Cargando…

Evaluation of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of clinical isolates

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the accuracy and performance of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in bacteria and yeast identification, 2342 isolates were obtained from microbial cultures of clinical specimens (e.g. blood, cerebrospinal fluid, respiratory tract samples, lumbar puncture fluid, wound samples...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ma, Qiong, Zhang, Qi, Yuan, Youhua, Yan, Wenjuan, Wang, Shanmei, Xu, Junhong, Zhang, Jiangfeng, Wang, Yuming, Li, Yi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7576717/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33081722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-02005-0
_version_ 1783598069212774400
author Ma, Qiong
Zhang, Qi
Yuan, Youhua
Yan, Wenjuan
Wang, Shanmei
Xu, Junhong
Zhang, Jiangfeng
Wang, Yuming
Li, Yi
author_facet Ma, Qiong
Zhang, Qi
Yuan, Youhua
Yan, Wenjuan
Wang, Shanmei
Xu, Junhong
Zhang, Jiangfeng
Wang, Yuming
Li, Yi
author_sort Ma, Qiong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To evaluate the accuracy and performance of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in bacteria and yeast identification, 2342 isolates were obtained from microbial cultures of clinical specimens (e.g. blood, cerebrospinal fluid, respiratory tract samples, lumbar puncture fluid, wound samples, stool, and urine) collected in 2019 in Henan Provincial People’s Hospital. Repetitive strains from the same patient were excluded. We tested the Autof MS1000 and Bruker Biotyper mass spectrometry systems and the classical biochemical identification system VITEK 2/API 20C AUX. Inconsistencies in strain identification among the three systems were identified by 16S rDNA and gene sequencing. RESULTS: At the species level, the Autof MS1000 and Bruker Biotyper systems had isolate identification accuracies of 98.9 and 98.5%, respectively. At the genus level, the Autof MS1000 and Bruker Biotyper systems were 99.7 and 99.4% accurate, respectively. The instruments did not significantly differ in identification accuracy at either taxonomic level. The frequencies of unreliable identification were 1.1% (26/2342) for the Autof MS1000 and 1.5% (34/2342) for the Bruker Biotyper. In vitro experiments demonstrated that the coincidence rate of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of five types of bacteria was > 93%, the identification error rate was < 3%, and the no identification rate was 0. This indicates that the Autof MS1000 system is acceptable for identification. CONCLUSIONS: The Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer can be utilised to identify clinical isolates. However, an upgradation of the database is recommended to correctly identify rare strains.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7576717
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75767172020-10-21 Evaluation of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of clinical isolates Ma, Qiong Zhang, Qi Yuan, Youhua Yan, Wenjuan Wang, Shanmei Xu, Junhong Zhang, Jiangfeng Wang, Yuming Li, Yi BMC Microbiol Research Article BACKGROUND: To evaluate the accuracy and performance of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in bacteria and yeast identification, 2342 isolates were obtained from microbial cultures of clinical specimens (e.g. blood, cerebrospinal fluid, respiratory tract samples, lumbar puncture fluid, wound samples, stool, and urine) collected in 2019 in Henan Provincial People’s Hospital. Repetitive strains from the same patient were excluded. We tested the Autof MS1000 and Bruker Biotyper mass spectrometry systems and the classical biochemical identification system VITEK 2/API 20C AUX. Inconsistencies in strain identification among the three systems were identified by 16S rDNA and gene sequencing. RESULTS: At the species level, the Autof MS1000 and Bruker Biotyper systems had isolate identification accuracies of 98.9 and 98.5%, respectively. At the genus level, the Autof MS1000 and Bruker Biotyper systems were 99.7 and 99.4% accurate, respectively. The instruments did not significantly differ in identification accuracy at either taxonomic level. The frequencies of unreliable identification were 1.1% (26/2342) for the Autof MS1000 and 1.5% (34/2342) for the Bruker Biotyper. In vitro experiments demonstrated that the coincidence rate of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of five types of bacteria was > 93%, the identification error rate was < 3%, and the no identification rate was 0. This indicates that the Autof MS1000 system is acceptable for identification. CONCLUSIONS: The Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer can be utilised to identify clinical isolates. However, an upgradation of the database is recommended to correctly identify rare strains. BioMed Central 2020-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7576717/ /pubmed/33081722 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-02005-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ma, Qiong
Zhang, Qi
Yuan, Youhua
Yan, Wenjuan
Wang, Shanmei
Xu, Junhong
Zhang, Jiangfeng
Wang, Yuming
Li, Yi
Evaluation of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of clinical isolates
title Evaluation of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of clinical isolates
title_full Evaluation of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of clinical isolates
title_fullStr Evaluation of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of clinical isolates
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of clinical isolates
title_short Evaluation of the Autof MS1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of clinical isolates
title_sort evaluation of the autof ms1000 mass spectrometer in the identification of clinical isolates
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7576717/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33081722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-02005-0
work_keys_str_mv AT maqiong evaluationoftheautofms1000massspectrometerintheidentificationofclinicalisolates
AT zhangqi evaluationoftheautofms1000massspectrometerintheidentificationofclinicalisolates
AT yuanyouhua evaluationoftheautofms1000massspectrometerintheidentificationofclinicalisolates
AT yanwenjuan evaluationoftheautofms1000massspectrometerintheidentificationofclinicalisolates
AT wangshanmei evaluationoftheautofms1000massspectrometerintheidentificationofclinicalisolates
AT xujunhong evaluationoftheautofms1000massspectrometerintheidentificationofclinicalisolates
AT zhangjiangfeng evaluationoftheautofms1000massspectrometerintheidentificationofclinicalisolates
AT wangyuming evaluationoftheautofms1000massspectrometerintheidentificationofclinicalisolates
AT liyi evaluationoftheautofms1000massspectrometerintheidentificationofclinicalisolates