Just wondering if anyone can recognise this clump? Could this be yeast spores? Unfortunately it came from me out of a urine sample. Have been wondering what has been making me feel sick.
This is 400x in phase contrast.
ID please... yeast perhaps?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
ID please... yeast perhaps?
Hi all. My new Omax microscope arrived about a week ago and I have been absolutely glued to the eyepiece. Most of the time I have no idea what I am looking at and it's really hard to find an ID with google without actually knowing the name in the first place.
Just wondering if anyone can recognise this clump? Could this be yeast spores? Unfortunately it came from me out of a urine sample. Have been wondering what has been making me feel sick.
This is 400x in phase contrast.
Just wondering if anyone can recognise this clump? Could this be yeast spores? Unfortunately it came from me out of a urine sample. Have been wondering what has been making me feel sick.
This is 400x in phase contrast.
Learjet,
Doesn't look like any yeast I've ever seen. Among other things, they're too irregular in shape.
Without a lot more information it's very difficult to identify, but it's very probably nothing important.
Be aware, self-diagnosis by the untrained is ill-advised at best. If you think you have a urinary tract problem, go see your physician.
This is a slightly under decolorized, gram stained urine specimen from a patient with a long-term indwelling catheter and a rather nasty, multi-organism, infection. It was shot using a 100x UPlanFl objective. Not the best photo in the world
but the yeast - Candida albicans in this case - are evident. Their morphology in unstained urine is the same, minus the dark blue.
Tom
Doesn't look like any yeast I've ever seen. Among other things, they're too irregular in shape.
Without a lot more information it's very difficult to identify, but it's very probably nothing important.
Be aware, self-diagnosis by the untrained is ill-advised at best. If you think you have a urinary tract problem, go see your physician.
This is a slightly under decolorized, gram stained urine specimen from a patient with a long-term indwelling catheter and a rather nasty, multi-organism, infection. It was shot using a 100x UPlanFl objective. Not the best photo in the world
but the yeast - Candida albicans in this case - are evident. Their morphology in unstained urine is the same, minus the dark blue.Tom
Thanks Tom. I'm not looking for a diagnosis, I just want to know what I'm seeing through the microscope. My doctors are unfamiliar with what things look like under a microscope, as these days all tests are done in a far away city by machine. My GP has no idea and it's taking 6 months to see a urologist.
In the meantime I'm just looking out of curiosity. What I see are many tiny grains, much smaller than RBC's. I can't seem to resolve them. They don't look like crystals, just like very tiny grains of something. Many free floating, many stuck together in branches.
Comparing to other pics on the net, the pattern looks similar to amorphous urates or phosphates also. But there are so many similar looking things I thought I'd ask here.
This is what a lower power spread pattern looks like.
In the meantime I'm just looking out of curiosity. What I see are many tiny grains, much smaller than RBC's. I can't seem to resolve them. They don't look like crystals, just like very tiny grains of something. Many free floating, many stuck together in branches.
Comparing to other pics on the net, the pattern looks similar to amorphous urates or phosphates also. But there are so many similar looking things I thought I'd ask here.
This is what a lower power spread pattern looks like.
Learjet,
Amorphous urates or phosphates is probably a good call. It is unimportant, and if that's all there is, I would send the result out as negative or normal. You're right about the physicians not generally knowing what they're looking at, most have never done it and don't even have a microscope. We're probably better off for that. I've done tens of thousands of them, so I'm a little more likely to know what I'm looking at.
But curiosity about things like this can easily lead to unwarranted paranoia. Labs have the experts and are where the tests should be done. Trying to figure out what you are doing from internet pictures is a bit of a crapshoot at best, and you really do need the chemistry to get a useful picture.
Urines that are sent to labs are looked at microscopically if there is a positive dipstick biochemical test indicating a need for review. No positive test=no need for review and the instrument results are reported without a microscopic exam. If there is a positive result, the urines are centrifuged (12-15ml concentrated into a ~0.5ml sediment which is resuspended) and examined by microscope.
Even if you get to see a urologist, they will send the urine to a lab for testing. If it's a big practice they may have their own lab so it will be quicker, but it will still be a lab. If you haven't already, have your GP send out a UA to the lab they normally use. For things like that most labs are of essentially equal quality. Your GP should easily be capable of reading and undestanding whatever report they send back. And it really shouldn't take more than a couple of days to get the results. The tests themselves will be done within a few hours of their arrival at the lab.
Tom
Amorphous urates or phosphates is probably a good call. It is unimportant, and if that's all there is, I would send the result out as negative or normal. You're right about the physicians not generally knowing what they're looking at, most have never done it and don't even have a microscope. We're probably better off for that. I've done tens of thousands of them, so I'm a little more likely to know what I'm looking at.
But curiosity about things like this can easily lead to unwarranted paranoia. Labs have the experts and are where the tests should be done. Trying to figure out what you are doing from internet pictures is a bit of a crapshoot at best, and you really do need the chemistry to get a useful picture.
Urines that are sent to labs are looked at microscopically if there is a positive dipstick biochemical test indicating a need for review. No positive test=no need for review and the instrument results are reported without a microscopic exam. If there is a positive result, the urines are centrifuged (12-15ml concentrated into a ~0.5ml sediment which is resuspended) and examined by microscope.
Even if you get to see a urologist, they will send the urine to a lab for testing. If it's a big practice they may have their own lab so it will be quicker, but it will still be a lab. If you haven't already, have your GP send out a UA to the lab they normally use. For things like that most labs are of essentially equal quality. Your GP should easily be capable of reading and undestanding whatever report they send back. And it really shouldn't take more than a couple of days to get the results. The tests themselves will be done within a few hours of their arrival at the lab.
Tom
Thank you again Tom, your knowledge and advice is greatly appreciated.
For me, curiosity is my main driving force for research in many science based hobbies I pursue. Without curiosity, my motivation to learn isn't present and I lose interest. Though I do appreciate the risks involved in pursuing one's own health problems without adequate training. I do let the pro's do their job. The tests have been done. If I can learn something in the process, then that's a bonus. I prefer not to be ignorant.
For me, curiosity is my main driving force for research in many science based hobbies I pursue. Without curiosity, my motivation to learn isn't present and I lose interest. Though I do appreciate the risks involved in pursuing one's own health problems without adequate training. I do let the pro's do their job. The tests have been done. If I can learn something in the process, then that's a bonus. I prefer not to be ignorant.