de Souza Ferreira L, Showemimo T, Juliano L B, Rodriguez Z, Ruegg P L
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
JDS Commun. 2025 Feb 20;6(3):422-426. doi: 10.3168/jdsc.2024-0711. eCollection 2025 May.
For decades, conventional microbiological methods have been used to identify bacterial causes of bovine mastitis. Although these methods are relatively accurate for identification of important mastitis pathogens, all diagnostic tests are imperfect, and as testing technologies advance, widespread use of newer technologies may result in differences in the distribution of etiologies that are identified. As a result, historical research using conventional microbiological methods may not be comparable to results of current studies. The objective of this study was to compare agreement between the original identification of mastitis pathogens from cows enrolled in mastitis studies between 2003 and 2011 with identification of the same isolates using MALDI-TOF. Cryopreserved bacterial isolates (n = 308) that had been recovered from quarter milk samples and originally identified using conventional microbiological techniques were used. Bacterial identification was performed using MALDI-TOF. Among all isolates, 277 were able to be identified using MALDI-TOF, and the overall observed levels of agreement were 86% and 64% for identification at the genus level and genus-species level, respectively. The kappa statistic for agreement between methods at the genus level was substantial at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.82) but dropped to 0.64 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.66) for agreement at both the genus and species level. For gram-positive isolates, agreement at both the genus level and the genus and species level was substantial. In contrast, for gram-negative isolates, the genus-level agreement was substantial, but agreement at both the genus and species levels was moderate. Our findings suggest substantial agreement between MALDI-TOF and conventional methods for determining genus-level identification, but some discrepancies occur at the species level. These results indicate that historical mastitis research using conventional microbiological methods are comparable at the genus level to current results using MALDI-TOF, but some caution should be applied when making species-level comparisons, especially for gram-negative pathogens.
几十年来,传统微生物学方法一直被用于鉴定牛乳腺炎的细菌病因。尽管这些方法在鉴定重要的乳腺炎病原体方面相对准确,但所有诊断测试都并非完美无缺,而且随着检测技术的进步,新技术的广泛应用可能会导致所鉴定出的病因分布有所不同。因此,使用传统微生物学方法进行的历史研究结果可能与当前研究结果不可比。本研究的目的是比较2003年至2011年参与乳腺炎研究的奶牛中乳腺炎病原体的原始鉴定结果与使用基质辅助激光解吸电离飞行时间质谱(MALDI-TOF)对相同分离株的鉴定结果之间的一致性。使用了从乳区乳样中分离并最初用传统微生物学技术鉴定的308株冷冻保存的细菌分离株。使用MALDI-TOF进行细菌鉴定。在所有分离株中,277株能够用MALDI-TOF鉴定,在属水平和属-种水平鉴定时观察到的总体一致性水平分别为86%和64%。两种方法在属水平一致性的kappa统计量为0.80(95%置信区间:0.78,0.82),具有较高一致性,但在属和种水平一致性时降至0.64(95%置信区间:0.62,0.66)。对于革兰氏阳性分离株,在属水平以及属和种水平的一致性都较高。相比之下,对于革兰氏阴性分离株,属水平的一致性较高,但在属和种水平的一致性为中等。我们的研究结果表明,在确定属水平鉴定方面,MALDI-TOF与传统方法之间有较高一致性,但在种水平存在一些差异。这些结果表明,使用传统微生物学方法进行的历史乳腺炎研究在属水平上与使用MALDI-TOF的当前结果具有可比性,但在进行种水平比较时应谨慎,尤其是对于革兰氏阴性病原体。