David Shafer , Hao Liu , Jinying Dong , Wei Liu , Jason Loft , Tony Phelps , Yang Zhang
{"title":"MALDI-TOF质谱法鉴定临床相关厌氧菌的直接涂片法与化学提取法的比较","authors":"David Shafer , Hao Liu , Jinying Dong , Wei Liu , Jason Loft , Tony Phelps , Yang Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.flm.2017.02.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The Bruker Biotyper MALDI-TOF MS (Biotyper) system was evaluated for identification of anaerobic bacteria by chemical extraction and the direct smear technique.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>A total of 216 strains of anaerobic bacteria representing 36 species were analyzed by two methods. 16S rDNA sequence analysis was used to resolve discrepancies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The results showed that 202/216 (93.5%) strains were correctly identified following chemical extraction, among them, 176 strains (81.5%) were secured to both genus and species (score<!--> <!-->><!--> <!-->2.00); another 26 strains (12%) were secured to genus only (score between 1.70 and 2.00). Following direct smear, 194/216 (89.8%) anaerobic bacteria were identified, 155 strains (71.7%) were secured to both genus and species (score)<!--> <!-->><!--> <!-->2.0 whereas 39 (18%) strains were identified to genus only (score between 1.70 and 2.00). Fourteen strains were not identified (score<!--> <!--><<!--> <!-->1.70) by MALDI-TOF MS following chemical extraction whereas 22 strains were not identified with the direct smear technique. Although direct smear had a less isolate number for score values<!--> <!-->>2.00, However the overall identification differences were not statistically significant (0.05<!--> <!--><<!--> <em>P</em> <!--><<!--> <!-->0.1).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>MALDI-TOF MS identification following the direct smear technique appears to be non-inferior to standard chemical extraction. It may be an acceptable alternative to chemical extraction methods for routine identification of anaerobic bacteria in a medical microbiology laboratory.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100555,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":"Pages 27-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.flm.2017.02.011","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of direct smear and chemical extraction methods for MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry identification of clinical relevant anaerobic bacteria\",\"authors\":\"David Shafer , Hao Liu , Jinying Dong , Wei Liu , Jason Loft , Tony Phelps , Yang Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.flm.2017.02.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The Bruker Biotyper MALDI-TOF MS (Biotyper) system was evaluated for identification of anaerobic bacteria by chemical extraction and the direct smear technique.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>A total of 216 strains of anaerobic bacteria representing 36 species were analyzed by two methods. 16S rDNA sequence analysis was used to resolve discrepancies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The results showed that 202/216 (93.5%) strains were correctly identified following chemical extraction, among them, 176 strains (81.5%) were secured to both genus and species (score<!--> <!-->><!--> <!-->2.00); another 26 strains (12%) were secured to genus only (score between 1.70 and 2.00). Following direct smear, 194/216 (89.8%) anaerobic bacteria were identified, 155 strains (71.7%) were secured to both genus and species (score)<!--> <!-->><!--> <!-->2.0 whereas 39 (18%) strains were identified to genus only (score between 1.70 and 2.00). Fourteen strains were not identified (score<!--> <!--><<!--> <!-->1.70) by MALDI-TOF MS following chemical extraction whereas 22 strains were not identified with the direct smear technique. Although direct smear had a less isolate number for score values<!--> <!-->>2.00, However the overall identification differences were not statistically significant (0.05<!--> <!--><<!--> <em>P</em> <!--><<!--> <!-->0.1).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>MALDI-TOF MS identification following the direct smear technique appears to be non-inferior to standard chemical extraction. It may be an acceptable alternative to chemical extraction methods for routine identification of anaerobic bacteria in a medical microbiology laboratory.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 27-30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.flm.2017.02.011\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542364917300274\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542364917300274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of direct smear and chemical extraction methods for MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry identification of clinical relevant anaerobic bacteria
Background
The Bruker Biotyper MALDI-TOF MS (Biotyper) system was evaluated for identification of anaerobic bacteria by chemical extraction and the direct smear technique.
Method
A total of 216 strains of anaerobic bacteria representing 36 species were analyzed by two methods. 16S rDNA sequence analysis was used to resolve discrepancies.
Results
The results showed that 202/216 (93.5%) strains were correctly identified following chemical extraction, among them, 176 strains (81.5%) were secured to both genus and species (score > 2.00); another 26 strains (12%) were secured to genus only (score between 1.70 and 2.00). Following direct smear, 194/216 (89.8%) anaerobic bacteria were identified, 155 strains (71.7%) were secured to both genus and species (score) > 2.0 whereas 39 (18%) strains were identified to genus only (score between 1.70 and 2.00). Fourteen strains were not identified (score < 1.70) by MALDI-TOF MS following chemical extraction whereas 22 strains were not identified with the direct smear technique. Although direct smear had a less isolate number for score values >2.00, However the overall identification differences were not statistically significant (0.05 < P < 0.1).
Conclusion
MALDI-TOF MS identification following the direct smear technique appears to be non-inferior to standard chemical extraction. It may be an acceptable alternative to chemical extraction methods for routine identification of anaerobic bacteria in a medical microbiology laboratory.