丝状真菌文库v4.0 MALDI生物分型平台与MSI-2在液体培养物中鉴定丝状真菌性能的比较

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Pub Date : 2025-03-12 Epub Date: 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1128/jcm.01371-24
María F Gonzalez-Lara, Carla M Román-Montes, Paulette Díaz-Lomelí, Winston Hernández-Ceballos, Lizeth Morales-Camilo, Axel Cervantes-Sánchez, Andrea Cordero-Rangel, Jazmín Tejeda-Olán, Alexandro Bonifaz-Trujillo, Alfredo Ponce-de-León, Areli Martínez-Gamboa
{"title":"丝状真菌文库v4.0 MALDI生物分型平台与MSI-2在液体培养物中鉴定丝状真菌性能的比较","authors":"María F Gonzalez-Lara, Carla M Román-Montes, Paulette Díaz-Lomelí, Winston Hernández-Ceballos, Lizeth Morales-Camilo, Axel Cervantes-Sánchez, Andrea Cordero-Rangel, Jazmín Tejeda-Olán, Alexandro Bonifaz-Trujillo, Alfredo Ponce-de-León, Areli Martínez-Gamboa","doi":"10.1128/jcm.01371-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Correct, rapid, and reliable filamentous fungi identification is crucial for timely diagnosis and therapy. We compared the performance of the FFLv4.0 MALDI Biotyper and MSI-2 to identify filamentous fungi from clinical isolates. We analyzed 307 clinical isolates of <i>Aspergillus</i> spp.<i>, Fusarium</i> spp.<i>,</i> and <i>Mucorales</i> and compared them to sequencing as the reference standard. The overall identification rates to genus (<i>Mucorales</i>), section (<i>Aspergillus</i>), and species complex (<i>Fusarium</i>) level were 96% (296/307) for FFLv4.0 and 78.5% (241/307) for MSI-2. By each genus, correct species identification was achieved by FFLv4.0 and MSI-2 as follows: 72.4% (165/228) and 55.3% (126/228) for <i>Aspergillus</i> species, 17.6% (6/34) and 38.2% (13/34) for <i>Fusarium</i> species, and 88.9% (40/45) and 55.5% (25/45) for the <i>Mucorales</i>. The rates of non-identification by FFLv4.0 and MSI-2, respectively, were 4% (9/228) and 18% (41/228) for <i>Aspergillus</i> spp., 0% and 17.6% (6/34) for <i>Fusarium</i> spp. and 4.4% (2/45) and 42.2% (19/45%) for the <i>Mucorales</i>. Misidentification rates by FFLv4.0 and MSI-2, respectively, were 16.2% (37/228) and 6.1% (14/228) for <i>Aspergillus</i> species, 67.6% (23/34) and 14.7% (5/34) for <i>Fusarium</i> spp., and 0% and 2.2% (1/45) for the <i>Mucorales</i>. The FFLv4.0 MALDI Biotyper outperformed MSI-2 in identifying filamentous fungi from liquid culture spectra.</p>","PeriodicalId":15511,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":" ","pages":"e0137124"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11898572/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Filamentous Fungi Library v4.0 MALDI Biotyper Platform vs MSI-2 performance for identifying filamentous fungi from liquid cultures.\",\"authors\":\"María F Gonzalez-Lara, Carla M Román-Montes, Paulette Díaz-Lomelí, Winston Hernández-Ceballos, Lizeth Morales-Camilo, Axel Cervantes-Sánchez, Andrea Cordero-Rangel, Jazmín Tejeda-Olán, Alexandro Bonifaz-Trujillo, Alfredo Ponce-de-León, Areli Martínez-Gamboa\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/jcm.01371-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Correct, rapid, and reliable filamentous fungi identification is crucial for timely diagnosis and therapy. We compared the performance of the FFLv4.0 MALDI Biotyper and MSI-2 to identify filamentous fungi from clinical isolates. We analyzed 307 clinical isolates of <i>Aspergillus</i> spp.<i>, Fusarium</i> spp.<i>,</i> and <i>Mucorales</i> and compared them to sequencing as the reference standard. The overall identification rates to genus (<i>Mucorales</i>), section (<i>Aspergillus</i>), and species complex (<i>Fusarium</i>) level were 96% (296/307) for FFLv4.0 and 78.5% (241/307) for MSI-2. By each genus, correct species identification was achieved by FFLv4.0 and MSI-2 as follows: 72.4% (165/228) and 55.3% (126/228) for <i>Aspergillus</i> species, 17.6% (6/34) and 38.2% (13/34) for <i>Fusarium</i> species, and 88.9% (40/45) and 55.5% (25/45) for the <i>Mucorales</i>. The rates of non-identification by FFLv4.0 and MSI-2, respectively, were 4% (9/228) and 18% (41/228) for <i>Aspergillus</i> spp., 0% and 17.6% (6/34) for <i>Fusarium</i> spp. and 4.4% (2/45) and 42.2% (19/45%) for the <i>Mucorales</i>. Misidentification rates by FFLv4.0 and MSI-2, respectively, were 16.2% (37/228) and 6.1% (14/228) for <i>Aspergillus</i> species, 67.6% (23/34) and 14.7% (5/34) for <i>Fusarium</i> spp., and 0% and 2.2% (1/45) for the <i>Mucorales</i>. The FFLv4.0 MALDI Biotyper outperformed MSI-2 in identifying filamentous fungi from liquid culture spectra.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0137124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11898572/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01371-24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01371-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

