0 ± 0.22 82.9 ± 0.32 83.9 ± 0.27 87.6 ± 0.11 80.0 ± 0.44 82.0 ± 0.31   B 84.1 ± 0.10 85.3 ± 0.17 87.6 ± 0.12 79.9 ± 0.06   C 86.0 ± 0.34 82.0 ± 0.18 82.6 ± 0.30 87.6 ± 0.05 79.8 ± 0.36 83.9 ± 0.29 Candida tropicalis A 82.7 ± 0.27 85.0 ± 0.33     B 78.9 ± 0.24 82.7 ± 0.23

84.8 ± 0.50     Candida parapsilosis   83.0 ± 0.19 86.6 ± 0.11 84.1 ± 0.19 81.9 ± 0.12 Candida metapsilosis   81.2 ± 0.37 83.8 ± 0.12   79.5 ± 0.17 Candida glabrata   83.7 ± FK228 solubility dmso 0.23 82.1 ± 0.26 85.3 ± 0.22 87.1 ± 0.18 89.0 ± 0.36 Candida krusei A 82.8 ± 0.29 78.6 ± 0.19 85.5 ± 0.19 87.6 ± 0.19 89.2 ± 0.12     B 83.0 ± 0.22 78.6 ± 0.16 85.5 ± 0.18 83.9 ± 0.11   C 82.9 ± 0.25 85.5 ± 0.06 87.7 ± 0.10 89.1 ± 0.21   78.4 ± 0.07 Candida lusitaniae A 85.4 ± 0.17 86.8 ± 0.15 89.1 ± 0.24   80.4 ± 0.28 82.3 ± 0.19   B 85.5 ± 0.10 86.9 ± 0.08   80.4 ± 0.23 81.6 ± 0.19 82.4 ± 0.19   C 80.7 ± 0.13 83.9 ± 0.13 85.7 ± 0.10 87.0 ± 0.09       D 85.2 ± 0.06   79.0 ± 0.14 82.8 ± 0.15 Candida guilliermondii   82.4 ± 0.12 84.7 ± 0.12 85.6 ± 0.11 86.4 ± 0.10   Candida pelliculosa   85.0 Thiazovivin ± 0.16 86.0 ± 0.09 83.8 ± 0.19 88.3 ±

0.24 90.2 ± 0.16 Saccharomyces cerevisiae A 85.1 ± 0.09       B 84.9 ± 0.16   82.8 ± 0.20 Therefore, we combined the two proposed approaches into one two-step approach. Then, a derivative plot was checked for the presence of decisive peaks in the second step. else When the examined peak was found to fit in the interval of average peak position ± 2 S.D., it was considered as matched to the average peak. If any of the average decisive peaks characteristic for the best matched learn more species was missing in the examined strain, this best match was evaluated as incorrect identification and the second best match was further evaluated. If the automated identification suggested two very close matches with curves of different species, both concordant in decisive peaks with the examined strain, the characteristic peaks were evaluated and

interpreted in favor of one of the matches. Performance of this two step approach was generally much better than the first-step approach alone, with overall accurate identification rate of 87%, varying between 72.7 and 100% in different species. Results of the evaluation are summarized in Table 2. Surprisingly, in C. tropicalis and C. pelliculosa, the two step approach showed lower sensitivity compared to the first-step alone. This indicates that in some cases the process of matching examined peaks with average decisive peaks ± 2 S.D.