Normand Anne-Cécile, Cassagne Carole, Gautier Magali, Becker Pierre, Ranque Stéphane, Hendrickx Marijke, Piarroux Renaud
Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, CHU Timone, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France.
Service of Mycology and Aerobiology, BCCM/IHEM Fungal Collection, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium.
BMC Microbiol. 2017 Jan 31;17(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s12866-017-0937-2.
Several Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight mass spectrometry protocols, which differ in identification criteria, have been developed for mold and dermatophyte identification. Currently, the most widely used approach is Bruker technology, although no consensus concerning the log(score) threshold has been established. Furthermore, it remains unknown how far increasing the number of spots to compare results might improve identification performance. In this study, we used in-house and Bruker reference databases as well as a panel of 422 isolates belonging to 126 species to test various thresholds. Ten distinct identification algorithms requiring one to four spots were tested.
Our findings indicate that optimal results were obtained by applying a decisional algorithm in which only the highest score of four spots was taken into account with a 1.7 log(score) threshold. Testing the entire panel enabled identification of 87.41% (in-house database) and 35.15% (Bruker database) of isolates, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1 at the genus level for both databases as well as 0.89 PPV (in-house database) and 0.72 PPV (Bruker database) at the species level. Applying the same rules to the isolates for which the species were represented by at least three strains in the database enabled identification of 92.1% (in-house database) and 46.6% (Bruker database) of isolates, with 1 PPV at the genus level for both databases as well as 0.95 PPV (in-house database) and 0.93 PPV (Bruker database) at the species level.
Depositing four spots per extract and lowering the threshold to 1.7, a threshold which is notably lower than that recommended for bacterial identification, decreased the number of unidentified specimens without altering the reliability of the accepted results. Nevertheless, regardless of the criteria used for mold and dermatophyte identification, commercial databases require optimization.
已开发出几种基质辅助激光解吸/电离飞行时间质谱分析方案用于霉菌和皮肤癣菌鉴定,这些方案在鉴定标准上存在差异。目前,使用最广泛的方法是布鲁克技术,不过对于对数(得分)阈值尚未达成共识。此外,增加用于比较结果的斑点数量能在多大程度上提高鉴定性能仍不清楚。在本研究中,我们使用内部和布鲁克参考数据库以及一组属于126个物种的422株分离株来测试各种阈值。测试了十种不同的鉴定算法,这些算法需要一到四个斑点。
我们的研究结果表明,通过应用一种决策算法可获得最佳结果,该算法只考虑四个斑点中的最高分,对数(得分)阈值为1.7。对整个菌株库进行测试,在属水平上,两个数据库的阳性预测值(PPV)均为1,内部数据库在种水平上的PPV为0.89,布鲁克数据库为0.72,分别能够鉴定出87.41%(内部数据库)和35.15%(布鲁克数据库)的分离株。对数据库中至少由三个菌株代表该物种的分离株应用相同规则,在属水平上,两个数据库的PPV均为1,内部数据库在种水平上的PPV为0.95,布鲁克数据库为0.93,分别能够鉴定出92.1%(内部数据库)和46.6%(布鲁克数据库)的分离株。
每个提取物放置四个斑点并将阈值降低到1.7,该阈值明显低于细菌鉴定推荐的阈值,减少了未鉴定标本的数量,同时不改变已接受结果的可靠性。然而,无论用于霉菌和皮肤癣菌鉴定的标准如何,商业数据库都需要优化。