http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7534-5124
Figures
Abstract
Background
To examine the accuracy of Rapid Diagnosis of Talaromyces marneffei (RDTM) in order to improve diagnosis and treatment for clinical measures and reduce the mortality due to associated infections.
Methods
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we screened PubMed, Ovid (Cochrane library) and Web of Science, Chinese database CNKI and Wanfang for articles published between 1956 and December, 2017. Data were taken from cross-sectional studies as well as from baseline measurements in longitudinal studies with clinical follow-up. Articles were excluded if they did not contain a cohort with T. marneffei and a control cohort or a cohort with standard fungus culture. Data were extracted by two authors and checked by three for accuracy. For quality assessment, modified QUADAS-2 criteria were used.
Results
The 26 included diagnostic studies enrolled 5,594 objectives in 632 patients with T. marneffei infections and 2,612 negative controls between 1996 and 2017 in Thailand, Vietnam and China. The total combined sensitivity and specificity of rapid diagnosis of T. marneffei was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.68–0.90) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98–1.00). According to the experimental method, the included studies can be divided into three subgroups, including PCR-based, ELISA-based and others. The results showed these three subgroups had a highly pooled specificity of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99–1.00), 0.99 (0.98–1.00) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.91–1.00), respectively, while combined sensitivity was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.37–0.98), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.64–0.92) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.54–0.91), respectively.
Citation: Ning C, Lai J, Wei W, Zhou B, Huang J, Jiang J, et al. (2018) Accuracy of rapid diagnosis of Talaromyces marneffei: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 13(4): e0195569. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195569
Editor: Zhi Ruan, Zhejiang University, CHINA
Received: April 20, 2017; Accepted: March 26, 2018; Published: April 5, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Ning et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The study was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province, China (GXNSFBA139165, http://www.gxst.gov.cn/), Guangxi Medical University Youth Science Foundation (GXMUYSF2014020, http://www.gxmu.edu.cn/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Talaromyces marneffei (TM), formerly named Penicillium marneffei (also called PSM, or P.M) [1, 2], was first discovered in 1956 from the hepatic lesions of a bamboo rat (Rhizomys sinensis) which dying of disseminated mycosis that had been maintained in captivity for experimental infections at the Pasteur Institute of South Vietnam [3]. T. marneffei is endemic to Southeast Asia and South China as an opportunistic infectious disease in immunocompromised individuals [4]. The incidence of systemic T. marneffei infection has grown up rapidly in recent years, in consistent with the increasing incidence of HIV infections [5]. In endemic areas, for instance northern Thailand, it has become the third most common opportunistic infection in patients with AIDS, after tuberculosis and cryptococcosis [6]. The proportion of HIV patients infected with T. marneffei currently is 30% in Thailand, and ~10% in southern China [4, 5]. In addition, in these areas, about 50,000 HIV positive patients are newly infected by T. marneffei each year, leading to an annual death rate of up to 10% [7]. T. marneffei infected AIDS present serious systemic disease with fever, anemia, weight loss, skin lesion, respiratory signs, generalized lymphadenopathy, and hepatosplenomegaly. Clinical experiences show that treatment using amphotericin B, itraconazole, ketoconazole, and fluconazole alone or combined appropriately during the early stage can effectively combat T. marneffei [8, 9].
At present, late diagnosis is the main reason for the high fatality in TM patients co-infected with HIV, combining other underlying diseases or simplex T. marneffei [10, 11]. T. marneffei is usually diagnosed by microscopic identification of the fungus in clinical specimens and by cultivation techniques, based on its characteristic morphological and dimorphic properties, which grow as a mycelium form at 25°C and as a yeast form at 37°C [12, 13]. However, such procedures are relatively time-consuming, requiring about ten days, which might negatively affect the selection of an appropriate therapy. Clinical specimens for culture that are commonly used include bone marrow aspirate (100%), skin biopsies, skin scrapings (90%), blood (76%), sputum, urine and stool analysis, lymph node, liver and bronchoalveolar lavage pellet, pleural and cerebrospinal fluid analysis, pharyngeal ulcer and palatal papule scrapings and kidney, pericardium, stomach or intestine analysis [14]. Although fungi culture is featured with high accuracy of diagnosis and wide applicability of various specimens, being time-consuming has pulling these advantages back. Therefore, rapid diagnosis of T. marneffei is in urgent need for its rapid turnaround time, high accuracy, cost saving, and potential to reduce fatality. Currently, there is a significant emphasis on rapid diagnosis methods due to their high sensitivity and specificity, including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [15–17], mainly real-time quantification PCR [18, 19], nested PCR [20–23], in situ hybridization PCR [24–26], enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [27–35] and biochemical criterion tests [36–45].
