagrophytes (genotype VII) and M. canis can also have anthropophilic mode of transmission. Also, unusual infection like tinea genitalis has been reported due to T. mentagrophytes (genotype VII) and M. canis.6,7,40 Recently, dermatophytosis due to T. interdigitale genotype I and Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotypes V and VIII were reported from Iran.16,17 But, genotype VIII has not acquired the epidemic proportions like India. In another study in North of Iran, molecular characterization of the dermatophytes was done using polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) on the ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region; Trichophyton interdigitale was found to be the predominant species and responsible for most of the cases of tinea pedis and next in frequency to T. rubrum for causing tinea unguium. The results of dermatophyte species identification with ITS-RFLP showed 100% concordance with the sequencing results for the ITS of the regions of rDNA.41

Many outbreaks of tinea capitis due to anthropophilic dermatophytes, e.g. Trichophyton tonsurans, Trichophyton violaceum and Trichophyton audouinii have been reported earlier.42–48 In one of the studies, by Allahdadi et al in Arak city, centre of Iran, T. tonsurans was the predominant species isolated from asymptomatic carriers. Infection due to T. tonsurans at times does not resolve at puberty.49

So, a precise identification and delineation of isolates at species and strain level is crucial to settle effective programs for controlling and preventing infection and to establish accurate antifungal therapies.50 Since dermatophytosis has public health importance, an appropriate diagnosis, source of infection and treatment are very crucial.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  • 1.Weitzman I, Summerbell RC. The dermatophytes. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1995;8:249–259. doi: 10.1128/CMR.8.2.240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.De Hoog GS, Dukik K, Monod M, et al. Towards a novel multilocus phylogenetic taxonomy for the dermatophytes. Mycopathologia. 2017;182(1–2):5–31. doi: 10.1007/s11046-016-0073-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dolenc-Voljč M, Lunder M. Epidemic of Microsporum canis infection in the region of Ljubljana. Acta Dermatovenerologica A.PA. 1998;7:3–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Subelj M, Marinko JS, Učakar V. An outbreak of Microsporum canis in two elementary schools in a rural area around the capital city of Slovenia, 2012. Epidemiol Infect. 2014;142(12):2262–2266. doi: 10.1017/S0950268814000120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Allen AM, Taplin D. Epidemic Trichophyton mentagrophytes infections in servicemen. JAMA. 1973;226:864–867. doi: 10.1001/jama.1973.03230080014005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nenoff P, Verma SB, Vasani R, et al. The current epidemic of superficial dermatophytosis due to Trichophyton mentagrophytes – a molecular study. Mycoses. 2019;62(4):336–356. doi: 10.1111/myc.12878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kupsch C, Czaika VA, Deutsch C, Gräser Y. Trichophyton mentagrophytes – a new genotype of zoophilic dermatophyte causes sexually transmitted infections. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2019;17(5):493–501. doi: 10.1111/ddg.13776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Luchsinger I, Bosshard PP, Kasper RS, Reinhardt D, Lautenschlager S. Tinea genitalis: a new entity of sexuality transmitted infection? Case series and review of literature. Sex Transm Infect. 2015;91(7):493–496. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2015-052036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Brosh-Nissimov T, Ben-Ami R, Astman N, Malin A, Brauch Y, Galor I. An outbreak of Microsporum canis infection at a military base associated with stray cat exposure and person-to-person transmission. Mycoses. 2018;61(7):472–476. doi: 10.1111/myc.12771 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rippon JW. The changing epidemiology and emerging patterns of dermatophyte species. Curr Top Med Mycol. 1985;1:208–234. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-9547-8_8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kwon-Chung KJ, Bennett JE. Dermatophytoses (Ringworm, Tinea, Dermatomycoses) In: Medical Mycology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lea and Febige; 1992:109. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yu J, Wan Z, Chen W, Wang W, Li R. Molecular typing study of the Microsporum canis strain isolated from an outbreak of tinea capitis in a school. Mycopathologia. 2004;157(1):37–41. doi: 10.1023/b:myco.0000012221.66851.68 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Grills CE, Bryan PL, O’Moore E, Venning VA. Microsporum canis: report of a primary school outbreak. Australas J Dermatol. 2007;48(2):88–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-0960.2007.00342.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Alteras I, Feuerman EJ. Two outbreaks of Microsporum canis ringworm in Israel. Mycopathologia. 