Evaluation of the Baxter-MicroScan 4-hour enzyme-based yeast identification system

Abstract

A new 4-h Yeast Identification Panel (YIP; Baxter-MicroScan, W. Sacramento, Calif.) was compared with the API 20C Yeast Identification System (Analytab Products, Inc., Plainview, N.Y.) in the identification of recent clinical yeast isolates. The YIP had a 94% correlation (288 of 306) in identifying 22 species within the genera Candida, Hansenula, Pichia, Rhodotorula, Saccharomyces, and Torulopsis. Correlation dropped to 65% for those species within the genera of slower growing yeasts, i.e., Blastoschizomyces spp., Crpytococcus spp., Geotrichum spp., Hyphopichia spp., Phaeococcomyces spp., Prototheca spp., and Trichosporon spp. Overall correlation with the API 20C was 92% (365 of 401) for those taxa included in the data base and 85% (373 of 437) for all yeasts encountered in the study. There were 36 (8.2%) discrepant identifications, which were due in part to the limited data base. Expansion of the data base plus the easy inoculation, reading, and rapid results of the YIP should make it an excellent method for yeast identification.

Oral Microbiology: Isolation and identification of candida from the oral cavity

“…Similarly, the MicroScan Rapid Yeast identification panel (Baxter-MicroScan, W. Sacramento, CA, USA) tests for the presence of 27 preformed candidal enzymes. As growth is not a pre-requisite, the MicroScan system provides rapid identification after 4 h. Evaluations of the MicroScan for yeast identification have reported an accuracy of between 92.1% and 99.5% compared with morphological tests and the API-20 C (Land et al, 1991; St-Germain and Beauchesne 1991).…”

Evaluation of the MicroScan enzyme‐based system for the identification of foodborne yeasts

“…The reliability of the enzyme-based MicroScan kit for identifying common foodborne yeasts is also in question in light of the observation that some strains did not produce identical reactions in repeated tests. Inconsistent results were also noted by Land et al (1991b) when isolates were retested. Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded that the MicroScan system is unreliable, because variations in results are possible even to this extent, and correct identification can be achieved if these variations are properly considered in the biocode index.…”

“…The MicroScan yeast panel introduced later and improved recently appears to be more reliable. The panel gave 85% correlation with the API 20C kit for all yeasts tested in one study (Land et al 1991b) and increased up to 92% for common clinical isolates. When the MicroScan system was supplemented with a few morphological and conventional tests, its accuracy reached 96.6% (St-Germain and Beauchesne 1991).…”

“…The API and MicroScan systems have been devised to assist in identifying clinical yeast isolates. The API Yeast Ident system has been reported to provide unreliable results with clinical isolates (Salkin et al 1987;Pfaller et al 1988;Sekhon et al 1988), whereas the Microscan system appears more promising (Land et al 1991b;St-Germain and Beauchesne 1991). Evaluation of the API Yeast Ident system for identifying foodborne yeasts has revealed its limited value (Deak and Beuchat 1988;Torok and King 1991).…”

Automated systems for identification of microorganisms.

“…was similar to that of the first laboratory. Land et al (67) reported that only 27% of serogroup D isolates of Cryptococcus neoformans, which are common to Europe and other temperate regions, were correctly identified by the MicroScan YIP. On the other hand, 83% of serogroups B and C, serogroups geographically found nearest to the manufacturer, were correctly identified.…”