Diagnosis of Trichophyton rubrum from Onychomycotic Nail Samples Using Polymerase Chain Reaction and Calcofluor White Microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A high rate of false-negative dermatophyte detection is observed when the most common laboratory methods are used. These methods include microscopic observation of potassium hydroxide-digested nail clippings and culture methods using agar-based media supplemented with cycloheximide, chloramphenicol, and gentamicin to isolate dermatophytes. Microscopic detection methods that use calcofluor white staining or periodic acid-Schiff staining may also be substituted for and have previously been reported to be more sensitive than potassium hydroxide-digested nail clippings. METHODS: Trichophyton rubrum infections were detected directly from nails in a double-round polymerase chain reaction assay that uses actin gene-based primers. This method was compared with detection of fungal hyphae by using calcofluor white fluorescence microscopy of nail samples collected from 83 patients with onychomycosis who were undergoing antifungal drug therapy. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 83 samples (31.3%) were found to be positive by calcofluor white fluorescence microscopy, and 21 of 83 samples (25.3%) yielded positive results for T rubrum when actin gene-based primers in a double-round polymerase chain reaction assay were used. When calcofluor white fluorescence microscopy and polymerase chain reaction assay were used, the combined detection was 46.9% compared with 31.3% when calcofluor microscopy and culture of nail samples on Sabouraud's dextrose agar supplemented with cycloheximide, chloramphenicol, and gentamicin were used. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the use of a direct DNA protocol is an alternative method for detecting Trichophyton infections. When this protocol is used, the presence of T rubrum DNA is directly detected. However, the viability of the dermatophyte is not addressed, and further methods need to be developed for the detection of viable T rubrum directly from nail samples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".