正确、快速、可靠的丝状真菌鉴定对及时诊断和治疗至关重要。我们比较了FFLv4.0 MALDI Biotyper和MSI-2在鉴定临床分离的丝状真菌方面的性能。对307株临床分离的曲霉、镰刀菌和Mucorales进行测序比较,作为参考标准。对毛霉属(Mucorales)、曲霉属(Aspergillus)和镰刀菌属(Fusarium)的总体鉴定率为96%(296/307),对MSI-2的总体鉴定率为78.5%(241/307)。FFLv4.0和MSI-2对每个属的正确率分别为:曲霉72.4%(165/228)和55.3%(126/228),镰刀菌17.6%(6/34)和38.2%(13/34),毛霉88.9%(40/45)和55.5%(25/45)。FFLv4.0和MSI-2对曲霉菌的不合格率分别为4%(9/228)和18%(41/228),对镰刀菌的不合格率分别为0%和17.6%(6/34),对毛霉菌的不合格率分别为4.4%(2/45)和42.2%(19/45%)。FFLv4.0和MSI-2对曲霉菌的误认率分别为16.2%(37/228)和6.1%(14/228),对镰刀菌的误认率分别为67.6%(23/34)和14.7%(5/34),对毛霉的误认率分别为0%和2.2%(1/45)。FFLv4.0 MALDI Biotyper在液体培养光谱中鉴定丝状真菌的性能优于MSI-2。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Filamentous Fungi Library v4.0 MALDI Biotyper Platform vs MSI-2 performance for identifying filamentous fungi from liquid cultures.

Correct, rapid, and reliable filamentous fungi identification is crucial for timely diagnosis and therapy. We compared the performance of the FFLv4.0 MALDI Biotyper and MSI-2 to identify filamentous fungi from clinical isolates. We analyzed 307 clinical isolates of Aspergillus spp., Fusarium spp., and Mucorales and compared them to sequencing as the reference standard. The overall identification rates to genus (Mucorales), section (Aspergillus), and species complex (Fusarium) level were 96% (296/307) for FFLv4.0 and 78.5% (241/307) for MSI-2. By each genus, correct species identification was achieved by FFLv4.0 and MSI-2 as follows: 72.4% (165/228) and 55.3% (126/228) for Aspergillus species, 17.6% (6/34) and 38.2% (13/34) for Fusarium species, and 88.9% (40/45) and 55.5% (25/45) for the Mucorales. The rates of non-identification by FFLv4.0 and MSI-2, respectively, were 4% (9/228) and 18% (41/228) for Aspergillus spp., 0% and 17.6% (6/34) for Fusarium spp. and 4.4% (2/45) and 42.2% (19/45%) for the Mucorales. Misidentification rates by FFLv4.0 and MSI-2, respectively, were 16.2% (37/228) and 6.1% (14/228) for Aspergillus species, 67.6% (23/34) and 14.7% (5/34) for Fusarium spp., and 0% and 2.2% (1/45) for the Mucorales. The FFLv4.0 MALDI Biotyper outperformed MSI-2 in identifying filamentous fungi from liquid culture spectra.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Journal of Clinical Microbiology 医学-微生物学
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
347
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Microbiology® disseminates the latest research concerning the laboratory diagnosis of human and animal infections, along with the laboratory's role in epidemiology and the management of infectious diseases.
×
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