However, in light of a reported sensitivity ranging from 10 to 100%, whereas specificity usually exceeds 95%, it is unclear which rapid diagnosis technique is preferable. The aim of this review is to investigate whether RDTM is sufficiently specific or sensitive in order to enable early treatment. This study has the potential to provide a rapid diagnostic method for T. marneffei infection, thus enabling early therapeutic management.
Materials and methods
Search strategy and study selection
We searched PubMed, Ovid (Cochrane library), and Web of Science, and WanFang (a Chinese bibliographic database) and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for published articles which reported methods for detecting Talaromyces marneffei between 1956 and December, 2017. The systematic literature search syntaxs were ("Talaromyces marneffei"[Text Word] OR "Penicillium marneffei"[Text Word] OR "P. marneffei"[Text Word] OR "T. marneffei"[Text Word]) AND ((“diagnosis"[MeSH Terms] OR diagnostic[Text Word] OR detect[Text Word] OR detection[Text Word]) OR (“sensitivity and specificity"[MeSH Terms] OR sensitivity [Text Word] OR specificity [Text Word]) OR “ROC Curve”[MeSH Terms]) AND ("1956/01/01"[PubDate]: "2017/12/31"[PubDate]).
A study was included in the meta-analysis when it met all following criteria: (1) a study for diagnosis of Talaromyces marneffei; (2) use of the reference standards; (3) use of a control group; (4) provision of true positive, false positive, true negative and false negative directly or indirectly.
Data extraction and quality assessment
Two trained reviewers independently screened the articles and judged research eligibility; disagreements were eliminated through team discussion. Data retrieved from the articles included publication year, country, participants, specimen resource, study design, RDTM method (PCR, ELISA, LA or other rapid serodiagnosis methods), blinding, true positive, false positive, true negative, false negative, sensitivity and specificity data, positive and negative predictive values. Table 1 shows the details of the extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of each article on case selection, study design, golden standard diagnosis, blinding and so on, according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS2)[46].
Data collection and analysis
Data were extracted either on article or study level when possible to reconstruct the 2 × 2 tables which were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity. The studies included were grouped by type of RDTM. For meta-analyzed the accuracy of RDTM, we selected to perform bivariate random-effects regression models, as recommended by the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group for which I2>50%, and combined the sensitivity and specificity estimates. Publication bias was investigated with visual inspection of funnel plots. The bivariate random-effects model to estimate takes into consideration the potential trade-off between sensitivity and specificity by explicitly incorporating this negative correlation in the analysis. Positive and negative of predictive values were computed and diagnostic likelihood ratios (DLR) were directly generated from pooled pair sensitivity and specificity estimates. The data was also used to plot summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curves by establish the true positivity and false positivity (1—specificity) of each study. The closer the curve is to the upper left-hand corner, with the exact area under the curve (AUC) of the SROC curve plot, the better the overall accuracy of the test. Summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for each variate and subgroup were generated, along with 95% CIs (confidence intervals). All analyses were conducted using Stata 12.0 and Revman 5.0.
Results
Study selection and characteristic of included studies
We identified 368 records from PubMed/Ovid/Web of Science and 510 and 244 articles from CNKI and Wanfang, respectively. If these articles, 1046 were excluded because their research contents did not comply with our criteria. We excluded another 61 articles because of specificity/sensitivity was absence or dual publication. Finally, due to some articles evaluated more than one RDTM, 15 full-text articles, including 26 studies were available for the meta-analysis (Fig 1).
The 26 studies included diagnostic studies enrolling 632 patients infected with T. marneffei and 2,612 negative controls between 1996 and 2016 in Thailand, Vietnam and China (Table 1). The methodological quality of the included studies was showed in S1 Fig. There were only 3 studies described the reference test results were interpreted blind to the results of the index test or blinding is dictated by the test order, and the other trails without any blinding method (Table 1). The funnel plots for publication bias (Fig 2) show symmetry and the Deek test was not significant (p = 0.65). These results indicated that there was no potential for publication bias.
