Callaway Angelika, Kostrzewa Markus, Willershausen Brita, Schmidt Frank, Thiede Bernd, Küpper Harald, Kneist Susanne
Department of Operative Dentistry, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
Bruker Daltonik GmbH Bremen, Germany.
Clin Lab. 2013;59(11-12):1373-9. doi: 10.7754/clin.lab.2013.121225.
The aim of the present study was to compare MALDI-TOF results for the identification of 87 lactobacilli, isolated from soft or hard carious dentin from 70 first molars of 7- to 8-year-old children with those obtained by species-specific PCR.
The 87 isolates were analyzed by MALDI-TOF MS (Microflex LT, MALDI Biotyper 3.0, Bruker Daltonik, Bremen, Germany), using a reference data base of 4110 strains including > 90 lactobacillus species. For the identification with species-specific PCR, oligonucleotide primers (16S rRNA) specific for L. casei, L. paracasei, L. rhamnosus, L. gasseri, L. plantarum, and L. acidophilus were used; type strains served as controls. The PCR-products were separated electrophoretically on a 1.5% agarose gel and identified by their position on the gel.
For 93% of the strains both methods produced concordant results: 40 strains were identified as L. rhamnosus, 16 as L. paracasei subsp. paracasei, 15 as L. paracasei subsp. tolerans, 4 as L. paracasei, 3 as L. gasseri, 2 as L. plantarum, and 1 as L. casei. In 4.5% of the cases the results were discordant. Of the 3 strains, not identified by species-specific PCR, 1 strain was identified by MALDI-TOF MS as L. spec. and 1 as L. parabuchneri. One strain could not be identified by either method.
Both methods are highly sensitive. Limitations can be the precision of the primers (PCR) or the scarcity of strains from a certain habitat in the data base. Additional information is necessary for the strains without or with discordant identification.
本研究的目的是比较基质辅助激光解吸电离飞行时间质谱(MALDI-TOF)鉴定从7至8岁儿童的70颗第一恒磨牙的软或硬龋坏牙本质中分离出的87株乳酸杆菌的结果与通过种特异性聚合酶链反应(PCR)获得的结果。
使用包含90多种乳酸杆菌的4110株菌株的参考数据库,通过MALDI-TOF质谱仪(Microflex LT,MALDI Biotyper 3.0,德国不来梅布鲁克道尔顿公司)对87株分离株进行分析。为了通过种特异性PCR进行鉴定,使用了针对干酪乳杆菌、副干酪乳杆菌、鼠李糖乳杆菌、加氏乳杆菌、植物乳杆菌和嗜酸乳杆菌的寡核苷酸引物(16S rRNA);模式菌株用作对照。PCR产物在1.5%琼脂糖凝胶上进行电泳分离,并通过其在凝胶上的位置进行鉴定。
93%的菌株两种方法产生了一致的结果:40株被鉴定为鼠李糖乳杆菌,16株被鉴定为副干酪乳杆菌副干酪亚种,15株被鉴定为副干酪乳杆菌耐酸亚种,4株被鉴定为副干酪乳杆菌,3株被鉴定为加氏乳杆菌,2株被鉴定为植物乳杆菌,1株被鉴定为干酪乳杆菌。在4.5%的病例中结果不一致。在3株未通过种特异性PCR鉴定的菌株中,1株通过MALDI-TOF MS鉴定为L. spec.,1株鉴定为布氏副乳杆菌。有1株菌株两种方法均无法鉴定。
两种方法都高度敏感。局限性可能在于引物(PCR)的精度或数据库中来自特定生境的菌株数量稀少。对于未鉴定或鉴定结果不一致的菌株,需要更多信息。