Lévesque Simon, Dufresne Philippe J, Soualhine Hafid, Domingo Marc-Christian, Bekal Sadjia, Lefebvre Brigitte, Tremblay Cécile
Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec / Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada.
Département de Microbiologie, Immunologie et Infectiologie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 10;10(12):e0144878. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144878. eCollection 2015.
Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) has emerged as a rapid, highly accurate, and cost-effective method for routine identification of a wide range of microorganisms. We carried out a side by side comparative evaluation of the performance of Bruker Biotyper versus VITEK MS for identification of a large and diverse collection of microorganisms. Most difficult and/or unusual microorganisms, as well as commonly encountered microorganisms were selected, including Gram-positive and negative bacteria, mycobacteria, actinomycetes, yeasts and filamentous fungi. Six hundred forty two strains representing 159 genera and 441 species from clinical specimens previously identified at the Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec (LSPQ) by reference methods were retrospectively chosen for the study. They included 254 Gram-positive bacteria, 167 Gram-negative bacteria, 109 mycobacteria and aerobic actinomycetes and 112 yeasts and moulds. MALDI-TOF MS analyses were performed on both systems according to the manufacturer's instructions. Of the 642 strains tested, the name of the genus and / or species of 572 strains were referenced in the Bruker database while 406 were present in the VITEK MS IVD database. The Biotyper correctly identified 494 (86.4%) of the strains, while the VITEK MS correctly identified 362 (92.3%) of the strains (excluding 14 mycobacteria that were not tested). Of the 70 strains not present in the Bruker database at the species level, the Biotyper correctly identified 10 (14.3%) to the genus level and 2 (2.9%) to the complex/group level. For 52 (74.2%) strains, we obtained no identification, and an incorrect identification was given for 6 (8.6%) strains. Of the 178 strains not present in the VITEK MS IVD database at the species level (excluding 71 untested mycobacteria and actinomycetes), the VITEK MS correctly identified 12 (6.8%) of the strains each to the genus and to the complex/group level. For 97 (54.5%) strains, no identification was given and for 69 (38.7%) strains, an incorrect identification was obtained. Our study demonstrates that both systems gave a high level (above 85%) of correct identification for a wide range of microorganisms. However, VITEK MS gave more misidentification when the microorganism analysed was not present in the database, compared to Bruker Biotyper. This should be taken into account when this technology is used alone for microorganism identification in a public health laboratory, where isolates received are often difficult to identify and/or unusual microorganisms.
基质辅助激光解吸电离飞行时间质谱(MALDI-TOF MS)已成为一种快速、高度准确且经济高效的方法,用于常规鉴定多种微生物。我们对布鲁克微生物鉴定系统(Bruker Biotyper)和VITEK MS在鉴定大量不同种类微生物方面的性能进行了并行比较评估。选择了大多数难鉴定和/或不常见的微生物以及常见微生物,包括革兰氏阳性菌和阴性菌、分枝杆菌、放线菌、酵母和丝状真菌。回顾性选取了642株代表159个属和441个种的菌株,这些菌株来自魁北克公共卫生实验室(LSPQ)先前通过参考方法从临床标本中鉴定出来的。其中包括254株革兰氏阳性菌、167株革兰氏阴性菌、109株分枝杆菌和好氧放线菌以及112株酵母和霉菌。根据制造商的说明,在这两个系统上都进行了MALDI-TOF MS分析。在测试的642株菌株中,布鲁克数据库中可查找到572株菌株的属名和/或种名,而VITEK MS IVD数据库中有406株。微生物鉴定系统(Biotyper)正确鉴定了494株(86.4%)菌株,而VITEK MS正确鉴定了362株(92.3%)菌株(不包括14株未测试的分枝杆菌)。在物种水平上,布鲁克数据库中不存在的70株菌株中,微生物鉴定系统(Biotyper)正确鉴定出10株(14.3%)到属水平,2株(2.9%)到复合/组水平。对于52株(74.2%)菌株,未获得鉴定结果,6株(8.6%)菌株鉴定错误。在物种水平上,VITEK MS IVD数据库中不存在的178株菌株(不包括71株未测试的分枝杆菌和放线菌)中,VITEK MS正确鉴定出12株(6.8%)菌株到属和复合/组水平。对于97株(54.5%)菌株,未给出鉴定结果,69株(38.7%)菌株鉴定错误。我们的研究表明,这两个系统对多种微生物的正确鉴定率都很高(超过85%)。然而,与布鲁克微生物鉴定系统(Bruker Biotyper)相比,当分析的微生物不在数据库中时,VITEK MS出现的错误鉴定更多。在公共卫生实验室单独使用这项技术进行微生物鉴定时,应考虑到这一点,因为收到的分离株往往难以鉴定且/或为不常见微生物。