Resolving Phylogenetic Relationships Within the <i>Trichophyton mentagrophytes</i> Complex: A <scp>RADseq</scp> Genomic Approach Challenges Status of ‘Terbinafine‐Resistant’ <i>Trichophyton indotineae</i> as Distinct Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Trichophyton mentagrophytes complex encompasses common dermatophytes causing superficial mycoses in humans and animals. The taxonomy of the complex is unstable, with conflicting views on the species status of some taxa, particularly T. indotineae and T. interdigitale. Due to the presence of intermediate genotypes, neither MALDI-TOF MS nor ITS rDNA sequencing can accurately distinguish all taxa in the complex, potentially contributing to clinical misdiagnoses. OBJECTIVES: This research resolves phylogenetic relationships within the T. mentagrophytes complex. Based on these data, the taxonomical recommendations are suggested. METHODS: In order to resolve the phylogenetic relationship of the T. mentagrophytes complex, we employed Restriction Site-Associated DNA Sequencing (RADseq) to produce a high-resolution single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) dataset from 95 isolates. The SNP-based analyses indicated the presence of two major genetic clusters corresponding to T. mentagrophytes (including T. indotineae) and T. interdigitale. RESULTS: Our results challenge the species status of T. indotineae because of insufficient genetic divergence from T. mentagrophytes. Therefore, we propose designating T. indotineae as T. mentagrophytes var. indotineae (or T. mentagrophytes ITS genotype VIII) to avoid further splitting of the complex and taxonomic inflation. Although T. interdigitale shows clearer genetic differentiation, its separation is incomplete and identification of some isolates is ambiguous when using routine methods, leading us to consider it a variety as well: T. mentagrophytes var. interdigitale. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using T. mentagrophytes as the overarching species name for all complex isolates. Where precise molecular identification is possible, the use of variety ranks is encouraged. Since identical resistance mechanisms are not specific to any genotype or dermatophyte species, identifying antifungal resistance is more important than differentiating closely related genotypes or populations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".