4.3 Article

A step towards the discrimination of beta-lactamase-producing clinical isolates of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry

Journal

MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages MT71-MT77

Publisher

INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.883339

Keywords

MALDI-TOF MS; Enterobacteriaceae; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; ESBL; MBL; beta-lactamase

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Matrix-Assisted Laser-Desorption/Ionization Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) has already proven to be a powerful tool for species identification in microbiological laboratories. As adequate and rapid screening methods for antibiotic resistance are crucially needed, the present study investigated the discrimination potential of MALDI-TOF MS among extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (ESBL) or metallo-beta-lactamases-(MBL) producing and the nonproducing strains of Escherichia coli (n=19), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n=19), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=38), respectively. Material/Methods: We used a MALDI-TOF MS protocol, usually applied for species identification, in order to integrate a screening method for beta-lactamases into the routine species identification workflow. The acquired spectra were analyzed by visual inspection, statistical similarity analysis and support vector machine (SVM) classification algorithms. Results: Neither visual inspection nor mathematical similarity analysis allowed discrimination between spectra of beta-lactamase-producing and the nonproducing strains, but classification within a species by SVM-based algorithms could achieve a correct classification rate of up to 70%. Conclusions: This shows that MALDI-TOF MS has definite potential to discriminate antibiotic-resistant strains due to ESBL and MBL production from nonproducing strains, but this performance is not yet sufficiently reliable for routine microbiological diagnostics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available