2003
DOI: 10.1080/mmy.41.2.149.161
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fungal biodiversity – as found in nasal mucus

Abstract: The biodiversity of fungi isolated from the nasal mucus of patients suffering from chronic rhinosinusitis and from healthy persons was monitored over 28 months. Mucus samples were obtained by flushing the noses of patients with saline or by endoscopic sinus surgery. Fungi from mucus were cultivated on agar plates. Identification was performed microscopically and by polymerase chain reaction with subsequent sequencing of the ribosomal internal transcribed spacer region. Altogether, 619 strains of fungi were cul… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
32
0
6

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
3
32
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Using the same nasal irri-gation technique, a similar prevalence rate was subsequently reported from Europe [19]. Although one may argue that the observed increase in fungal prevalence does not result from improved collection technique but rather from improved detection technique, comparative studies underline the importance of the collection technique [10,19,21]. Based on these studies, nasal lavage seems superior, although this technique samples the nasopharynx, nasal vestibule, and nasal cavity (and thus is less specific) [23].…”
Section: Does the Collection Methods Influence Fungal Yield?supporting
confidence: 61%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Using the same nasal irri-gation technique, a similar prevalence rate was subsequently reported from Europe [19]. Although one may argue that the observed increase in fungal prevalence does not result from improved collection technique but rather from improved detection technique, comparative studies underline the importance of the collection technique [10,19,21]. Based on these studies, nasal lavage seems superior, although this technique samples the nasopharynx, nasal vestibule, and nasal cavity (and thus is less specific) [23].…”
Section: Does the Collection Methods Influence Fungal Yield?supporting
confidence: 61%
“…For endoscopic sinus surgery-guided samples, polymerase chain reaction (PCR; 6.5%) has been shown to be superior to culture (0%) [11]; culture (84%) has been shown to be superior to the Grocott methanamine silver stain (70.2%) [19]; and the fluorescein-labeled chitinase stain (100%) has been shown to be superior to the Grocott methanamine silver stain (76%) [17]. For specimens obtained by nasal lavage, PCR (44% [12] and 92.5% [14]) has been shown to be superior to culture (25% [12] and 23.2% [14]).…”
Section: Does the Detection Methods Influence Fungal Yield?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…De Vries (1952) synonymised the isolate identified as Hormodendron langeronii with C. sphaerospermum . Other authors confused strains of this species with C. cladosporioides (Buzina et al 2003, Menkis et al . 2005), although it has slightly longer conidia.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[27][28][29] Agents of mucormycosis and aspergillosis are considered ubiquitous fungi that might be found in nasal mucous. 30 Although we mainly examined biopsies from airways, only a limited number of samples were identified with DNA from fungi not detected by histopathology. Aspergillus fumigatus specific DNA was identified from only one case of histopathological diagnosis of zygomycosis; this might have been the result of contamination of the sinuses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%