4.5 Article

Liquid Extraction Surface Analysis Mass Spectrometry of ESKAPE Pathogens

期刊

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jasms.0c00466

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/L023490/1, EP/S002979/1, EP/L016346/1]
  2. Birmingham Science City Translational Medicine, Experimental Medicine Network of Excellence Project
  3. Advantage West Midlands
  4. EPSRC [EP/L023490/1, EP/S002979/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ESKAPE pathogens were successfully identified using liquid extraction surface analysis mass spectrometry (LESA MS), with a identification success rate of 79%.
The ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter cloacae) represent clinically important bacterial species that are responsible for most hospital-acquired drug-resistant infections; hence, the need for rapid identification is of high importance. Previous work has demonstrated the suitability of liquid extraction surface analysis mass spectrometry (LESA MS) for the direct analysis of colonies of two of the ESKAPE pathogens (Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) growing on agar. Here, we apply LESA MS to the remaining four ESKAPE species (E. faecium E745, K. pneumoniae KP257, A. baumannii AYE, and E. cloacae S11) as well as E. faecalis V583 (a close relative of E. faecium) and a clinical isolate of A. baumannii AC02 using an optimized solvent sampling system. In each case, top-down LESA MS/MS was employed for protein identification. In total, 24 proteins were identified from 37 MS/MS spectra by searching against protein databases for the individual species. The MS/MS spectra for the identified proteins were subsequently searched against multiple databases from multiple species in an automated data analysis workflow with a view to determining the accuracy of identification of unknowns. Out of 24 proteins, 19 were correctly assigned at the protein and species level, corresponding to an identification success rate of 79%.

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

4.5
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