The red solid circle represents for PCR-based RDTMs, blue for ELISA-based RDTMs and green for other RDTMs. The areas of the circles stand for the number of cases. The Deek test was not significant (p = 0.69).
Overall accuracy of rapid diagnosis
To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the studies, the authors totally test 5,594 cases or control samples to identify the T. marneffei infections. The pooled specificity and sensitivity of the rapid diagnosis assay could be a useful tool for prompt diagnosis. Combined sensitivity, specificity, DLR positive and DLR negative were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.68–0.90), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98–1.00), 38.92 (95% CI: 19.17–79.00) and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.16–0.36), respectively, after analysing the different types of rapid diagnosis, regardless of the detection methods (Fig 3 and S2 Fig). The SROC curve is well established of summarizing the performance of a diagnostic test among all studies. The area of under SROC was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.00) (S3 Fig).
The red box represents for PCR-based RDTMs, blue for ELISA-based RDTMs and green for other RDTMs. a) The hollow rhombus stands for the pooled sensitivity and specificity of entire studies. The rhombus filled with red stands for the pooled sensitivity and specificity of PCR-based RDTMs. The rhombus filled with blue stands for the pooled sensitivity and specificity of ELISA-based RDTMs. And the rhombus filled with green stands for the pooled sensitivity and specificity of other RDTMs.
According to the experimental method, the included trials can be divided into three subgroups, the PCR subgroup, the ELISA-based subgroup and the others.
Molecular diagnosis
Four articles, including seven trials, used the PCR-based experimental technique to detect T. marneffei. In these studies, 108 patients and 414 controls between 2003 and 2016 in Thailand, China and Vietnam were recruited in the studies. As shown in Fig 3, specificity seemed to be more consistent across the studies than sensitivity, with sensitivity estimates ranging from 0.10 to 1.00 and specificity estimates achieving a stable 1.00. Overall, for all RDTM of PCR, combined sensitivity was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.37–0.98), while combined specificity was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99–1.00).
ELISA based serodiagnosis assays
The ELISA-related experimental methods were also employed to detect the fungus. The methods were analysed in eight articles (14 studies) comprising 320 patients with T. marneffei and 1,873 controls in Thailand and China between 1996 and 2016. A recombinant T. marneffei mannoprotein (Mp1p) for the serodiagnosis of T. marneffei infection was developed to be a common use ELISA-based antibody RDTM in clinical. Evaluation of this test revealed high specificity (100%) and approximately 80% (95% CI, 52%-96%) sensitivity in HIV seropositive patients infected with T. marneffei. Compiled with antibody and antigen tests for the diagnosis of T. marneffei infection had a higher sensitivity of 88%, with a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 96% (Table 1). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.64–0.92) and 0.99 (0.98–1.00) (Fig 3), respectively.
Other RDTMs
Along with PCR- and ELISA-related experimental methods, researchers also developed other detection technologies to diagnose T. marneffei. Five different experimental methods were considered in the meta-analysis, including latex agglutination (LA), G test, spectrophotometric detection and Giemsa staining. Pastorex Aspergillus is a latex agglutination test kit using a monoclonal antibody to detect Aspergillus fumigatus galactomannan in serum specimens from patients with aspergillosis. The reagent was used to detect galactomannan in an experimental infection with T. marneffei. However, the titer of antigen detected was lower than that in infection with Aspergillus. The combined sensitivity and specificity were 0.70 (95% CI: 0.64–0.76) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95–0.98), respectively (Fig 3).
Discussion
Our study found that the current RDTM is extremely highly specific and with modest and highly variably sensitivity. In contrast, ELISA-based methods work more rapidly and have been used effectively for specific detection of T. marneffei. In addition, our meta-analysis revealed that nested PCR was more accurate in detecting T. marneffei in clinical culture samples or fresh tissues. It can improve the detection accuracy when using certain measures, for instance, blood fungus culture for 3 or 4 days, to increase the DNA extraction yield from white blood cells. However, the ELISA-based RDTM showed high specificity and approximately 80% sensitivity, even in non-culture serum. Until now, rapid diagnosis of T. marneffei infections has been a significant challenge, although serodiagnostic assays have been reported as powerful tools for detecting pathogenic fungi.
Molecular tools for the detection of the fungus is based on taxon-specific primers designed from the internally transcribed spacer and ribosomal RNA gene for the fungal strains, which enables early and rapid diagnosis [21, 22]. The specificity of T. marneffei primers was tested in a nested PCR from series case reports. This biology approach was nearly 100% successfully to amplify T. marneffei DNA and have been developed to identify T. marneffei from a skin biopsy. Use of new modified PCR-based techniques for the rapid detection of the infection needs to be studied and implemented further. Moreover, most of T. marneffei exist in white blood cells, and the authors used liquid nitrogen grinding crushing method to break cell wall, which cannot break the cell wall completely. Thus, the cell wall broken method can only extract a small amount of DNA and reduce the efficiency of PCR amplification seriously. Compared with nested PCR, the detection sensitivity of traditional PCR that the authors used was lower for the lower amplification sensitivity.
The use of monoclonal antibody based sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay offers advantages for the highly specific and sensitive detection of T. marneffei antigens in clinical specimens from patients with laboratory confirmed T. marneffei infection. Whereas the IgM from clone 8C3 responses was immobilized onto the wall of microtiter plates were higher against both yeast and mycelial antigens [47]. The antigen in serum or urine was significantly higher against with biotinylated polyclonal rabbit anti-T. marneffei antibody. Especially T. marneffei often occurs in immune dysfunction, it is easily combined with other opportunistic infection, which would greatly affect the ELISA accuracy in the practical use. Also ELISA procedures the antigen is detected clearly in the early phase whereas the antibody only can detect during the intermediate stage, it would be impact on the different phases. In our study, the positivity rate for antigen was significantly higher for antibody as compared to the early diagnosis. When used in combination with antigen and antibody tests, it improves the detection rate substantially.
Several additional methods for detecting circulating T. marneffei antigens have been developed with the same polyclonal antibody and compared with the ELISA for the detection of T. marneffei urinary antigen. A dot blot ELISA and a latex agglutination (LA) test were developed in which urine specimens from 37 patients with culture-proven penicilliosis and 300 controls (52 healthy subjects and 248 hospitalized patients without penicilliosis) were tested. The overall sensitivities of the tests were as follows: dot blot ELISA, 94%; ELISA, 97%; LA test, 100% [31]. However, a potential future application would be to assess responses to antifungal therapy in serial clinical samples testing during treatment and subsequent follow-up without the isolation.
Our studies also had several potential methodological limitations. In particular, only three of the included studies reported blinded assessment of the RDTM assays and the control subjects in most studies were comprised by healthy subjects and hospital patients without T. marneffei. Although RDTM gives a dichotomous yes/no answer, discordance lines may be due to one or the other factor of false-positive results. It is difficult assess the risk of bias, although we did not find any discordance exists in reported accuracy between whether blinded versus unblinded. Moreover, this review could have been affected by publication bias, although we searched several sources and updated our searches, but we may have missed some eligible studies in south Asia for searched articles only published in Chinese and English. The last but not the least, cost-effectiveness analysis would seem to be an absolute necessity to evaluate whether potential benefits offset the added costs of routine use of RDTM. Nevertheless, further development of these tests need to be concerned, a larger number of specimens from patients with T. marneffei and other virulence potential favoring disease need to be tested.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Summary of the risk of bias and applicability concerns.
a) Risk of bias and applicability concerns assessment with an overview of the reviewers’ judgment about each separate domain for each included study. b) Summary of the risk of bias and applicability concerns across the included studies as assessed with QUADAS-2 forms.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195569.s002
(TIF)
S2 Fig. Forest plot of the combined RDTMs of diagnostic likelihood ratio (DLR) positive & DLR negative.
The hollow rhombus stands for the pooled DLR positive and DLR negative of included studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195569.s003
(TIF)
S3 Fig. Summary reciver operating curve (SROC) of different RDTMs of T. Marneffei.
The red solid oval represents for PCR-based RDTMs, blue for ELISA-based RDTMs and green for other RDTMs. the size of the ovals means the quantity of cases. The result of SROC indicates the relationship between the true positive rate (TPR) and the false positive rate (FPR) of the test, as the area under curve used to distinguish T. marneffei cases from non-infection varies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195569.s004
(TIF)
Acknowledgments
We thank all colleagues who have generated the extensive biomarker literature that was meta-analyzed here.
References
- 1. Samson RA, Yilmaz N, Houbraken J, Spierenburg H, Seifert KA, Peterson SW, et al. Phylogeny and nomenclature of the genus Talaromyces and taxa accommodated in Penicillium subgenus Biverticillium. Studies in mycology. 2011;70(1):159–83. Epub 2012/02/07. pmid:22308048; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3233910.
