4.7 Article

Rapid Identification of Bacteria from Positive Blood Culture Bottles by Use of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry Fingerprinting

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 1584-1591

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01831-09

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early and adequate antimicrobial therapy has been shown to improve the clinical outcome in bloodstream infections (BSI). To provide rapid pathogen identification for targeted treatment, we applied matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry fingerprinting to bacteria directly recovered from blood culture bottles. A total of 304 aerobic and anaerobic blood cultures, reported positive by a Bactec 9240 system, were subjected in parallel to differential centrifugation with subsequent mass spectrometry fingerprinting and reference identification using established microbiological methods. A representative spectrum of bloodstream pathogens was recovered from 277 samples that grew a single bacterial isolate. Species identification by direct mass spectrometry fingerprinting matched reference identification in 95% of these samples and worked equally well for aerobic and anaerobic culture bottles. Application of commonly used score cutoffs to classify the fingerprinting results led to an identification rate of 87%. Mismatching mostly resulted from insufficient bacterial numbers and preferentially occurred with Gram-positive samples. The respective spectra showed low concordance to database references and were effectively rejected by score thresholds. Spiking experiments and examination of the respective study samples even suggested applicability of the method to mixed cultures. With turnaround times around 100 min, the approach allowed for reliable pathogen identification at the day of blood culture positivity, providing treatment-relevant information within the critical phase of septic illness.

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

4.7
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