First Report of Cystobasidium slooffiae in Human Wounds from China: Molecular Identification and Clinical Insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cystobasidium spp. are rare yeasts recently recognized as emerging human pathogens. This study presents the first report from China of Cystobasidium slooffiae isolated from human wound infections, and characterizes its microbiological profile, phylogenetic identity, and antifungal susceptibility. Methods: Two strains were isolated from skin wounds of immunocompromised patients. They were characterized based on colony morphology on Sabouraud dextrose agar, Gram staining, MALDI-TOF MS analysis, Erg11 amino acid sequences analysis, and phylogenetic analysis using combined sequences of 18S rDNA, D1/D2 domains, and ITS regions. Antifungal susceptibility testing was performed according to CLSI guidelines (M27-A3/M60). Results: The colonies transitioned from light yellow to orange within 48– 96 h with Gram-positive budding cells. MALDI-TOF MS failed to identify accurately any of these strains. However, phylogenetic analysis of ITS confirmed that both strains were C. slooffiae . Both strains exhibited high minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for all three echinocandins (> 8 μg/mL) and fluconazole (32– 64 μg/mL), whereas the MICs for isavuconazole were in the range 0.75– 1 μg/mL. Erg11 sequence analysis revealed they formed a distinct clade that was genetically distant from Rhodotorulaceae. Conclusion: Our findings showed that C. slooffiae could be an important emerging, opportunistic human invasive fungal pathogen because of its reduced susceptibility to echinocandins and fluconazole. Keywords: Cystobasidium slooffiae , skin wounds, superficial infections, Rhodotorula
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".