- 2. Houbraken J, de Vries RP, Samson RA. Modern taxonomy of biotechnologically important Aspergillus and Penicillium species. Advances in applied microbiology. 2014;86:199–249. Epub 2014/01/01. pmid:24377856.
- 3. Capponi M, Segretain G, Sureau P. [Penicillosis from Rhizomys sinensis]. Bulletin de la Societe de pathologie exotique et de ses filiales. 1956;49(3):418–21. Epub 1956/05/01. pmid:13364636.
- 4. Hu Y, Zhang J, Li X, Yang Y, Zhang Y, Ma J, et al. Penicillium marneffei infection: an emerging disease in mainland China. Mycopathologia. 2013;175(1–2):57–67. Epub 2012/09/18. pmid:22983901.
- 5. Vanittanakom N, Cooper CR Jr., Fisher MC, Sirisanthana T. Penicillium marneffei infection and recent advances in the epidemiology and molecular biology aspects. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2006;19(1):95–110. Epub 2006/01/19. pmid:16418525; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1360277.
- 6. Supparatpinyo K, Perriens J, Nelson KE, Sirisanthana T. A controlled trial of itraconazole to prevent relapse of Penicillium marneffei infection in patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. The New England journal of medicine. 1998;339(24):1739–43. Epub 1998/12/10. pmid:9845708.
- 7. Armstrong-James D, Meintjes G, Brown GD. A neglected epidemic: fungal infections in HIV/AIDS. Trends Microbiol. 2014;22(3):120–7. pmid:24530175.
- 8. Wong SY, Wong KF. Penicillium marneffei Infection in AIDS. Pathology research international. 2011;2011:764293. Epub 2011/02/19. pmid:21331327; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3038620.
- 9. Nor-Hayati S, Sahlawati M, Suresh-Kumar C, Lee KC. A retrospective review on successful management of Penicillium marneffei infections in patients with advanced HIV in Hospital Sungai Buloh. The Medical journal of Malaysia. 2012;67(1):66–70. Epub 2012/05/16. pmid:22582551.
- 10. Le T, Wolbers M, Chi NH, Quang VM, Chinh NT, Lan NP, et al. Epidemiology, seasonality, and predictors of outcome of AIDS-associated Penicillium marneffei infection in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2011;52(7):945–52. Epub 2011/03/24. pmid:21427403; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3106230.
- 11. Wu TC, Chan JW, Ng CK, Tsang DN, Lee MP, Li PC. Clinical presentations and outcomes of Penicillium marneffei infections: a series from 1994 to 2004. Hong Kong medical journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhi / Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. 2008;14(2):103–9. Epub 2008/04/03. pmid:18382016.
- 12. Deng Z, Ribas JL, Gibson DW, Connor DH. Infections caused by Penicillium marneffei in China and Southeast Asia: review of eighteen published cases and report of four more Chinese cases. Reviews of infectious diseases. 1988;10(3):640–52. Epub 1988/05/01. pmid:3293165.
- 13. Cao C, Li R, Wan Z, Liu W, Wang X, Qiao J, et al. The effects of temperature, pH, and salinity on the growth and dimorphism of Penicillium marneffei. Medical mycology. 2007;45(5):401–7. Epub 2007/07/27. pmid:17654266.
- 14. Duong TA. Infection due to Penicillium marneffei, an emerging pathogen: review of 155 reported cases. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 1996;23(1):125–30. Epub 1996/07/01. pmid:8816141.
- 15. LoBuglio KF, Taylor JW. Phylogeny and PCR identification of the human pathogenic fungus Penicillium marneffei. Journal of clinical microbiology. 1995;33(1):85–9. Epub 1995/01/01. pmid:7699073; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC227885.
- 16. Elias NA, Cuestas ML, Sandoval M, Poblete G, Lopez-Daneri G, Jewtuchowicz V, et al. Rapid identification of Histoplasma capsulatum directly from cultures by multiplex PCR. Mycopathologia. 2012;174(5–6):451–6. Epub 2012/07/24. pmid:22821346.
- 17. Chen W, L L., H F., S W., K Y., C W., et al. Clinical application of PCR on rapid diagnosis of AIDS complicated with disseminated penicillosis marneffei Chinese Journal of Experimental and Clinical Infectious Disease. 2011;05(2).
