4.1 Article

Rapid Identification of Mycoplasma pulmonis Isolated from Laboratory Mice and Rats Using Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 74, 期 8, 页码 1083-1086

出版社

JAPAN SOC VET SCI
DOI: 10.1292/jvms.12-0029

关键词

MALDI-TOF MS; mouse; Mycoplasma pulmonis; rat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mycoplasma species identification is based on biochemical, immunological, and molecular methods that require several days for accurate identification. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is a novel method for identification of bacteria and has recently been introduced into the clinical microbiology laboratory as a rapid and accurate technique. This method allows a characteristic mass spectral fingerprint to be obtained from whole inactivated mycoplasmal cells. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the MALDI-TOF MS for the identification of Mycoplasma by comparison with standard sequence analysis of 16S rRNA. We developed the first database of MALDI-TOF MS profiles of Mycoplasma species, containing Mycoplasma pulmonis, M. arthritidis, and M. neurolyticum, which are the most common pathogens in mice and/or rats, and species-specific spectra were recorded. Using the database, 6 clinical isolates were identified. Six tracheal swabs from 4 mice and 2 rats were cultured on PPLO agar for 4 to 7 days, and the colonies were directly applied to analyze the protein profiles. Five strains were identified as M. pulmonis, and 1 strain from a mouse was identified as M. neurolyticum (spectral scores were >2.00); the results were consistent with the results of the 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis (homologies>97.0%). These data indicate that MALDI-TOF MS can be used as a clearly rapid, accurate, and cost-effective method for the identification of M. pulmonis isolates, and this system may represent a serious alternative for clinical laboratories to identify Mycoplasma species.

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

4.1
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