4.7 Article

Improved Identification of Yeast Species Directly from Positive Blood Culture Media by Combining Sepsityper Specimen Processing and Microflex Analysis with the Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Biotyper System

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 7, 页码 2528-2532

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00339-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR/NIH [UL1 RR024975]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current methods for identification of yeast from blood cultures may take several days after these microorganisms have been observed by Gram stain smears from positive blood cultures. We explored the use of a matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization (MALDI) Biotyper system in combination with Sepsityper specimen processing and Microflex analysis for improved detection and identification of yeast species directly from positive blood culture specimens demonstrating yeast-like organisms by Gram stain. The limit of detection of yeast species in blood culture medium was determined to be 5.9 x 10(5) CFU, with intra- and interstrain coefficients of variation of 1.8 to 3.6% and 2.9%, respectively. A total of 42 yeast-containing positive blood culture specimens were processed, and the identification results were compared to those obtained by routinely used phenotypic methods. Specimens with discrepant results between the Biotyper and phenotypic methods were identified on the basis of internal transcribed spacer region sequencing. The MALDI Biotyper system correctly identified the 42 specimens to species level, including 28 (66.7%) Candida albicans, 8 (19.0%) Candida parapsilosis, and 5 (11.9%) Candida tropicalis isolates and 1 (2.4%) Cryptococcus neoformans isolate. The entire procedure, from specimen extraction to final result reporting, can be completed within 1 h. Our data indicated that the Sepsityper specimen processing and Microflex analysis by the MALDI Biotyper system provide a rapid and reliable tool for yeast species identification directly from positive blood culture media.

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