4.4 Article

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry assigns Escherichia coli to the phylogroups A, B1, B2 and D

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2014.06.004

关键词

Typing; MALDI-TOF MS; Escherichia coli; Bruker; Mass spectrometry

资金

  1. European Grant Fonds europeen de developpement regional (FEDER) [34534]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Escherichia coli classification into phylogroups reflects the diversity of their pathogenicity and their ecological niche, B2 isolates being the most virulent among extra-intestinal strains. MALDI-TOF MS allows a quick, automated, simple and inexpensive bacterial identification. We evaluated the MALDI-TOF MS as a tool for E. coli phylogroup differentiation. We used 656 E. coli isolates, previously assigned to phylogroup A, B1, B2, and D by multiplex PCR, to constitute independent training and validation sets. We then defined two phylogrouping strategies, both validated on spectra obtained by the 'direct transfer method'. The first strategy used the MALDI Biotyper software (Bruker Daltonik) that identified a single peak shift between isolates of phylogroup B2 and those of groups A, B1 and D. It accurately classified 89% of the isolates. The second strategy used the ClinProTools software (Bruker Daltonik) and was based on three successive models. The model 1 adequately differentiated 92% of phylogroup B2-isolates from those belonging to phylogroups A, B1, D. The model 2 adequately discriminated 87% of phylogroup D-isolates from those of phylogroups A and B1. The model 3 correctly sorted 69% of A and B1-isolates. We concluded that clinical laboratories could routinely and very quickly assign E. coli isolates to phylogroups with MALDI-TOF MS. These methods could (i) expedite the detection of the most virulent strains belonging to phylogroup B2 and (ii) be a first-line tool to monitor the epidemiology of extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli. 02014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据