Next Article in Journal
A Low to Medium-Shear Extruded Kibble with Greater Resistant Starch Increased Fecal Oligosaccharides, Butyric Acid, and Other Saccharolytic Fermentation By-Products in Dogs
Next Article in Special Issue
Incidence of Histoplasmosis in a Cohort of People with HIV: From Estimations to Reality
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamics of Plasmatic Levels of Pro- and Anti-Inflammatory Cytokines in HIV-Infected Individuals with M. tuberculosis Co-Infection
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 9
Issue 11
10.3390/microorganisms9112292
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Risk Assessment for Molds in the Vicinity of a Child Requiring Peritoneal Dialysis Living in a Rural Northern German Area

by
Andreas Erich Zautner
1,*,†,
Hagen Frickmann
2,3,† and
Andreas Podbielski
3
1
Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hospital Hygiene, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany
2
Department of Microbiology and Hospital Hygiene, Bundeswehr Hospital Hamburg, 20359 Hamburg, Germany
3
Institute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hospital Hygiene, University Medicine Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Andreas Erich Zautner and Hagen Frickmann equally contributed to this work.
Microorganisms 2021, 9(11), 2292; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9112292
Submission received: 7 October 2021 / Revised: 29 October 2021 / Accepted: 2 November 2021 / Published: 4 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Diagnosis of Invasive Fungal Infections)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As well as severe immunosuppression, other predisposing factors may facilitate invasive mycosis caused by molds. Chronic kidney disease and the resulting peritoneal dialysis have been reported as factors putting patients at risk of fungal infections from environmental sources. We describe an environmental investigation undertaken to guide exposure prevention for a peritoneal dialysis patient with transient colonization of her nostrils by Lichtheimia corymbifera in a rural area of northern Germany. Systematic screening for airborne and surface-deposited molds enabled targeted recommendations to be made, although Lichtheimia corymbifera itself was not grown from the collected environmental samples. This communication is intended to illustrate how such an investigation can be performed on the basis of the environmental distribution of the molds and how preventive recommendations can be derived from the results.

1. Introduction

As has been described previously, children undergoing peritoneal dialysis are at risk of acquiring systemic mold infections [1]. Dialysis-associated systemic mycoses have been described for various molds, including Aspergillus spp., Fusarium spp., Mucorales and Penicillium spp. [2,3,4,5,6]. Here, we describe an environmental screening process prompted by the nasal colonization of a child undergoing peritoneal dialysis with Lichtheimia corymbifera, a member of the order Mucorales; this was conducted in order to reduce the child’s risk of exposure to environmental molds and the associated risk of progression to systemic infection.
Mucorales can cause severe invasive infections in immunocompromised patients [7,8,9], including severely mutilating rhino–orbital–cerebral lesions [10,11,12] as well as pulmonal, cutaneous, gastrointestinal, disseminated, and other manifestations [13]. Mucormycosis is globally distributed, occurring in temperate climates [14] and in sub-tropical or tropical settings [15,16,17]. The prognosis for survival is usually poor [7] and therapeutic options are limited to newer azoles such as posaconazole and isavuconazole as well as liposomal amphotericin B [7,18,19,20,21,22,23]. To date, however, neither the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) nor the EMA (European Medicines Agency) have granted approval for first-line posaconazole therapy. As well as immunosuppression [24,25], the availability of ionic iron has been reported to be critical for the onset of mucormycosis [26]. Even in apparently immunocompetent hosts, gastrointestinal mucormycosis [27] and other variants of Mucorales infections [28] have been described, although adaptive and innate immunity usually prevents severe infections in individuals who do not have predisposing factors [29]. Children can also be affected [30,31], again with severe immunosuppression as the underlying medical condition [32]. Inoculation of fungal spores via the skin due to traumatic injuries or burns is the typical route of infection, even in patients without immunosuppression. [14]. Severe hyperglycemia or ketoacidosis, as well as iron overload resulting from repeated blood transfusions and blood disorders, have also been recorded in association with mucormycosis in immunocompetent hosts [33,34]. Diabetes mellitus, in particular, has been considered as a major risk factor in various reviews [35,36], whereas in an Asian study, post-pulmonary tuberculosis and chronic kidney disease were reported as further predisposing factors [37]. Indeed, several cases of peritoneal-dialysis-associated mucormycosis have been described [6,38,39,40]. Most recently, steroid therapy of COVID-19 infections has been identified as another risk factor [41,42,43,44]. Molecular diagnostic approaches for the early and reliable diagnosis of systemic infections are presently under investigation [45].
Lichtheimia spp., among others, have been reported to be associated with species-dependent human pathogenic potential [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53], including rhino–cerebral mucormycosis [54]. As is typical for mucormycoses, Lichtheimia spp. infections have been predominantly described for severely immunocompromised patients [55,56,57,58,59], premature newborns [60], severely burnt individuals [61,62,63], or post-traumatic medical conditions [64]. Co-infections with other molds have been recorded [65], as has a probable nosocomial transmission in an intensive care unit [66]. Additionally, of note, farmer’s lung disease has been associated with Lichtheimia spp. antigens [67,68,69,70].
Frequent sources of transmission of non-nosocomial Mucorales infections comprise, in descending order of frequency, contaminated air, traumatic inoculation of soil or foreign bodies, and contact with or the ingestion of contaminated plant material [71]. Accordingly, environmental exposure presents a risk for clinically relevant infections with Mucorales in susceptible individuals because of the wide occurrence of Mucorales in soil [72].
Here, we describe an environmental investigation undertaken in order to control the risk of infection by Mucorales and other molds for such an individual with predisposing risk factors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Medical Background of the Environmental Investigation

Transient colonization with Lichtheimia corymbifera of the nostrils of a teenage female patient who required peritoneal dialysis due to an underlying medical condition, along with chronic nasal colonization of her mother with the same fungal pathogen, triggered an environmental investigation. There were no signs of hypersensitivity, such as the presentation of farmer’s lung disease, in either the patient or her mother.
The aim, by means of exposure prevention, was risk reduction for the girl, whose need for peritoneal dialysis signified a risk of progression of Mucorales colonization to invasive disease [6,37,38,39,40].

2.2. Environmental Investigation and Laboratory-Based Work-Up

Measurements of both airborne and surface-related mold spore loads at the living and working places of the family in a rural setting of northern Germany were conducted as part of the environmental investigation, comprising a screening of the family’s house and garden as well as the working places, a nearby pigsty, and a cow barn.
The techniques used were airborne spore collection using an Air Sampler RCS Plus device (Biotest Diagnostics, Dreieich, Germany), as well as the smear testing and plating of suspicious material on Sabouraud dextrose selective agar (Becton Dickinson, Heidelberg, Germany). The airborne spores were obtained with the Air Sampler RCS Plus device at a distance of 1.5 m from the floor. The assessed air volumes were 100 L in each case; the results of the airborne measurements were normalized to 1 m3. All Sabouraud dextrose agar plates were incubated for 2 days at 36 °C, and for a further 5 days at room temperature. The weather conditions were assessed using standard commercial thermometers, hygrometers, and barometers.
Cultural growth on Sabouraud dextrose agar (Becton Dickinson), as well as micromorphological differentiation of growing molds, was conducted in a microbiological diagnostic laboratory accredited according to DIN EN ISO 15189 and according to the locally established standard operating procedures. It was attempted to isolate microscopically identified Mucorales fungi and then to differentiate them by 18S rRNA gene sequencing, as described elsewhere [73].

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Assessment of the House and the Garden of the Patient’s Family and of the Occupational Settings

The patient’s home was a detached, three-story residential building. It was a prefabricated house with a full basement made of bricks, 28 years old, and was last renovated 18 years prior to the assessment. There was insulation of the exterior walls but no roof insulation. The basement comprised two garages, a laundry room, and an office room. On the ground floor there were six rooms, and on the upper floor, four rooms. Above the upper floor, a single-roomed attic could be reached by a ladder. Details are provided by the sketches in Figure 1.
The family was instructed to keep the windows and the doors closed for at least 12 h before the survey. The windows consisted of insulating glass to all sides. Potentially uninterrupted ventilation via an open fire place in the living room was noted, and a smell of oil and chemicals in each basement room and a musty smell and visible salt blooms in the storage room in the basement were detected. Of note, the basement and the attic were only occasionally used, so that these rooms were hardly ventilated.
The solid floors in each story were made of concrete, partly complemented with tiles. Linoleum laminate covered the floor in the patient’s room; there was carpeting in other rooms. The residence’s walls were partly covered with exposed plaster, partly with wallpaper. In the patient’s parents’ bedroom, the closets reached up to the ceiling and were positioned close to the walls, impeding ventilation in this room.
In the adjoining garden, there was a dog kennel, a shed housing young cats, a pigeon loft, and a woodshed. Pets (dog, cat, and pigeons) roamed in the immediate vicinity of the property. Organic waste was accumulated on a compost heap in the garden. Details of the garden and front yard are illustrated in the sketch in Figure 1. Recyclable waste was collected in the basement for up to 1 week at a time. The rooms could be heated by radiators; no humidifiers were detected. Fifteen potted indoor plants were distributed within the residence.
Moisture stains smaller than a postcard size were observed in the basement. One spot of visible mold growth was detected in the basement storage room, and a sample of the peeled wallpaper was taken with sterile tweezers from the moldy area. Otherwise, there was no visible fungal growth anywhere in the patient’s residence.
Further relevant features included a smoking habit of the patient’s father. Once a week, the house was cleaned by mopping and vacuuming. The floor of the patient’s room and the dialysis equipment were disinfected in addition to regular cleaning.
The occupational settings assessed comprised a nearby pigsty and a cow barn; their dates of construction were unknown. The cow barn was last renovated one year prior to the assessment. The windows and doors of the pigsty and cow barn were regularly closed. Within the cow barn, a moldy area smaller than DIN A4 size was visible on the ceiling of the milking barn section.
Sampling sites and sampling strategies are shown in Figure 2.

3.2. Climatic Conditions at the Time of the Assessment

The assessment was performed on a cloudy, thundery summer day. A thunderstorm with considerable air movement was recorded towards the end of the measurements in the pigsty and the cow barn. Increased air pressure, a temperature drop of about 5 °C, and an increase in relative humidity by 10% to 20% were recorded. Details are provided in Table A1 of Appendix A.

3.3. Diagnostic Results of Cultural Growth

In the airborne pathogen collection, it was necessary to deviate from the standard distance of 1.5 m of the Air Sampler RCS Plus device from the floor in two instances: (a) storage room (dormer), device standing directly on the floor; (b) wood shed, device standing directly on the wood. Details of the results of the screening for airborne pathogens are provided in Table 1.
In addition to the outside air measurements, further samples were collected, and smear tests were performed. Details of the results are provided in Table 2.
In summary, 18S rRNA gene sequencing for species identification was attempted from the Mucorales isolates from the pigeon loft, from the upper floor storage room, and from the straw from the cow barn, but contamination-associated poor sequence quality allowed species identification of Rhizopus arrhizus only from the pigeon loft samples. Lichtheimia corymbifera, which was isolated from the human samples, could not be identified in the environmental specimens. Microscopical assessments of conidia did not lead to conclusive results.

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary and Interpretation of the Results of the Environmental Screening

Given that the spore counts per cubic meter of indoor air were identical to or lower than those of outdoor air, the indoor deposits of mold spores in the family house as well as in the pigsty and in the renovated part of the cow barn were most probably due to contamination from outdoor air. In support of this, in the pigsty, good correlation was found between agents from indoor and outdoor air, even at the species level. Clearly, there was no qualitative or quantitative evidence for the indoor growth of any mold species.
The relatively low number of spores in the air of the attic most likely reflected its infrequent contact with both the outdoor and indoor air of the occupied spaces. On the other hand, the tenfold higher spore load of the indoor air in the old cow barn as compared to the outdoor air strongly indicated the autochthonous growth of molds. The standard threshold for this assumption is an indoor air spore count exceeding the outdoor air spore count by a factor of two. Moreover, Aspergillus spp. and Mucorales were only detected in the indoor air of the old cow barn.
Additionally, the indoor air spore count in the pigeon loft exceeded the outdoor reference by a factor of >2.5. Although the Mucorales detected there turned out to be Rhizopus arrhizus, such results imply relevance as a potential source of additional Mucorales exposure.
For safety reasons, it was further recommended that the storage space on the first floor contaminated with Mucorales spores should not be used as storage for peritoneal dialysis consumables.
The patient’s mother frequently spent time in the cow barn area due to her occupation; this occupational behavior was considered as the most likely source of the chronic colonization of her nostrils with Mucorales. The source of the colonization of her daughter’s nasal cavity, however, could not be determined from the investigation.
Only a few fungal spores could be grown from the damp wall areas with peeling wallpaper and wall paint that were found in the storage room of the cellar. Accordingly, those observations were interpreted as remnants of longer historic periods of high humidity, due either to condensation or to leakage. Additionally, the numerous plants as well as the woodpiles in front of the house seemed to be of little relevance as sources or reservoirs, considering the low spore counts measured there.
The investigations had several deficiencies. First, because of the high workload involved in even one investigation, and because the patient’s family also declined further investigations in their home, the sampling procedure was performed only once. This is adequate only to give a snapshot of a potentially dynamic situation. Repeated examinations are desirable, but most often are not performed in real-life settings.
Second, the failure of discrimination of several of the grown Mucorales at species level by the Sanger sequencing approach used is an admitted limitation of the assessment. As observed in a previous methodological study [73], minor contamination is sufficient to cause non-interpretable Sanger sequencing results, and isolation attempts on Sabouraud dextrose agar failed to ensure contamination-free pure cultures in several instances. Beyond the contamination issue, panfungal PCRs targeting ITS regions have been reported to be more reliable for the sequence-based discrimination of Mucorales [74] than the 18S rRNA gene-based approach that was chosen. As reported elsewhere, specialized agar enriched with antifungal drugs may be applied to facilitate isolation attempts from environmental samples [72]; unfortunately, those approaches were not used for this assessment. Nor was a Lichtheimia spp.-specific real-time PCR [75,76,77] available, offering evaluated specificity in line with the requirements for diagnostic purposes in an accredited medical laboratory in Germany.
Third, initial growth temperatures lower than 36 °C would have facilitated the growth of Mucorales other than thermotolerant Lichtheimia spp. [78,79]. Thus, the diagnostic yield could have been higher than under the chosen conditions. However, even the sample growth of environmental fungi that was achieved made the identification of specific mold species challenging.
Despite the impossibility of identifying the environmental source of the Lichtheimia isolates, the sampling procedure distinguished several hot spots for mold spores in the immediate as well as in the more distant environment of the juvenile dialysis patient. In most cases, a higher spore count was not due to the local growth of fungi, but was most probably caused by the repeated trapping and/or sedimentation of spores from the outdoor air. The identification of such hot spots is important because molds, generally, have been reported to cause systemic infections in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis [1,2,3,4,5,6]. With that knowledge, the family could be instructed on techniques to decrease the indoor spore count. Furthermore, the patient was counselled to at least avoid such hot spots in her household environment.
Generally, the sampling of environmental material is a process that can only be partially anticipated in standard operating procedures (SOPs), especially when a household and workplace situation is as diverse as in the present case. Therefore, when addressing the overall benefit of such inspections as described here, these reports help laboratories that do not perform such investigations on a daily basis to improve their SOPs and to prepare the sampling staff for potentially unexpected situations.

4.2. Recommendations for the Patient and Her Family

In response to the environmental investigation, a number of procedures were recommended to the patient’s family in order to reduce or avoid contact with reservoirs of spores, and thus to minimize the risk for the patient herself. First, intensified cleaning in combination with the intermediate thorough aeration of rooms with high spore loads was suggested to the family members. Second, the storage of dialysis consumables in the first floor storage area contaminated with Mucorales should be eliminated. Third, the need to keep a pigeon loft, where high concentrations of potentially etiologically relevant molds were detected, should be reviewed with the consideration of alternatives, such as buying pigeon meat from the market. Finally, the patient herself was recommended to stay away from the pigeon loft and also to avoid the cow barn area if possible, in order to decrease her exposure to high mold spore concentrations.
Due to lack of follow-up consultations with the patient or her relatives, no repeat analyses were performed. Thus, no conclusions could be drawn on the dynamics of the spore contamination or even colonization of the patient’s environment with molds in general or Mucorales in particular, or on the potentially beneficial consequences of following the recommendations.

4.3. Reasons for the Recommendations

Due to the medical history of chronic renal failure requiring peritoneal dialysis, the patient for whom the environmental investigation was performed was at risk of acquiring clinically apparent invasive mycosis due to the colonizing Mucorales [6,37,38,39,40], but also due to other molds. The chronic colonization of the mother’s nostrils as well as the transient colonization of the patient’s nostrils suggested exposure to an environmental source. Complete removal or—if impossible—at least avoidance would have reduced the risk. Although the colonizing Lichtheimia corymbifera was only detected in the mother’s nostrils during family screening, not specifically in the environment, increased concentrations of other molds—including species of the order Mucorales—were discovered that could pose an independent risk to the patient’s health, justifying the above recommendations, including the restriction of movement of the patient at a few specific sites of her household.

5. Conclusions

This report illustrates an environmental investigation to facilitate risk-adapted exposure prevention for a patient at risk of acquiring invasive mycosis caused by molds. The aim of such work-intensive procedures is the specific identification of risky sites, and thus the formulation of targeted recommendations that restrict the patient’s personal freedom as little as possible. Future investigations should explore soil samples as a typical habitat [72] for increasingly sensitive Mucorales detection. Repeated reports on Mucorales infections from environmental sources [71] have suggested the advantage of such approaches. Additionally, the potential risk resulting from the presence of other molds such as A. fumigatus [1,2,3,4,5,6] could be simultaneously assessed and addressed by the recommendations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.E.Z., H.F. and A.P.; methodology, A.E.Z., H.F. and A.P.; software, H.F.; validation, H.F. and A.P.; formal analysis, A.E.Z., H.F. and A.P.; investigation, A.E.Z., H.F. and A.P.; resources, A.E.Z. and A.P.; data curation, H.F. and A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, H.F.; writing—review and editing, A.E.Z., H.F. and A.P.; visualization, H.F. and A.P.; supervision, A.P.; project administration, A.P.; funding acquisition, A.E.Z. and A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research of A.E.Z. was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG ZA 697/6-1), Germany. The APC was funded by the Open Access Publication Fund of Magdeburg University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable, as an environmental study is described.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are provided in the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Measurement of the weather conditions during the assessment.
Table A1. Measurement of the weather conditions during the assessment.
Measuring PointAir Pressure (kPa)Temperature (°C)Relative Humidity (%)
Residence; ground floor, hallway999.3 hPa23.5 °C54.2%
Residence, ground floor, bathroom999.3 hPa23.8 °C49.7%
Residence, ground floor, sleeping room999.4 hPa23.5 °C42.8%
Residence, upper floor, the patient’s room999.1 hPa24.4 °C49.8%
Residence, upper floor, storage room (oriel)998.9 hPa24.8 °C49.6%
Residence, attic998.9 hPa25.9 °C40.4%
Residence, basement, hallway999.5 hPa24.0 °C53.1%
Residence, basement, laundry room999.5 hPa25.6 °C54.3%
Residence, basement, garage999.8 hPa24.7 °C50.0%
Residence, outside air measurement (garden)1000.1 hPa22.2 °C45.8%
Garden, pigeon loft1000.2 hPa21.9 °C47.3%
Garden, shed with a cat1000.2 hPa22.2 °C50.8%
Garden, woodshed1000.0 hPa20.1 °C55.6%
Pigsty, anteroom1002.0 hPa26.1 °C47.4%
Pigsty, pigpen1001.9 hPa25.9 °C46.1%
Pigsty, silage room1002.2 hPa26.6 °C49.9%
Pigsty, outside air measurement1002.9 hPa19.8 °C49.5%
Cow shed—inside1002.4 hPa20.3 °C63.0%
Old cow shed—inside1002.4 hPa20.3 °C63.0%
Cow shed—milking barn1001.5 hPa18.1 °C77.1%
Cow shed—outside air measurement1001.5 hPa18.4 °C71.2%

References

  1. Chadha, V.; Schaefer, F.S.; Warady, B.A. Dialysis-associated peritonitis in children. Pediatr. Nephrol. 2010, 25, 425–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Dotis, J.; Kondou, A.; Koukloumperi, E.; Karava, V.; Papadopoulou, A.; Gkogka, C.; Printza, N. Aspergillus peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients: A systematic review. J. Mycol. Med. 2020, 30, 101037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Chang, H.R.; Shu, K.H.; Cheng, C.H.; Wu, M.J.; Chen, C.H.; Lian, J.D. Peritoneal-dialysis-associated penicillium peritonitis. Am. J. Nephrol. 2000, 20, 250–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Flynn, J.T.; Meislich, D.; Kaiser, B.A.; Polinsky, M.S.; Baluarte, H.J. Fusarium peritonitis in a child on peritoneal dialysis: Case report and review of the literature. Perit. Dial. Int. 1996, 16, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Nguyen, M.H.; Muder, R.R. Aspergillus peritonitis in a continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patient. Case report and review of the literature. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 1994, 20, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nannini, E.C.; Paphitou, N.I.; Ostrosky-Zeichner, L. Peritonitis due to Aspergillus and zygomycetes in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis: Report of 2 cases and review of the literature. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2003, 46, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Skiada, A.; Lass-Floerl, C.; Klimko, N.; Ibrahim, A.; Roilides, E.; Petrikkos, G. Challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of mucormycosis. Med. Mycol. 2018, 56 (Suppl. 1), 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Serris, A.; Danion, F.; Lanternier, F. Disease Entities in Mucormycosis. J. Fungi. 2019, 5, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Hassan, M.I.A.; Voigt, K. Pathogenicity patterns of mucormycosis: Epidemiology, interaction with immune cells and virulence factors. Med. Mycol. 2019, 57 (Suppl. 2), S245–S256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Gamaletsou, M.N.; Sipsas, N.V.; Roilides, E.; Walsh, T.J. Rhino-orbital-cerebral mucormycosis. Curr. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2012, 14, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Teixeira, C.A.; Medeiros, P.B.; Leushner, P.; Almeida, F. Rhinocerebral mucormycosis: Literature review apropos of a rare entity. BMJ. Case. Rep. 2013, 2013, bcr2012008552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Mertens, A.; Barche, D.; Scheinpflug, L.; Scholz, F.G.; Vielhaber, S.; Scherlach, C.; Tröger, U.; Geginat, G.; Färber, J.; Arens, C. Rhinocerebrale Mucormykose [Rhinocerebral Mucormycosis]. Laryngorhinootologie 2018, 97, 550–554. [Google Scholar]
  13. Roden, M.M.; Zaoutis, T.E.; Buchanan, W.L.; Knudsen, T.A.; Sarkisova, T.A.; Schaufele, R.L.; Sein, M.; Sein, T.; Chiou, C.C.; Chu, J.H.; et al. Epidemiology and outcome of zygomycosis: A review of 929 reported cases. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2005, 41, 634–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Skiada, A.; Pagano, L.; Groll, A.; Zimmerli, S.; Dupont, B.; Lagrou, K.; Lass-Florl, C.; Bouza, E.; Klimko, N.; Gaustad, P.; et al. Zygomycosis in Europe: Analysis of 230 cases accrued by the registry of the European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) Working Group on Zygomycosis between 2005 and 2007. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2011, 17, 1859–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Badiee, P.; Jafarian, H.; Ghasemi, F. Molecular epidemiology of zygomycosis and their related factors in tertiary referral centers in southern Iran. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2020, 14, 1424–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bonifaz, A.; Tirado-Sánchez, A.; Hernández-Medel, M.L.; Araiza, J.; Kassack, J.J.; Del Angel-Arenas, T.; Moisés-Hernández, J.F.; Paredes-Farrera, F.; Gómez-Apo, E.; Treviño-Rangel, R.J.; et al. Mucormycosis at a tertiary-care center in Mexico. A 35-year retrospective study of 214 cases. Mycoses 2021, 64, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Guinea, J.; Escribano, P.; Vena, A.; Muñoz, P.; Martínez-Jiménez, M.D.C.; Padilla, B.; Bouza, E. Increasing incidence of mucormycosis in a large Spanish hospital from 2007 to 2015: Epidemiology and microbiological characterization of the isolates. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0179136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sipsas, N.V.; Gamaletsou, M.N.; Anastasopoulou, A.; Kontoyiannis, D.P. Therapy of Mucormycosis. J. Fungi 2018, 4, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Schwarz, P.; Cornely, O.A.; Dannaoui, E. Antifungal combinations in Mucorales: A microbiological perspective. Mycoses 2019, 62, 746–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Dannaoui, E. Antifungal resistance in mucorales. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2017, 50, 617–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Riley, T.T.; Muzny, C.A.; Swiatlo, E.; Legendre, D.P. Breaking the mold: A review of mucormycosis and current pharmacological treatment options. Ann. Pharmacother. 2016, 50, 747–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Brunet, K.; Rammaert, B. Mucormycosis treatment: Recommendations, latest advances, and perspectives. J. Mycol. Med. 2020, 30, 101007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Cornely, O.A.; Alastruey-Izquierdo, A.; Arenz, D.; Chen, S.C.A.; Dannaoui, E.; Hochhegger, B.; Hoenigl, M.; Jensen, H.E.; Lagrou, K.; Lewis, R.E.; et al. Global guideline for the diagnosis and management of mucormycosis: An initiative of the European Confederation of Medical Mycology in cooperation with the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, e405–e421. [Google Scholar]
  24. Moreira, J.; Varon, A.; Galhardo, M.C.; Santos, F.; Lyra, M.; Castro, R.; Oliveira, R.; Lamas, C.C. The burden of mucormycosis in HIV-infected patients: A systematic review. J. Infect. 2016, 73, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Suzuki, D.; Kobayashi, R.; Hori, D.; Kishimoto, K.; Sano, H.; Yasuda, K.; Kobayashi, K. Stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia with pulmonary and cerebral mucormycosis. Pediatr. Int. 2016, 58, 569–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stanford, F.A.; Voigt, K. Iron assimilation during emerging infections caused by opportunistic fungi with emphasis on Mucorales and the development of antifungal resistance. Genes 2020, 11, 1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kaur, H.; Ghosh, A.; Rudramurthy, S.M.; Chakrabarti, A. Gastrointestinal mucormycosis in apparently immunocompetent hosts-A review. Mycoses 2018, 61, 898–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Reid, G.; Lynch, J.P., 3rd; Fishbein, M.C.; Clark, N.M. Mucormycosis. Semin. Respir. Crit. Care. Med. 2020, 41, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ghuman, H.; Voelz, K. Innate and Adaptive Immunity to Mucorales. J. Fungi 2017, 3, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Pana, Z.D.; Seidel, D.; Skiada, A.; Groll, A.H.; Petrikkos, G.; Cornely, O.A.; Roilides, E.; Collaborators of Zygomyco.net and/or FungiScope™ Registries. Invasive mucormycosis in children: An epidemiologic study in European and non-European countries based on two registries. BMC Infect. Dis. 2016, 16, 667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Däbritz, J.; Attarbaschi, A.; Tintelnot, K.; Kollmar, N.; Kremens, B.; von Loewenich, F.D.; Schrod, L.; Schuster, F.; Wintergerst, U.; Weig, M.; et al. Mucormycosis in paediatric patients: Demographics, risk factors and outcome of 12 contemporary cases. Mycoses 2011, 54, e785–e788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Phulpin-Weibel, A.; Rivier, A.; Leblanc, T.; Bertrand, Y.; Chastagner, P. Focus on invasive mucormycosis in paediatric haematology oncology patients: A series of 11 cases. Mycoses 2013, 56, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Lewis, R.E.; Kontoyiannis, D.P. Epidemiology and treatment of mucormycosis. Future Microbiol. 2013, 8, 1163–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lax, C.; Pérez-Arques, C.; Navarro-Mendoza, M.I.; Cánovas-Márquez, J.T.; Tahiri, G.; Pérez-Ruiz, J.A.; Osorio-Concepción, M.; Murcia-Flores, L.; Navarro, E.; Garre, V.; et al. Genes, pathways, and mechanisms involved in the virulence of mucorales. Genes 2020, 11, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Jeong, W.; Keighley, C.; Wolfe, R.; Lee, W.L.; Slavin, M.A.; Kong, D.C.M.; Chen, S.C. The epidemiology and clinical manifestations of mucormycosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case reports. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2019, 25, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Petrikkos, G.; Skiada, A.; Lortholary, O.; Roilides, E.; Walsh, T.J.; Kontoyiannis, D.P. Epidemiology and clinical manifestations of mucormycosis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 54 (Suppl. 1), S23–S34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Skiada, A.; Pavleas, I.; Drogari-Apiranthitou, M. Epidemiology and diagnosis of mucormycosis: An update. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Rathi, M.; Sengupta, U.; Yadav, T.D.; Kumar, S. Zygomycetes peritonitis in ambulatory peritoneal dialysis: Case report and review of literature. Indian J. Nephrol. 2014, 24, 252–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Pimentel, J.D.; Dreyer, G.; Lum, G.D. Peritonitis due to Cunninghamella bertholletiae in a patient undergoing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. J. Med. Microbiol. 2006, 55 Pt 1, 115–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Serna, J.H.; Wanger, A.; Dosekun, A.K. Successful treatment of mucormycosis peritonitis with liposomal amphotericin B in a patient on long-term peritoneal dialysis. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2003, 42, E14–E17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Karimi-Galougahi, M.; Arastou, S.; Haseli, S. Fulminant mucormycosis complicating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Int. Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2021, 11, 1029–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Buil, J.B.; van Zanten, A.R.H.; Bentvelsen, R.G.; Rijpstra, T.A.; Goorhuis, B.; van der Voort, S.; Wammes, L.J.; Janson, J.A.; Melchers, M.; Heusinkveld, M.; et al. Case series of four secondary mucormycosis infections in COVID-19 patients, the Netherlands, December 2020 to May 2021. Euro Surveill. 2021, 26, 2100510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Gupta, G.S.R.; Singh, Y.; Thangavelu, L.; Singh, S.K.; Dureja, H.; Chellappan, D.K.; Dua, K. Emerging cases of mucormycosis under COVID-19 pandemic in India: Misuse of antibiotics. Drug. Dev. Res. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rudramurthy, S.M.; Hoenigl, M.; Meis, J.F.; Cornely, O.A.; Muthu, V.; Gangneux, J.P.; Perfect, J.; Chakrabarti, A.; ECMM; ISHAM. ECMM/ISHAM recommendations for clinical management of COVID-19 associated mucormycosis in low- and middle-income countries. Mycoses 2021, 64, 1028–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Millon, L.; Scherer, E.; Rocchi, S.; Bellanger, A.P. Molecular Strategies to Diagnose Mucormycosis. J. Fungi 2019, 5, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Walther, G.; Wagner, L.; Kurzai, O. Updates on the taxonomy of mucorales with an emphasis on clinically important taxa. J. Fungi 2019, 5, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Schwartze, V.U.; Jacobsen, I.D. Mucormycoses caused by Lichtheimia species. Mycoses 2014, 57 (Suppl. 3), 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Gomes, M.Z.; Lewis, R.E.; Kontoyiannis, D.P. Mucormycosis caused by unusual mucormycetes, non-Rhizopus, -Mucor, and -Lichtheimia species. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2011, 24, 411–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Woo, P.C.; Lau, S.K.; Ngan, A.H.; Tung, E.T.; Leung, S.Y.; To, K.K.; Cheng, V.C.; Yuen, K.Y. Lichtheimia hongkongensis sp. nov., a novel Lichtheimia spp. associated with rhinocerebral, gastrointestinal, and cutaneous mucormycosis. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2010, 66, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Alastruey-Izquierdo, A.; Hoffmann, K.; de Hoog, G.S.; Rodriguez-Tudela, J.L.; Voigt, K.; Bibashi, E.; Walther, G. Species recognition and clinical relevance of the zygomycetous genus Lichtheimia (syn. Absidia pro parte, Mycocladus). J. Clin. Microbiol. 2010, 48, 2154–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Schwartze, V.U.; Hoffmann, K.; Nyilasi, I.; Papp, T.; Vágvölgyi, C.; de Hoog, S.; Voigt, K.; Jacobsen, I.D. Lichtheimia species exhibit differences in virulence potential. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e40908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Geng, C.; Lv, X.; Li, J.; Jiang, Q.; Yang, R.; Zhan, P. Chronic subcutaneous infection due to Lichtheimia ramosa. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2019, 33, e26–e29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mouronte-Roibás, C.; Leiro-Fernández, V.; Botana-Rial, M.; Ramos-Hernández, C.; Lago-Preciado, G.; Fiaño-Valverde, C.; Fernández-Villar, A. Lichtheimia ramosa: A fatal case of mucormycosis. Can. Respir. J. 2016, 2016, 2178218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Pan, J.; Tsui, C.; Li, M.; Xiao, K.; de Hoog, G.S.; Verweij, P.E.; Cao, Y.; Lu, H.; Jiang, Y. First case of rhinocerebral mucormycosis caused by Lichtheimia ornata, with a review of Lichtheimia infections. Mycopathologia 2020, 185, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Mattner, F.; Weissbrodt, H.; Strueber, M. Two case reports: Fatal Absidia corymbifera pulmonary tract infection in the first postoperative phase of a lung transplant patient receiving voriconazole prophylaxis, and transient bronchial Absidia corymbifera colonization in a lung transplant patient. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 2004, 36, 312–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Krauze, A.; Krenke, K.; Matysiak, M.; Kulus, M. Fatal course of pulmonary Absidia sp. infection in a 4-year-old girl undergoing treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 2005, 27, 386–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zimmerli, S.; Bialek, R.; Blau, I.W.; Christe, A.; Lass-Flörl, C.; Presterl, E. Lichtheimia infection in a lymphoma patient: Case report and a brief review of the available diagnostic tools. Mycopathologia 2016, 181, 561–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kutlu, M.; Ergin, C.; Bir, F.; Hilmioğlu-Polat, S.; Gümral, R.; Necan, C.; Koçyiğit, A.; Sayın-Kutlu, S. Pulmonary mucormycosis due to Lichtheimia ramosa in a patient with HIV infection. Mycopathologia 2014, 178, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kleinotiene, G.; Posiunas, G.; Raistenskis, J.; Zurauskas, E.; Stankeviciene, S.; Daugelaviciene, V.; Machaczka, M. Liposomal amphotericin B and surgery as successful therapy for pulmonary Lichtheimia corymbifera zygomycosis in a pediatric patient with acute promyelocytic leukemia on antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole. Med. Oncol. 2013, 30, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Morales-Aguirre, J.J.; Agüero-Echeverría, W.M.; Ornelas-Carsolio, M.E.; Reséndiz-Sánchez, J.; Gómez-Barreto, D.; Cashat-Cruz, M. Successful treatment of a primary cutaneous zygomycosis caused by Absidia corymbifera in a premature newborn. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2004, 23, 470–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Constantinides, J.; Misra, A.; Nassab, R.; Wilson, Y. Absidia corymbifera fungal infection in burns: A case report and review of the literature. J. Burn. Care Res. 2008, 29, 416–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Thielen, B.K.; Barnes, A.M.T.; Sabin, A.P.; Huebner, B.; Nelson, S.; Wesenberg, E.; Hansen, G.T. Widespread Lichtheimia Infection in a Patient with Extensive Burns: Opportunities for Novel Antifungal Agents. Mycopathologia 2019, 184, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kaur, R.; Bala, K.; Ahuja, R.B.; Srivastav, P.; Bansal, U. Primary cutaneous mucormycosis in a patient with burn wounds due to Lichtheimia ramosa. Mycopathologia 2014, 178, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tyll, T.; Lyskova, P.; Hubka, V.; Muller, M.; Zelenka, L.; Curdova, M.; Tuckova, I.; Kolarik, M.; Hamal, P. Early diagnosis of cutaneous mucormycosis due to Lichtheimia corymbifera after a traffic accident. Mycopathologia 2016, 181, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Zubairi, A.B.S.; Idrees, F.; Jabeen, K.; Kamal, S.; Zafar, A. Coinfection with Lichtheimia corymbifera and Aspergillus flavus in an Immune-Competent Patient Mimicking as Pulmonary-Renal Syndrome. Mycopathologia 2017, 182, 727–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Poirier, P.; Nourrisson, C.; Gibold, L.; Chalus, E.; Guelon, D.; Descamp, S.; Traore, O.; Cambon, M.; Aumeran, C. Three cases of cutaneous mucormycosis with Lichtheimia spp. (ex Absidia/Mycocladus) in ICU. Possible cross-transmission in an intensive care unit between 2 cases. J. Mycol. Med. 2013, 23, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Rognon, B.; Barrera, C.; Monod, M.; Valot, B.; Roussel, S.; Quadroni, M.; Jouneau, S.; Court-Fortune, I.; Caillaud, D.; Fellrath, J.M.; et al. Identification of Antigenic Proteins from Lichtheimia corymbifera for Farmer’s Lung Disease Diagnosis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0160888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Rognon, B.; Reboux, G.; Roussel, S.; Barrera, C.; Dalphin, J.C.; Fellrath, J.M.; Monod, M.; Millon, L. Western blotting as a tool for the serodiagnosis of farmer’s lung disease: Validation with Lichtheimia corymbifera protein extracts. J. Med. Microbiol. 2015, 64 Pt 4, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Bellanger, A.P.; Reboux, G.; Botterel, F.; Candido, C.; Roussel, S.; Rognon, B.; Dalphin, J.C.; Bretagne, S.; Millon, L. New evidence of the involvement of Lichtheimia corymbifera in farmer’s lung disease. Med. Mycol. 2010, 48, 981–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Sennekamp, J.; Joest, M.; Sander, I.; Engelhart, S.; Raulf-Heimsoth, M. Farmerlungen-Antigene in Deutschland [Farmer’s lung antigens in Germany]. Pneumologie 2012, 66, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Walther, G.; Wagner, L.; Kurzai, O. Outbreaks of Mucorales and the Species Involved. Mycopathologia 2020, 185, 765–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Mousavi, B.; Costa, J.M.; Arné, P.; Guillot, J.; Chermette, R.; Botterel, F.; Dannaoui, E. Occurrence and species distribution of pathogenic Mucorales in unselected soil samples from France. Med. Mycol. 2018, 56, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Frickmann, H.; Loderstaedt, U.; Racz, P.; Tenner-Racz, K.; Eggert, P.; Haeupler, A.; Bialek, R.; Hagen, R.M. Detection of tropical fungi in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue: Still an indication for microscopy in times of sequence-based diagnosis? Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 938721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Schwarz, P.; Bretagne, S.; Gantier, J.C.; Garcia-Hermoso, D.; Lortholary, O.; Dromer, F.; Dannaoui, E. Molecular identification of zygomycetes from culture and experimentally infected tissues. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006, 44, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Rocchi, S.; Scherer, E.; Mengoli, C.; Alanio, A.; Botterel, F.; Bougnoux, M.E.; Bretagne, S.; Cogliati, M.; Cornu, M.; Dalle, F.; et al. Interlaboratory evaluation of Mucorales PCR assays for testing serum specimens: A study by the fungal PCR Initiative and the Modimucor study group. Med. Mycol. 2021, 59, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Fréalle, E.; Rocchi, S.; Bacus, M.; Bachelet, H.; Pasquesoone, L.; Tavernier, B.; Mathieu, D.; Millon, L.; Jeanne, M. Real-time polymerase chain reaction detection of Lichtheimia species in bandages associated with cutaneous mucormycosis in burn patients. J. Hosp. Infect. 2018, 99, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Scherer, E.; Iriart, X.; Bellanger, A.P.; Dupont, D.; Guitard, J.; Gabriel, F.; Cassaing, S.; Charpentier, E.; Guenounou, S.; Cornet, M.; et al. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) Detection of Mucorales DNA in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid To Diagnose Pulmonary Mucormycosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2018, 56, e00289-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Voigt, K.; Cigelnik, E.; O’donnell, K. Phylogeny and PCR identification of clinically important Zygomycetes based on nuclear ribosomal-DNA sequence data. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1999, 37, 3957–3964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Alvarez-Zúñiga, M.T.; Santiago-Hernández, A.; Rodríguez-Mendoza, J.; Campos, J.E.; Pavón-Orozco, P.; Trejo-Estrada, S.; Hidalgo-Lara, M.E. Taxonomic identification of the thermotolerant and fast-growing fungus Lichtheimia ramosa H71D and biochemical characterization of the thermophilic xylanase LrXynA. AMB Express. 2017, 7, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Microorganisms 09 02292 g001 550
Figure 1. Sketch of the patient’s house and its surroundings. Sites of measurement of the weather conditions during the assessment are marked with blue “x” symbols, sites of airborne pathogen collections with red “x” symbols and points of smears or similar sample taking with green “x” symbols.
Figure 1. Sketch of the patient’s house and its surroundings. Sites of measurement of the weather conditions during the assessment are marked with blue “x” symbols, sites of airborne pathogen collections with red “x” symbols and points of smears or similar sample taking with green “x” symbols.
Microorganisms 09 02292 g001
Microorganisms 09 02292 g002 550
Figure 2. Illustration of the sampling sites and sample acquisition. (A) Attic. (B) Pigeon loft. (C) Bird nest within the barn. (D) Sample acquisition of straw in the barn. (E) Airborne spore collection in the pigsty. (F) Direct assessment of surfaces with agar plates in the cow shed.
Figure 2. Illustration of the sampling sites and sample acquisition. (A) Attic. (B) Pigeon loft. (C) Bird nest within the barn. (D) Sample acquisition of straw in the barn. (E) Airborne spore collection in the pigsty. (F) Direct assessment of surfaces with agar plates in the cow shed.
Microorganisms 09 02292 g002
Table
Table 1. Mold detections from the airborne pathogen samples. Due to the nasal colonization of the index patient, Mucorales are indicated in bold type.
Table 1. Mold detections from the airborne pathogen samples. Due to the nasal colonization of the index patient, Mucorales are indicated in bold type.
Measuring PointSpore Quantity
(cfu/1 m3)		Detected Mold SpeciesComments
Residence, ground floor, hallway120Altenaria spp., Mycelia sterilia-
Residence, ground floor, bathroom10Aspergillus nidulans-
Residence, ground floor, sleeping room160Penicillium spp., Mycelia sterilia-
Residence, upper floor, the patient’s room30Penicillium spp., Mycelia sterilia-
Residence, upper floor, storage room (oriel)10MucoralesSpecies differentiation by 18S rRNA gene analysis failed
Residence, attic60Scopulariopsis brevicaulis, Mycelia sterilia-
Residence, basement, hallway140Altenaria spp., Mycelia sterilia-
Residence, basement, laundry room20Aspergillus fumigatus-
Residence, basement, garage100Penicillium spp., Mycelia sterilia-
Residence, outside air measurement (garden)200Penicillium spp.-
Garden, pigeon loft520Aspergillus flavus, Rhizopus arrhizusDifferentiation of the Rhizopus spp. by 18S rRNA gene sequencing
Garden, shed with a cat210Aspergillus flavus, Mycelia sterilia-
Garden, woodshed10Mycelia sterilia-
Pigsty, anteroom30Aspergillus fumigatus-
Pigsty, pigpen20Aspergillus fumigatus-
Pigsty, silage room20Aspergillus fumigatus-
Pigsty, outside air measurement950Aspergillus fumigatus, Mycelia sterilia-
Cow barn—inside70Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus spp.-
Old cow barn—inside1030Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus niger, Mucorales, Aspergillus spp.Species differentiation of the Mucorales by 18S rRNA gene analysis failed
Cow barn—milking barn50Aspergillus fumigatus, Penicillium spp.-
Cow barn, outside air measurement120Penicillium spp., Mycelia sterilia-
cfu, colony-forming unit. spp., species (indicating that differentiation beyond the genus level failed or was not attempted).
Table
Table 2. Mold detections from smear tests. Due to the nasal colonization of the index patient, Mucorales are indicated in bold type.
Table 2. Mold detections from smear tests. Due to the nasal colonization of the index patient, Mucorales are indicated in bold type.
Sampling Sitecfu/SpecimenDetected Mold SpeciesComments
Residence, basement, wallpaper27Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus flavus, Penicillium spp.-
Garden, smear test from the cat14Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus spp.-
Garden, smear test from the dog1Mycelia sterilia-
Garden, collected straw28Mucorales,
Candida rucosa		Species differentiation of the Mucorales by 18S
rRNA gene analysis failed
Cow barn, ceiling of the milking barn37Aspergillus fumigatus, Mucorales, Aspergillus spp.
Cow barn, smear test from a cow146Candida krusei, Aspergillus fumigatus, Mucorales
Cow barn, smear test from another cow42Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Aspergillus fumigatus,Mucorales
cfu, colony-forming unit. spp., species (indicating that differentiation beyond the genus level failed or was not attempted).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zautner, A.E.; Frickmann, H.; Podbielski, A. Risk Assessment for Molds in the Vicinity of a Child Requiring Peritoneal Dialysis Living in a Rural Northern German Area. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9112292

AMA Style

Zautner AE, Frickmann H, Podbielski A. Risk Assessment for Molds in the Vicinity of a Child Requiring Peritoneal Dialysis Living in a Rural Northern German Area. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(11):2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9112292

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zautner, Andreas Erich, Hagen Frickmann, and Andreas Podbielski. 2021. "Risk Assessment for Molds in the Vicinity of a Child Requiring Peritoneal Dialysis Living in a Rural Northern German Area" Microorganisms 9, no. 11: 2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9112292

APA Style

Zautner, A. E., Frickmann, H., & Podbielski, A. (2021). Risk Assessment for Molds in the Vicinity of a Child Requiring Peritoneal Dialysis Living in a Rural Northern German Area. Microorganisms, 9(11), 2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9112292

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop