Evaluation of Two SDS-Based Preparation Methods for Direct Identification and Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts from Positive Blood Cultures.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
In Young Yoo, Hada Jang, Miran Lee, Hyun Soo Seok, Yeon-Joon Park
{"title":"Evaluation of Two SDS-Based Preparation Methods for Direct Identification and Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts from Positive Blood Cultures.","authors":"In Young Yoo, Hada Jang, Miran Lee, Hyun Soo Seok, Yeon-Joon Park","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We evaluated two SDS-based preparation methods for direct identification of yeasts using MALDI-TOF MS analysis and antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 149 residual monomicrobial blood culture bottles (BCs) were included. For direct identification via MALDI-TOF MS analysis from positive BCs, two in-house methods with or without a 3-hr incubation step were evaluated. 55 samples were also prepared using a Sepsityper kit. In addition, to investigate the effects of differences in <i>Candida</i> spp. concentrations, simulated samples were incubated and colonies were counted. Direct AFST was performed using Sensititre YeastOne.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Correct identification rate was 65.8% for the saponin+0.5% SDS method and 70.5% for the 20% SDS after 3-hr incubation, respectively. For the 55 samples evaluated using the Sepsityper kit, both in-house methods showed significantly higher identification rates. For the simulated samples, <i>Candida albicans</i> had the lowest colony counts at the time of the positive signal in the BCs. Essential agreement was above 90% for all cases except for itraconazole using the pellet prepared by the 20% SDS method. Categorical agreement was above 90% for all cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our newly developed preparation method using 20% SDS demonstrated superior performance to a commercial kit, and can therefore be used for direct identification and AFST.</p>","PeriodicalId":8228,"journal":{"name":"Annals of clinical and laboratory science","volume":"55 1","pages":"102-107"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of clinical and laboratory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We evaluated two SDS-based preparation methods for direct identification of yeasts using MALDI-TOF MS analysis and antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST).

Methods: A total of 149 residual monomicrobial blood culture bottles (BCs) were included. For direct identification via MALDI-TOF MS analysis from positive BCs, two in-house methods with or without a 3-hr incubation step were evaluated. 55 samples were also prepared using a Sepsityper kit. In addition, to investigate the effects of differences in Candida spp. concentrations, simulated samples were incubated and colonies were counted. Direct AFST was performed using Sensititre YeastOne.

Results: Correct identification rate was 65.8% for the saponin+0.5% SDS method and 70.5% for the 20% SDS after 3-hr incubation, respectively. For the 55 samples evaluated using the Sepsityper kit, both in-house methods showed significantly higher identification rates. For the simulated samples, Candida albicans had the lowest colony counts at the time of the positive signal in the BCs. Essential agreement was above 90% for all cases except for itraconazole using the pellet prepared by the 20% SDS method. Categorical agreement was above 90% for all cases.

Conclusion: Our newly developed preparation method using 20% SDS demonstrated superior performance to a commercial kit, and can therefore be used for direct identification and AFST.

评估两种基于 SDS 的制备方法,用于从阳性血培养物中直接鉴定酵母菌并进行抗真菌药敏试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of clinical and laboratory science
Annals of clinical and laboratory science 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
112
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Clinical & Laboratory Science welcomes manuscripts that report research in clinical science, including pathology, clinical chemistry, biotechnology, molecular biology, cytogenetics, microbiology, immunology, hematology, transfusion medicine, organ and tissue transplantation, therapeutics, toxicology, and clinical informatics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信