Comparison of two MALDI-TOF MS systems for the identification of clinically relevant anaerobic bacteria in Argentina

•MALDI-TOF MS is especially useful for the identification of anaerobic bacteria.•It is useful for slow-growing microorganisms that are difficult to identify by traditional methods.•It is essential to update the databases by increasing the number of spectrum. The aim of this study was to compare the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Revista argentina de microbiología 2024-01, Vol.56 (1), p.33-61
Main Authors: Litterio, Mirta, Castello, Liliana, Venuta, María Elena, Abel, Sofía, Fernández-Canigia, Liliana, Legaria, María Cristina, Rollet, Raquel, Vaustat, Daniela, Azula, Natalia, Fox, Bárbara, Otero, Silvina, Maldonado, María Laura, Mangieri, Natalia Alejandra, Rossetti, María Adelaida, Predari, Silvia Carla, Cejas, Daniela, Barberis, Claudia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bacterias anaerobias estrictas
Identificación
Identification
MALDI-TOF MS systems
Sistemas MALDI-TOF MS
Strict anaerobic bacteria
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•MALDI-TOF MS is especially useful for the identification of anaerobic bacteria.•It is useful for slow-growing microorganisms that are difficult to identify by traditional methods.•It is essential to update the databases by increasing the number of spectrum. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of two MALDI-TOF MS systems in the identification of clinically relevant strict anaerobic bacteria. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing was the gold standard method when discrepancies or inconsistencies were observed between platforms. A total of 333 isolates were recovered from clinical samples of different centers in Buenos Aires City between 2016 and 2021. The isolates were identified in duplicate using two MALDI-TOF MS systems, BD Bruker Biotyper (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) and Vitek MS (bioMèrieux, Marcy-l’Etoile, France). Using the Vitek MS system, the identification of anaerobic isolates yielded the following percentages: 65.5% (n: 218) at the species or species–complex level, 71.2% (n: 237) at the genus level, 29.4% (n: 98) with no identification and 5.1% (n: 17) with misidentification. Using the Bruker Biotyper system, the identification rates were as follows: 85.3% (n: 284) at the species or species–complex level, 89.7% (n: 299) at the genus level, 14.1% (n: 47) with no identification and 0.6% (n: 2) with misidentification. Differences in the performance of both methods were statistically significant (p-values
ISSN:0325-7541
DOI:10.1016/j.ram.2023.12.001