...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Medical Microbiology: An Official Journal of the Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland >Comparison of two approaches for the classification of 16S rRNA gene sequences
【24h】

Comparison of two approaches for the classification of 16S rRNA gene sequences

机译:16S rRNA基因序列分类的两种方法的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

The use of 16S rRNA gene sequences for microbial identification in clinical microbiology is accepted widely, and requires databases and algorithms. We compared a new research database containing curated 16S rRNA gene sequences in combination with the lca (lowest common ancestor) algorithm (RDB-LCA) to a commercially available 16S rDNA Centroid approach. We used 1025 bacterial isolates characterized by biochemistry, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight MS and 16S rDNA sequencing. Nearly 80 % of isolates were identified unambiguously at the species level by both classification platforms used. The remaining isolates were mostly identified correctly at the genus level due to the limited resolution of 16S rDNA sequencing. Discrepancies between both 16S rDNA platforms were due to differences in database content and the algorithm used, and could amount to up to 10.5 %. Up to 1.4 % of the analyses were found to be inconclusive. It is important to realize that despite the overall good performance of the pipelines for analysis, some inconclusive results remain that require additional in-depth analysis performed using supplementary methods.
机译:广泛接受使用16S rRNA基因序列进行临床微生物学中的微生物鉴定,并且需要数据库和算法。我们将包含含有含量的16S rRNA基因序列的新研究数据库与LCA(最低公共祖先)算法(RDB-LCA)结合到市售的16S RDNA质心方法。我们使用了1025个细菌分离株,其特征在于生物化学,基质辅助激光解吸/电离飞行时间MS和16S RDNA测序。通过使用的两个分类平台,近80%的分离株毫不含糊地识别。由于16S rDNA测序的分辨率有限,剩余的分离物主要在属级别正确鉴定。两个16S RDNA平台之间的差异是由于数据库内容的差异和所使用的算法,可以高达10.5%。最多1.4%的分析被发现是不确定的。重要的是要认识到,尽管管道的总体性能良好的分析,但一些不确定的结果仍然需要使用补充方法进行额外的深入分析。

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