Abstract
Identification of yeasts depends on data obtained from morphological features and physiological characteristics. This article reviews the commonly used conventional methods for the identification of yeast to set the stage for a critical review of rapid systems for yeast identification. Comparative analyses of percentage agreement of API 20C, Uni-Yeast Tek, Minitek, Mycotube, Micro-Drop, Auxodisk, Iatron, Autobac 1, AMS, Abbott MS-2, and Abbott Quantum 11 against the conventional method and, in some cases, against each other are tabulated. Gas liquid chromatography method, enzyme method, MUG, and the Fung's mini-system are also mentioned as possible rapid methods for yeast identification. The purpose of this review is to update the rapidly expanding information concerning diagnostic kits and systems for yeast identification and analyze some of the advantages, disadvantages and potential uses of rapid systems of yeast identification.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
