1,721,005 research outputs found

    In vitro activity of five antifungal agents against clinical isolates of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

    No full text
    We evaluated the in vitro activity of fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, 5-fluorocytosine and amphotericin B against 30 clinical isolates of Saccharomyces cerevisiae by a broth microdilution method, following the NCCLS recommendation. Testing was performed either in RPMI-1640 or yeast nitrogen base (YNB). YNB supported the growth of all isolates tested, while results in RPMI-1640 were not obtained for six isolates (20%). The MIC of all three azoles in YNB were one or two dilutions higher than those obtained in RPMI-1640 (P=0.0001 for fluconazole and itraconazole, P=0.03 for ketoconazole). Elevated MICs were observed for all three azoles, while all the isolates were susceptible to 5-fluorocytosine and amphotericin B. All MIC values were confirmed by spectrophotometric reading. Six strains of S. cerevisiae isolated from the faeces and consecutive blood cultures from an AIDS patient over a 7-month period were typed by electrophoretic karyotyping (EK). EK showed the maintenance of the same karyotype over time suggesting that the faecal isolate changed from a colonizing to infection-causing strain. The relative resistance of S. cerevisiae to azole drugs as well as its ability to cause widespread infections may promote the emergence of this species as a pathogen in immunosuppressed patients

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore