rubrum. Seventeen nail samples were positive for fungal elements in the KOH-mounts only and were negative in cultures and T. rubrum PCR. In scales (Fig. 2) as well as in nails (Fig. 3), the sensitivity of the T. rubrum PCR was clearly higher than the culture method with regard to detection of T. rubrum. This superiority was higher for nail probes than for scale samples. The specificity of the T. rubrum PCR was very high; none of the cases in which a fungal species other than T. rubrum was

grown had a positive T. rubrum PCR. However, neither in scales nor in nails all T. rubrum-infections were detected by the T. rubrum PCR as reflected by probes of scales and nails that yielded a positive T. rubrum culture, BMN 673 purchase but a negative T. rubrum PCR. Furthermore, it remains unknown how

many of the samples with a positive KOH-mount, but negative results of T. rubrum PCR and cultures, might have been caused by an infection by T. rubrum. Depending on the submission of samples, on the workload of the laboratory and on the capacities for analyses, it took about 2–5 days to get a PCR result in our laboratory and 2–3 weeks to obtain a culture result. The samples investigated in this study had been taken under routine conditions and although in most cases the reason for their collection had been to prove a mycotic infection, the exclusion of tinea in case of ambiguous lesions was an indication as well. Therefore, the high percentage of negative results selleck kinase inhibitor with KOH-mounts,

cultures and PCR is not surprising. Our results clearly show that the PCR method used by us allows detecting markedly more infections with T. rubrum than the commonly used combination of KOH-mount plus culture. It is also noteworthy that this PCR assay is feasible in a shorter time than cultural verification even under routine conditions. This improvement of sensitivity and speed applies to infections of the superficial skin and even more to nail infections. It is tempting to calculate exact figures for the sensitivity and specificity of the T. rubrum PCR. However, there is an unquestionable science likelihood that a certain share of the positive KOH-mounts was a result of T. rubrum-infections despite a negative PCR (for reasons of lack of DNA in the probe because of inhomogeneous distribution within the submitted material, degradation of DNA, inhibition of PCR, etc.), and without knowing the rate of missed infections, a calculation of sensitivity and specificity is not sensible. Nevertheless, our data support the conclusion that the T. rubrum PCR improves the detection of T. rubrum. As was mentioned above, this does not mean, however, that all T. rubrum-infections were detected by our T. rubrum PCR. There are at least two reasons that can explain negative culture results despite a positive T. rubrum PCR. First, the fungal elements in the collected samples may not be viable because of previous treatments or incorrect collection.