You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An Improved In-house MALDI-TOF MS Protocol for Direct Cost-Effective Identification of Pathogens from Blood Cultures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Microbiology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01824 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Menglan Zhou, Qiwen Yang, Timothy Kudinha, Liying Sun, Rui Zhang, Chang Liu, Shuying Yu, Meng Xiao, Fanrong Kong, Yupei Zhao, Ying-Chun Xu |
| Abstract |
Background: Bloodstream infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients worldwide. Delays in the identification of microorganisms often leads to a poor prognosis. The application of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) directly to blood culture (BC) broth can potentially identify bloodstream infections earlier, and facilitate timely management. Methods: We developed an "in-house" (IH) protocol for direct MALDI-TOF MS based identification of organisms in positive BCs. The IH protocol was initially evaluated and improved with spiked BC samples, and its performance was compared with the commercial Sepsityper™ kit using both traditional and modified cut-off values. We then studied in parallel the performance of the IH protocol and the colony MS identifications in positive clinical BC samples using only modified cut-off values. All discrepancies were investigated by "gold standard" of gene sequencing. Results: In 54 spiked BC samples, the IH method showed comparable results with Sepsityper™ after applying modified cut-off values. Specifically, accurate species and genus level identification was achieved in 88.7 and 3.9% of all the clinical monomicrobial BCs (284/301, 94.4%), respectively. The IH protocol exhibited superior performance for Gram negative bacteria than for Gram positive bacteria (92.8 vs. 82.4%). For anaerobes and yeasts, accurate species identification was achieved in 80.0 and 90.0% of the cases, respectively. For polymicrobial cultures (17/301, 5.6%), MALDI-TOF MS correctly identified a single species present in all the polymicrobial BCs under the Standard mode, while using the MIXED method, two species were correctly identified in 52.9% of the samples. Comparisons based on BC bottle type, showed that the BACTEC™ Lytic/10 Anaerobic/F culture vials performed the best. Conclusion: Our study provides a novel and effective sample preparation method for MALDI-TOF MS direct identification of pathogens from positive BC vials, with a lower cost ($1.5 vs. $ 7) albeit a slightly more laborious extracting process (an extra 15 min) compared with Sepsityper™ kit. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 24 | 41% |
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 18 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,450,513
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#22,682
of 25,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,179
of 321,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#441
of 513 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 321,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 513 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.