...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Microbiology >Comparison of the Microflex LT and Vitek MS Systems for Routine Identification of Bacteria by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry
【24h】

Comparison of the Microflex LT and Vitek MS Systems for Routine Identification of Bacteria by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry

机译：使用基质辅助激光解吸电离-飞行时间质谱仪对细菌进行常规鉴定的Microflex LT和Vitek MS系统的比较

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This study compared the performance of three matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry systems: Microflex LT (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany), Vitek MS RUO (Axima Assurance-Saramis database; bioMérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France), and Vitek MS IVD (bioMérieux). A total of 1,129 isolates, including 1,003 routine isolates, 73 anaerobes, and 53 bacterial enteropathogens, were tested on the Microflex LT and Axima Assurance devices. The spectra were analyzed using three databases: Biotyper (Bruker Daltonics), Saramis, and Vitek MS (bioMérieux). Among the routine isolates requiring identification to the species level (n = 986), 92.7% and 93.2% were correctly identified by the Biotyper and Vitek MS databases, respectively. The Vitek MS database is more specific for the identification of Streptococcus viridans. For the anaerobes, the Biotyper database often identified Fusobacterium isolates to only the genus level, which is of low clinical significance, whereas 20% of the Bacteroides species were not identified or were misidentified by the Vitek MS database. For the enteropathogens, the poor discrimination between Escherichia coli and Shigella explains the high proportion of unidentified organisms. In contrast to the Biotyper database, the Vitek MS database properly discriminated all of the Salmonella entrica serovar Typhi isolates (n = 5). The performance of the Saramis database was globally poorer. In conclusion, for routine procedures, the Microflex LT and Vitek-MS systems are equally good choices in terms of analytical efficiency. Other factors, including price, work flow, and lab activity, will affect the choice of a system.
机译：这项研究比较了三种基质辅助激光解吸电离飞行时间质谱系统的性能：Microflex LT（布鲁克曼·道尔顿公司，不来梅，德国），Vitek MS RUO（Axima Assurance-Saramis数据库;bioMérieux，法国Marcy l'Etoile） ）和Vitek MS IVD（bioMérieux）。在Microflex LT和Axima Assurance设备上测试了总共1,129个分离株，包括1,003个常规分离株，73个厌氧菌和53个细菌性肠病原体。使用三个数据库分析了光谱：Biotyper（Bruker Daltonics），Saramis和Vitek MS（bioMérieux）。在需要鉴定到种类水平（ n = 986）的常规分离株中，分别通过Biotyper和Vitek MS数据库正确鉴定了92.7％和93.2％。 Vitek MS数据库更适用于鉴定绿色链球菌。对于厌氧菌，Biotyper数据库通常只将梭状芽孢杆菌分离株鉴定到属水平，这对临床意义不大，而Vitek MS数据库未鉴定或误认了20％的拟杆菌属。对于肠病原体，大肠杆菌和志贺氏菌之间的区分度差说明了未鉴定生物的比例很高。与Biotyper数据库相反，Vitek MS数据库正确区分了所有沙门氏菌血清型伤寒沙门氏菌（ n = 5）。 Saramis数据库的性能在全球范围内都较差。总之，就常规程序而言，就分析效率而言，Microflex LT和Vitek-MS系统同样是不错的选择。其他因素，包括价格，工作流程和实验室活动，将影响系统的选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号