title: Comparison between the Biflex III-Biotyper and the Axima-SARAMIS systems for yeast identification by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry.
abstract: Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is emerging in laboratories as a new diagnostic tool for microorganism identification. We prospectively compared the performances of the Biflex III-Biotyper (Bruker Daltonics) and the Axima (Shimadzu)-SARAMIS (AnagnosTec) systems for the identification of 312 yeasts isolated from clinical specimens (249 Candida spp., including 19 C. albicans and 230 non-albicans species and 63 isolates belonging to different species of the genera Saccharomyces [20 isolates], Rhodotorula [8 isolates], Cryptococcus [8 isolates], Trichosporon [7 isolates], Pichia [7 isolates], Geotrichum [12 isolates], and Sporopachydermia cereana [1 isolate]). Species were identified by using routine conventional phenotypical methods and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequencing in case of discrepancy. We used expanded thresholds for species identification (log score of ≥1.7 with 3 identical consecutive propositions and no discrepancy between the duplicates for the Bruker Daltonics system and similitude of ≥40% with 5 successive identical propositions and no discrepancy between the duplicates for the Shimadzu system). Of the 312 isolates, 272 (87.2%) and 258 (82.7%) were successfully identified by the Bruker Daltonics and Shimadzu systems, respectively. All isolates were successfully identified within the most frequent and clinically relevant Candida species by the two systems. Nonvalid results corresponded mainly to species not or poorly represented in the databases. Major misidentifications were observed for 2 isolates (0.6%) by the Bruker Daltonics system and 4 isolates (1.3%) by the Shimadzu system. In conclusion, the performances of the Bruker Daltonics and the Shimadzu systems for yeast identification were good and comparable under routine clinical conditions, despite their differences in sample preparation, database content, and spectrum analysis.
authors: Laboratoire de Microbiologie, Centre Hospitalier de Mulhouse, Mulhouse Cedex, France.
authors: Caroline
authors: C
authors: Lohmann
authors: Marcela
authors: M
authors: Sabou
authors: Wardi
authors: W
authors: Moussaoui
authors: Gilles
authors: G
authors: Prévost
authors: Jean-Marie
authors: JM
authors: Delarbre
authors: Ermanno
authors: E
authors: Candolfi
authors: Alain
authors: A
authors: Gravet
authors: Valérie
authors: V
authors: Letscher-Bru
mesh_terms: D004271:DNA, Fungal / Q000737:chemistry / Q000235:genetics; D021903:DNA, Ribosomal Spacer / Q000737:chemistry / Q000235:genetics; D003951:Diagnostic Errors / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005658:Fungi / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000145:classification* / Q000302:isolation & purification; D006801:Humans; D008828:Microbiological Techniques / Q000379:methods*; D016533:Mycological Typing Techniques; D009172:Mycology / Q000379:methods*; D009181:Mycoses / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000382:microbiology*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D017422:Sequence Analysis, DNA; D019032:Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D004271:DNA, Fungal; D021903:DNA, Ribosomal Spacer
references: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011 Sep;17(9):1359-65
references: 20946411
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Aug;49(8):3050-3
references: 21653762
references: FEMS Yeast Res. 2005 Feb;5(4-5):463-9
references: 15691751
references: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011 Feb;55(2):561-6
references: 21115790
references: Med Mycol. 2011 Jul;49(5):525-9
references: 21198347
references: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;71(3):304-8
references: 21855250
references: FEMS Yeast Res. 2008 Sep;8(6):939-54
references: 18671746
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37566
references: 22666368
references: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Jan;54(1):184-90
references: 19884371
references: PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25712
references: 22022438
references: Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2011 Oct;29(8):568-72
references: 21782293
references: Crit Rev Microbiol. 2010;36(1):1-53
references: 20088682
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Sep;47(9):2912-7
references: 19571014
references: Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Feb;11(2):142-51
references: 21272794
references: Med Mycol. 2013 Jan;51(1):25-32
references: 22703164
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Apr;49(4):1614-6
references: 21270234
references: J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012 Nov;67(11):2739-48
references: 22868644
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Mar;48(3):900-7
references: 20053859
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Oct;48(10):3482-6
references: 20668126
references: Mycoses. 2013 May;56(3):229-35
references: 22924975
references: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 Sep;49(9):3640-5
references: 16127033
references: N Engl J Med. 2003 Apr 17;348(16):1546-54
references: 12700374
references: J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Sep;50(9):3066-8
references: 22718939
references: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012 May;31(5):841-8
references: 21861205