Comparison of the Multiple Platforms to Identify Various Species.

We compared several identification methods for genus members, including traditional biochemical testing, multiplex-PCR amplification, mass spectrometry identification, whole-genome sequencing, multilocus phylogenetic analysis (MLPA), and , and - gene sequencing. Isolates ( = 62) belonging to the genus, which were came from the bacterial bank in the laboratory, were used to assess the identification accuracy of the different methods. Whole-genome sequencing showed that the spp. isolates comprised ( = 21), ( = 18), ( = 8), ( = 7), ( = 5), ( = 2), and ( = 1). Using the whole-genome sequencing results as the standard, the consistency of the other methods was compared with them. The results were 46.77% (29/62) for biochemical identification, 83.87% (52/62) for mass spectrometric identification, 67.74% (42/62) for multiplex-PCR, 100% (62/62) for MLPA typing, 72.58% for , and 59.68% for and -. MLPA was the most consistent, followed by mass spectrometry. Therefore, in the public health laboratory, both MLPA and whole-genome sequencing methods can be used to identify various species. However, rapid and relatively accurate mass spectrometry is recommended for clinical lab.