Abstract
Molecular genotyping of strains of Trichophyton rubrum and T. mentagrophytes from patients with onychomycosis of the toes was performed to ascertain whether the fungal genotype changes over the course of time as sequential samples were obtained from patients receiving antifungal therapy and during follow-up. Sixty-six serial strains of T. rubrum and 11 strains of T. mentagrophytes were obtained from 20 patients (16 patients with T. rubrum, 4 with T. mentagrophytes) who were treated with oral antifungal therapy and observed over periods of up to 36 months. These strains were screened for genetic variation by hybridization of EcoRI-digested genomic DNAs with a probe amplified from the small-subunit (18S) ribosomal DNA and adjacent internal transcribed spacer regions. A total of five restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) types were observed among 66 strains of T. rubrum. Two major RFLP types, differentiated by one band shift, represented 68% of the samples. None of the patients had a unique genotype. More than one RFLP type was often observed from a single patient (same nail) over a period of 1, 2, or 3 years, even in cases that did not appear cured at any time. Samples taken from different nails of the same patient had either the same or a different genotype. The genotypic variation did not correspond to any detectable phenotypic variation. Furthermore, no correlation was observed between the efficacy of the treatment administered and the genotype observed. While the DNA region studied distinguished among T. rubrum, T. mentagrophytes, and T. tonsurans, intraspecific RFLP variation was observed for T. rubrum and T. mentagrophytes strains. While independent multiple infection and coinhabitation of multiple strains may explain the presence of different genotypes in a nail, microevolutionary events such as rapid substrain shuffling, as seen in studies of repetitive regions in Candida species, may also produce the same result. The recovery of multiple strains during the course of sequential sampling of uncured patients further suggests that the typing system is not able to distinguish between relapse or reinfection, ongoing infection, and de novo infection.