History of favus (favic tinea) in Uruguay and the demonstration of its microbiological nature
Keywords:
TINEA FAVOSAAbstract
Presentation of a summary of the history of the favic tinea (favus) in our country, including considerations in connection with the discovery process of the microbiological etiology of the disease, which significantly preceded precise knowledge on bacterial diseases.
The first cases of autochthonous favus in Uruguay were described by Duprat in 1908, and subsequent observations were reported by Brito Foresti in 1918 and by Tiscornia Denis and Mackinnon in 1935, totalling 12 patients. Later on, Mackinnon reviewed the mycological literature between 1946 and 1956 and reported 12 more cases.
The disease had disappeared from Uruguay until recently, with the exception of the Trichophyton schöenleinii agent being isolated in 1961, in one of two sisters, who were carriers of typical chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis lesions.
The fungal nature of favus was demonstrated by three researchers: German Schöenlein, who in 1939 managed to prove the presence of fungi in favic lesions; Hungarian Gruby, who in 1941, after observing the ideological agent in lesions, managed to transmit the disease to other people and to himself; and Prusian Remak, who managed to self-inoculate it in his own forearm, to cultivate the fungus in apple pieces and named it Achorion schoenleinii (today Trichophyton schöenleinii).
References
(2) Costa R. Las dermatomicosis en el Uruguay. Montevideo: s.n., 1937. 286 p. (tesis no publicada)
(3) Duprat P. Estadística de la clínica y policlínica de niños del Hospital de Caridad de Montevideo, desde su inauguración el 15 de abril de 1894 hasta el 31 de diciembre de 1906. Rev Méd Urug 1908; XI: 221-78.
(4) Brito Foresti J. Un caso de favus autóctono. Rev Méd Urug 1918; XXI: 518-20.
(5) Tiscornia Denis JM. Favus autóctonos típicos y atípicos. Arch Urug Med Cir Espec 1935; 7:303-14.
(6) Mackinnon JE. Tiñas fávicas autóctonas. Arch Urug Med Cir Espec 1935; 7: 315-6.
(7) Mackinnon JE. Revisión crítica de la investigación y de la literatura micológica en el Uruguay en el período 1946-1956. Mycopathologia 1958; 9: 224-40.
(8) Bonasse J, Asconegui F, Conti Díaz IA. Estado actual de las dermatomicosis en el Uruguay. Rev Arg Micol 1982; 5(2): 29-31.
(9) Ballesté R, Fernández N, Mousqués N, Xavier B, Arteta Z, Mernes M, et al. Dermatofitosis en población asistida en el Instituto de Higiene. Rev Méd Urug 2000; 16: 232-42.
(10) Conti Díaz IA. Micosis superficiales. Biomedicina 2006; 2(1): 15-34.
(11) Ainsworth GC. Introduction. In: Ainsworth GC. Introduction to the history of medical and veterinary mycology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986:2-3.
(12) Ainsworth GC. Aetiology, dermatophytes and taxonomic problem. In: Ainsworth GC. Introduction to the history of medical and veterinary mycology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986:13-6.
(13) Rippon JW. Dermatofitos y dermatomicosis. In: Rippon JW. Tratado de micología médica. Hongos y actinomicetos patógenos. México: Interamericana, McGraw-Hill, 1990:187.
(14) Rippon JW. Hialohifomicosis, pitiosis, micosis diversas y raras, algosis. In: Rippon JW. Tratado de micología médica. Hongos y actinomicetos patógenos. México: Interamericana, McGraw-Hill, 1990:790.