- 18. Pornprasert S, Praparattanapan J, Khamwan C, Pawichai S, Pimsarn P, Samleerat T, et al. Development of TaqMan real-time polymerase chain reaction for the detection and identification of Penicillium marneffei. Mycoses. 2009;52(6):487–92. Epub 2009/02/12. pmid:19207847.
- 19. Hien HT, Thanh TT, Thu NT, Nguyen A, Thanh NT, Lan NP, et al. Development and evaluation of a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for the rapid detection of Talaromyces marneffei MP1 gene in human plasma. Mycoses. 2016. Epub 2016/07/28. pmid:27453379; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5111613.
- 20. Pongpom M, Sirisanthana T, Vanittanakom N. Application of nested PCR to detect Penicillium marneffei in serum samples. Medical mycology. 2009;47(5):549–53. Epub 2009/04/09. pmid:19353372.
- 21. Liu Y, Huang X, Yi X, He Y, Mylonakis E, Xi L. Detection of Talaromyces marneffei from Fresh Tissue of an Inhalational Murine Pulmonary Model Using Nested PCR. PloS one. 2016;11(2):e0149634. Epub 2016/02/18. pmid:26886887; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4757548.
- 22. Prariyachatigul C, Chaiprasert A, Geenkajorn K, Kappe R, Chuchottaworn C, Termsetjaroen S, et al. Development and evaluation of a one-tube seminested PCR assay for the detection and identification of Penicillium marneffei. Mycoses. 2003;46(11–12):447–54. Epub 2003/12/03. pmid:14641616.
- 23. Zeng H, Li X, Chen X, Zhang J, Sun J, Xie Z, et al. Identification of Penicillium marneffei in Paraffin-Embedded Tissue Using Nested PCR. Mycopathologia. 2009;168(1):31–5. Epub 2009/03/25. pmid:19308671.
- 24. Vanittanakom N, Merz WG, Sittisombut N, Khamwan C, Nelson KE, Sirisanthana T. Specific identification of Penicillium marneffei by a polymerase chain reaction/hybridization technique. Medical mycology. 1998;36(3):169–75. Epub 1998/10/20. pmid:9776830.
- 25. Lindsley MD, Hurst SF, Iqbal NJ, Morrison CJ. Rapid identification of dimorphic and yeast-like fungal pathogens using specific DNA probes. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2001;39(10):3505–11. Epub 2001/09/28. pmid:11574564; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC88380.
- 26. Sun J, Najafzadeh MJ, Zhang J, Vicente VA, Xi L, de Hoog GS. Molecular identification of Penicillium marneffei using rolling circle amplification. Mycoses. 2011;54(6):e751–9. Epub 2011/09/21. pmid:21929692.
- 27. Wang Y, Zeng L, Chen X, Hao W, Yang M, Cai J, et al. [A double-antigen sandwich ELISA for detecting Penicillium marneffei Mp1p-specific antibody]. Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University. 2013;33(3):439–43. Epub 2013/03/27. pmid:23529249.
- 28. Prakit K, Nosanchuk JD, Pruksaphon K, Vanittanakom N, Youngchim S. A novel inhibition ELISA for the detection and monitoring of Penicillium marneffei antigen in human serum. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases: official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology. 2016;35(4):647–56. Epub 2016/02/04. pmid:26838686.
- 29. Chaiyaroj SC, Chawengkirttikul R, Sirisinha S, Watkins P, Srinoulprasert Y. Antigen detection assay for identification of Penicillium marneffei infection. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2003;41(1):432–4. Epub 2003/01/09. pmid:12517886; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC149565.
- 30. Cao L, Chen DL, Lee C, Chan CM, Chan KM, Vanittanakom N, et al. Detection of specific antibodies to an antigenic mannoprotein for diagnosis of Penicillium marneffei penicilliosis. Journal of clinical microbiology. 1998;36(10):3028–31. Epub 1998/09/17. pmid:9738061; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC105105.
- 31. Desakorn V, Simpson AJ, Wuthiekanun V, Sahassananda D, Rajanuwong A, Pitisuttithum P, et al. Development and evaluation of rapid urinary antigen detection tests for diagnosis of penicilliosis marneffei. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2002;40(9):3179–83. Epub 2002/08/31. pmid:12202550; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC130715.
- 32. Kaufman L, Standard PG, Jalbert M, Kantipong P, Limpakarnjanarat K, Mastro TD. Diagnostic antigenemia tests for penicilliosis marneffei. Journal of clinical microbiology. 1996;34(10):2503–5. Epub 1996/10/01. pmid:8880509; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC229305.
- 33. Desakorn V, Smith MD, Walsh AL, Simpson AJ, Sahassananda D, Rajanuwong A, et al. Diagnosis of Penicillium marneffei infection by quantitation of urinary antigen by using an enzyme immunoassay. Journal of clinical microbiology. 1999;37(1):117–21. Epub 1998/12/17. pmid:9854074; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC84182.
- 34. He KY, Feng LZ, Liang ZW, Chen WS, Chen XJ, Cai WP, et al. Value of serum galactomannan test in diagnosis of AIDS complicated with peniicilliosis marneffei. Academic Journal of Guangzhou Medical University. 2016;44(03):21–4.
- 35. Wang YF, Cai JP, Wang YD, Dong H, Hao W, Jiang LX, et al. Immunoassays based on Penicillium marneffei Mp1p derived from Pichia pastoris expression system for diagnosis of penicilliosis. PloS one. 2011;6(12):e28796. Epub 2011/12/30. pmid:22205971; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3244411.
- 36. Yuen KY, Wong SS, Tsang DN, Chau PY. Serodiagnosis of Penicillium marneffei infection. Lancet. 1994;344(8920):444–5. Epub 1994/08/13. pmid:7914566.
- 37. Chen YS, Liu YH, Teng SH, Liao CH, Hung CC, Sheng WH, et al. Evaluation of the matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry Bruker Biotyper for identification of Penicillium marneffei, Paecilomyces species, Fusarium solani, Rhizopus species, and Pseudallescheria boydii. Frontiers in microbiology. 2015;6:679. Epub 2015/07/29. pmid:26217315; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4495555.
- 38. Lau SK, Lam CS, Ngan AH, Chow WN, Wu AK, Tsang DN, et al. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry for rapid identification of mold and yeast cultures of Penicillium marneffei. BMC microbiology. 2016;16:36. Epub 2016/03/12. pmid:26965891; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4787007.
- 39. Qin L, Zhao L, Tan C, Chen XU, Yang Z, Mo W. A novel method of combining Periodic Acid Schiff staining with Wright-Giemsa staining to identify the pathogens Penicillium marneffei, Histoplasma capsulatum, Mucor and Leishmania donovani in bone marrow smears. Experimental and therapeutic medicine. 2015;9(5):1950–4. Epub 2015/07/03. pmid:26136921; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4471769.
- 40. Jan IS, Chung PF, Wang JY, Weng MH, Hung CC, Lee LN. Cytological diagnosis of Penicillium marneffei infection. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi. 2008;107(6):443–7. Epub 2008/06/28. pmid:18583214.
- 41. Imwidthaya P, Sekhon AS, Mastro TD, Garg AK, Ambrosie E. Usefulness of a microimmunodiffusion test for the detection of Penicillium marneffei antigenemia, antibodies, and exoantigens. Mycopathologia. 1997;138(2):51–5. Epub 1997/01/01. pmid:9433806.
- 42. Sun J, Li X, Zeng H, Xie Z, Lu C, Xi L, et al. Development and evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for the rapid diagnosis of Penicillium marneffei in archived tissue samples. FEMS immunology and medical microbiology. 2010;58(3):381–8. Epub 2010/02/02. pmid:20113352.
- 43. Wei S, Luo X, Liang J, Fang F. The significance of bone marrow smear microscopy in the diagnosis of AIDS complicated with disseminated Penicillium marneffei. Laboratory Medicine. 2013;28(12).
- 44. Zhou G, Wang M, X G. Serum adenosin deaminse in diagnosis of Penicilliosis Marneffei. Chin J AIDS STD. 2015;21(8).
- 45. Hu JG, Jiang ZS, Wen XF, Li MJ, Zhang P, Chen N, et al. Clinical value of detection of plasma(1–3)-β-D-glucan in diagnosis of AIDS patients complicated with disseminated penicilliosis marneffei. Chin J Nosocomiol. 2015;25(22):5128–30+41.
- 46. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36. pmid:22007046.
- 47. Panichakul T, Chawengkirttikul R, Chaiyaroj SC, Sirisinha S. Development of a monoclonal antibody-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the diagnosis of Penicillium marneffei infection. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene. 2002;67(4):443–7. Epub 2002/11/28. pmid:12452501.