Department of Laboratory Medicine, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Legation Street 1#, Beijing, Dongcheng District, 100730, China.
J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2018 Jul;29(7):1546-1553. doi: 10.1007/s13361-018-1911-4. Epub 2018 Apr 9.
Currently, the capability of identification for Acinetobacter species using MALDI-TOF MS still remains unclear in clinical laboratories due to certain elusory phenomena. Thus, we conducted this research to evaluate this technique and reveal the causes of misidentification. Briefly, a total of 788 Acinetobacter strains were collected and confirmed at the species level by 16S rDNA and rpoB sequencing, and subsequently compared to the identification by MALDI-TOF MS using direct smear and bacterial extraction pretreatments. Cluster analysis was performed based on the mass spectra and 16S rDNA to reflect the diversity among different species. Eventually, 19 Acinetobacter species were confirmed, including 6 species unavailable in Biotyper 3.0 database. Another novel species was observed, temporarily named A. corallinus. The accuracy of identification for Acinetobacter species using MALDI-TOF MS was 97.08% (765/788), regardless of which pretreatment was applied. The misidentification only occurred on 3 A. parvus strains and 20 strains of species unavailable in the database. The proportions of strains with identification score ≥ 2.000 using direct smear and bacterial extraction pretreatments were 86.04% (678/788) and 95.43% (752/788), χ = 41.336, P < 0.001. The species similar in 16 rDNA were discriminative from the mass spectra, such as A. baumannii & A. junii, A. pittii & A. calcoaceticus, and A. nosocomialis & A. seifertii. Therefore, using MALDI-TOF MS to identify Acinetobacter strains isolated from clinical samples was deemed reliable. Misidentification occurred occasionally due to the insufficiency of the database rather than sample extraction failure. We suggest gene sequencing should be performed when the identification score is under 2.000 even when using bacterial extraction pretreatment. Graphical Abstract ᅟ.
目前,由于某些难以捉摸的现象,MALDI-TOF MS 对不动杆菌种的鉴定能力在临床实验室中仍然不清楚。因此,我们进行了这项研究来评估这项技术并揭示误识别的原因。简要地说,总共收集了 788 株不动杆菌菌株,并通过 16S rDNA 和 rpoB 测序在种水平上确认,随后通过直接涂片和细菌提取预处理与 MALDI-TOF MS 鉴定进行比较。基于质谱和 16S rDNA 进行聚类分析,以反映不同种之间的多样性。最终,确认了 19 种不动杆菌,包括 Biotyper 3.0 数据库中不可用的 6 种。还观察到一种新的种,暂时命名为 A. corallinus。使用 MALDI-TOF MS 鉴定不动杆菌种的准确性为 97.08%(765/788),无论应用哪种预处理。只有 3 株 A. parvus 菌株和 20 株数据库中不可用的种发生了误识别。直接涂片和细菌提取预处理的鉴定评分≥2.000 的菌株比例分别为 86.04%(678/788)和 95.43%(752/788),χ²=41.336,P<0.001。16 rDNA 相似的种在质谱上具有区分能力,例如 A. baumannii 和 A. junii、A. pittii 和 A. calcoaceticus 以及 A. nosocomialis 和 A. seifertii。因此,使用 MALDI-TOF MS 鉴定从临床样本中分离的不动杆菌菌株是可靠的。由于数据库不足而不是样本提取失败,偶尔会发生误识别。建议即使使用细菌提取预处理,当鉴定评分低于 2.000 时,应进行基因测序。