Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@remsenmedia.com&api_key=81853a771c3a3a2c6b2553a65bc33b056f08&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Unlabelled: Azole resistance screening in can be routinely carried out by using azole-containing agar plates (E.Def 10.2 procedure); however, conidial suspension filtering and inoculum adjustment before inoculum preparation are time-consuming. We evaluated whether skipping the filtration and inoculum adjustment steps negatively influenced the performance of the E.Def 10.2 procedure. isolates ( = 98), previously classified as azole susceptible or azole resistant (E.Def 9.4 method), were studied. Azole-resistant isolates had either the wild-type gene sequence ( = 1) or the following gene substitutions: TR-L98H ( = 41), G54R ( = 5), TR-Y121F-T289A ( = 1), or G448S ( = 1). In-house azole-containing agar plates were prepared according to the EUCAST E.Def 10.2 procedure. Conidial suspensions obtained by adding distilled water (Tween 20 0.1%) were either filtered and the inocula adjusted to 0.5 McFarland or left unfiltered and unadjusted. Agreements between the agar screening methods using inocula prepared by each procedure were high for itraconazole (99%), voriconazole (100%), and posaconazole (94.9%). Sensitivity and specificity (considering the susceptibility category as per the microdilution E.Def 9.4 method as the gold standard) of E.Def 10.2 were 100% to rule in or rule out resistance when unfiltered and unadjusted suspensions were used; the resistance phenotype of isolates harboring the TR-L98H, G54R, or TR-Y121F-T289A substitutions was correctly detected. Unfiltered and unadjusted conidial suspensions do not negatively influence the performance of the E.Def 10.2 method when screening for azole resistance in .
Importance: Azole resistance screening in can be routinely carried out by using azole-containing plates (E.Def 10.2 procedure); however, conidial suspension filtering and inoculum adjustment before inoculation of plates are time-consuming. We, here, showed that unfiltered and unadjusted conidial suspensions do not negatively influence the performance of the E.Def 10.2 method when screening for azole resistance in .
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11250424 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00369-24 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!