| Title |
Insight into Identification of Acinetobacter Species by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) in the Clinical Laboratory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13361-018-1911-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiuyuan Li, Yanyan Tang, Xinxin Lu |
| Abstract |
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), χ2 = 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#2,946
of 3,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,122
of 343,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#51
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,835 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.