4.7 Article

Peptide Markers for Rapid Detection of KPC Carbapenemase by LC-MS/MS

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02749-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Intramural Research Program of the Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health
  2. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health
  3. National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbapenemase producing organisms (CPOs) represent an urgent public health threat, and the need for new rapid methods to detect these organisms has been widely recognized. CPOs carrying the Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (bla(KPC)) gene have caused outbreaks globally with substantial attributable mortality. Here we describe the validation of a rapid MS method for the direct detection of unique tryptic peptides of the KPC protein in clinical bacterial isolates with an isolate-to-result time of less than 90 minutes. Using a genoproteomic discovery approach that combines theoretical peptidome analysis and liquid chromatography-tandem MS (LC-MS/MS), we selected three high abundance peptide markers of the KPC protein that can be robustly detected following rapid tryptic digestion. Protein BLAST analysis confirmed that the chosen peptide markers were unique to KPC. A blinded validation set containing 20 KPC-positive and 80 KPC-negative clinical isolates, performed in triplicate (300 runs) demonstrated 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity (60/60 positive identifications, 240/240 negative identifications) using defined rules for positive calls. The most robust tryptic peptide marker in the validation was LTLGSALAAPQR. The peptide discovery and detection methods validated here are general and should be broadly applicable to allow the direct and rapid detection of other resistance determinants.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available