1979;67(3):169–172. doi: 10.1007/bf00470752 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Nenoff P, Herrmann J, Gräser Y. Trichophyton mentagrophytes sive interdigitale? A dermatophyte in the course of time. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2007;5(3):198–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1610-0387.2007.06180.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Heidemann S, Monod M, Gräser Y. Signature polymorphism in the internal transcribed spacer region relevant for the differentiation of zoophilic and anthropophilic strains of Trichophyton interdigitale and other species of T. mentagrophytes sensu lato. Br J Dermatol. 2010;162(2):282–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09494.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ninet B, Jan I, Bontems O, et al. Identification of dermatophyte species by 28 S ribosomal DNA sequencing with a commercial kit. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(2):826–830. doi: 10.1128/JCM.41.2.826-830.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hironaga M, Nozaki K, Watanabe S. Ascocarp production by Nannizzia otae on keratinous and non-keratinous agar media and mating behaviour of N. otae and 123 Japanese isolates of Microsporum canis. Mycopathologia. 1980;72(3):135–141. doi: 10.1007/bf00572655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Drouot S, Mignon B, Fratti M, Roosje P, Monod M. Pets as the main source of two zoonotic species of the Trichophyton mentagrophytes complex in Switzerland, Arthroderma vanbreuseghemii and Arthroderma benhamiae. Vet Dermatol. 2009;20(1):13–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3164.2008.00691.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dogra S, Narang T. Emerging atypical and unusual presentations of dermatophytosis in India. Clin Dermatol Rev. 2017;1:12–18. doi: 10.4103/CDR.CDR_39_17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Thakur R, Kalsi AS, Kushwaha P, et al. Epidemiology of cortico-steroid-modified tinea: study of 100 cases in a rural tertiary care teaching hospital of Western Uttar Pradesh, India. J Dermat Cosmetol. 2018;2(5):64‒69. doi: 10.15406/jdc.2018.02.00087 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rudramurthy SM, Shankarnarayan SA, Dogra S, et al. Mutation in the squalene epoxidase gene of trichophyton interdigitale and trichophyton rubrum associated with allylamine resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(5):e02522–17. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02522-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Singh A, Masih A, Khurana A, et al. High terbinafine resistance in Trichophyton interdigitale isolates in Delhi, India harbouring mutations in the squalene epoxidase gene. Mycoses. 2018;61(7):477–484. doi: 10.1111/myc.12772 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Narain U, Bajaj AK, Kant A. Tinea: incidence during Magh Mela. Int J Adv Med. 2018;5(4):993–996. doi: 10.18203/2349-3933.ijam20183135 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vineetha M, Sheeja S, Celine MI, et al. Profile of dermatophytosis in a tertiary care center. Indian J Dermatol. 2018;63(6):490–495. doi: 10.4103/ijd.IJD_177_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mahajan S, Tilak R, Kaushal SK, Mishra RN, Pandey SS. Clinico-mycological study of dermatophytic infections and their sensitivity to antifungal drugs in a tertiary care center. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2017;83(4):436–440. doi: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_519_16 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sharma R, Adhikari L, Sharma RL. Recurrent dermatophytosis: a rising problem in Sikkim, a Himalayan state of India. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2017;60(4):541–545. doi: 10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_831_16 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Verma S, Verma G, Sharma V, Bhagra S, Negi A, Tegta GR. Current spectrum of dermatophytosis in a tertiary care hospital of North India – a six year clinico-mycological study. J Med Sci Clin Res. 2017;5(3):19488–19494. doi: 10.18535/jmscr/v5i3.184 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dabas Y, Xess I, Singh G, Pandey M, Meena S. Molecular identification and antifungal susceptibility patterns of clinical dermatophytes following CLSI and EUCAST guidelines. J Fungi (Basel). 2017;3(2):17. doi: 10.3390/jof3020017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kansra S, Devi P, Sidhu S, Malhotra A. Prevalence of Dermatophytoses and their susceptibility in a tertiary care hospital of North India. Int J Sci Res. 2016;5(3):450–453. doi: 10.36106/ijsr [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pathania S, Rudramurthy SM, Narang T, Saikia UN, Dogra S. A prospective study of the epidemiological and clinical patterns of recurrent dermatophytosis at a tertiary care hospital in India. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2018;84(6):678–684. doi: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_645_17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Noronha TM, Tophakhane RS, Nadiger S. Clinico-microbiological study of dermatophytosis in a tertiary-care hospital in North Karnataka. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2016;7(4):264–271. doi: 10.4103/2229-5178.185488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Putta SD, Kulkarni VA, Bhadade AA, Kulkarni VN, Walawalkar AS. Prevalence of dermatophytosis and its spectrum in a tertiary care hospital, Kolhapur. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res. 2016;5(3):595–600. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Penmetcha U, Myneni RB, Yarlagadda P, Simgamsetty S. A study of prevalence of dermatophytosis in and around Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, South India. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2016;5(9):702–717. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2016.509.081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chaudhary JK, Kumar A. A clinico-mycological profile of dermatophytosis at a tertiary care hospital in Bihar. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2016;5(2):181–189. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2016.502.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Poluri LV, Indugula JP, Kondapaneni SL. Clinicomycological study of dermatophytosis in South India. J Lab Physicians. 2015;7(2):84–89. doi: 10.4103/0974-2727.163135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lakshmanan A, Ganeshkumar P, Mohan SR, Hemamalini M, Madhavan R. Epidemiological and clinical pattern of dermatomycoses in rural India. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2015;33(Suppl):134–136. doi: 10.4103/0255-0857.150922 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Naglot A, Shrimali DD, Nath BK, et al. Recent trends of dermatophytosis in Northeast India (Assam) and interpretation of published studies. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2015;4(11):111–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Najotra DK, Choudhary V, Sahni B, Choudhary A. Clinico-epidemiological profile of dermatophytosis in district Samba: a cross sectional study from the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India. Med Sci. 2015;3(1):185–189. doi: 10.29387/ms.2015.3.1.183-189 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Prohić A, Krupalija-Fazlić M, Jovović Sadiković T. Incidence and etiological agents of genital dermatophytosis in males. Med Glas (Zenica). 2015;12(1):52–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Didehdar M, Shokohi T, Khansarinejad B, et al. Characterization of clinically important dermatophytes in North of Iran using PCR-RFLP on ITS region. J Mycol Med. 2016;26(4):345–350. doi: 10.1016/j.mycmed.2016.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Rosenthal SA, Fisher D, Furnari D. A localized outbreak in New York of tinea capitis due to Trichophyton violaceum: observations with special reference to mixed infections of the scalp. AMA Arch Derm. 1958;78(6):689–691. doi: 10.1001/archderm.1958.01560120009002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Donghi D, Hauser V, Bosshard PP. Microsporum audouinii tinea capitis in a Swiss school: assessment and management of patients and asymptomatic carriers. Med Mycol. 2011;49(3):324–328. doi: 10.3109/13693786.2010.522602 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ilkit M, Ali Saracli M, Kurdak H, et al. Clonal outbreak of Trichophyton tonsurans tinea capitis gladiatorum among wrestlers in Adana, Turkey. Med Mycol. 2010;48(3):480–485. doi: 10.3109/13693780903278051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bassiri-Jahromi S, Khaksar AA. Outbreak of tinea gladiatorum in wrestlers in Tehran (Iran). Indian J Dermatol. 2008;53(3):132–136. doi: 10.4103/0019-5154.43219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shroba J, Olson-Burgess C, Preuett B, Abdel-Rahman SM. A large outbreak of Trichophyton tonsurans among health care workers in a pediatric hospital. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(1):43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.11.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Fuller LC, Child FC, Higgins EM. Tinea capitis in south-east London: an outbreak of Trichophyton tonsurans infection. Br J Dermatol. 1997;136(1):139. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1997.tb08771.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Babel DE, Baughman SA. Evaluation of the adult carrier state in juvenile tinea capitis caused by Trichophyton tonsurans. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(6):1209–1212. doi: 10.1016/s0190-9622(89)70331-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Allahdadi M, Hajihossein R, Kord M, Rahmati E, Amanloo S, Didehdar M. Molecular characterization and antifungal susceptibility profile of dermatophytes isolated from scalp dermatophyte carriage in primary school children in Arak city, Center of Iran. J Mycol Med. 2019;29(1):19–23. doi: 10.1016/j.mycmed.2019.01.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Cafarchia C, Iatta R, Latrofa MS, Gräser Y, Otranto D. Molecular epidemiology, phylogeny and evolution of dermatophytes. Infect Genet Evol. 2013;20:336–351. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2013.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology are provided here courtesy of Dove Press

RESOURCES