分子荧光型分枝杆菌ver1.0与Maldi生物型分枝杆菌鉴别非结核分枝杆菌的比较。

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY Journal of Clinical Microbiology Pub Date : 2025-01-31 Epub Date: 2024-12-11 DOI:10.1128/jcm.01206-24
Jennifer Guiraud, Caroline Piau, Cécilia Enault, Emilie Nkpa Charron, Danièle Ducos, Christine Lafuente, Armelle Ménard, Olivia Peuchant
{"title":"分子荧光型分枝杆菌ver1.0与Maldi生物型分枝杆菌鉴别非结核分枝杆菌的比较。","authors":"Jennifer Guiraud, Caroline Piau, Cécilia Enault, Emilie Nkpa Charron, Danièle Ducos, Christine Lafuente, Armelle Ménard, Olivia Peuchant","doi":"10.1128/jcm.01206-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accurate identification of non-tuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) species is crucial for the diagnosis and appropriate management of NTM infections. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of two assays, FluoroType Mycobacteria VER 1.0 and Maldi BioTyper (MBT) Mycobacteria. The two assays were evaluated using 119 NTM, including 85 slow-growing mycobacteria and 34 rapid-growing mycobacteria, representing a total of 33 species isolated in three French clinical laboratories. We used the GenoType assays as reference method for species identification, followed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing if the GenoType kits returned <i>Mycobacterium</i> sp. Compared to the reference method, the FluoroType Mycobacteria assay provided correct species identification in 89.9% of cases (107/119). Among the most frequently encountered species in clinical settings, low concordance was obtained for <i>Mycobacterium intracellulare</i> (82.4%, 14/17), <i>Mycobacterium gordonae</i> (66.7%, 6/9), and <i>Mycobacterium xenopi</i> (75%, 6/8). Misidentification was obtained in two cases (<i>Mycobacterium smegmatis</i> instead of <i>Mycobacterium mageritense</i>, and <i>Mycobacterium mucogenicum</i> instead of <i>Mycobacterium phocaicum</i>). Using the MBT Mycobacteria assay, 78.1% (93/119) of NTM isolates were correctly identified at the species level. One <i>Mycobacterium europaeum</i> isolate was misidentified as <i>M. intracellulare</i>/<i>Mycobacterium chimaera</i>. In five cases, the assay provided more accurate NTM identification compared to GenoType assays, in which closely related species are identified as a group. The FluoroType Mycobacteria VER 1.0 and the MBT Mycobacteria assays are useful tools for NTM identification from positive cultures, reducing handling time compared to GenoType assays. Their routine use in laboratories must take into consideration their performance and limitations in clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":15511,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":" ","pages":"e0120624"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11784439/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the molecular FluoroType Mycobacteria VER 1.0 and the Maldi BioTyper Mycobacteria assays for the identification of non-tuberculous mycobacteria.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Guiraud, Caroline Piau, Cécilia Enault, Emilie Nkpa Charron, Danièle Ducos, Christine Lafuente, Armelle Ménard, Olivia Peuchant\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/jcm.01206-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Accurate identification of non-tuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) species is crucial for the diagnosis and appropriate management of NTM infections. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of two assays, FluoroType Mycobacteria VER 1.0 and Maldi BioTyper (MBT) Mycobacteria. The two assays were evaluated using 119 NTM, including 85 slow-growing mycobacteria and 34 rapid-growing mycobacteria, representing a total of 33 species isolated in three French clinical laboratories. We used the GenoType assays as reference method for species identification, followed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing if the GenoType kits returned <i>Mycobacterium</i> sp. Compared to the reference method, the FluoroType Mycobacteria assay provided correct species identification in 89.9% of cases (107/119). Among the most frequently encountered species in clinical settings, low concordance was obtained for <i>Mycobacterium intracellulare</i> (82.4%, 14/17), <i>Mycobacterium gordonae</i> (66.7%, 6/9), and <i>Mycobacterium xenopi</i> (75%, 6/8). Misidentification was obtained in two cases (<i>Mycobacterium smegmatis</i> instead of <i>Mycobacterium mageritense</i>, and <i>Mycobacterium mucogenicum</i> instead of <i>Mycobacterium phocaicum</i>). Using the MBT Mycobacteria assay, 78.1% (93/119) of NTM isolates were correctly identified at the species level. One <i>Mycobacterium europaeum</i> isolate was misidentified as <i>M. intracellulare</i>/<i>Mycobacterium chimaera</i>. In five cases, the assay provided more accurate NTM identification compared to GenoType assays, in which closely related species are identified as a group. The FluoroType Mycobacteria VER 1.0 and the MBT Mycobacteria assays are useful tools for NTM identification from positive cultures, reducing handling time compared to GenoType assays. Their routine use in laboratories must take into consideration their performance and limitations in clinical settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0120624\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11784439/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01206-24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01206-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

准确鉴定非结核分枝杆菌(NTM)种类对NTM感染的诊断和适当管理至关重要。本研究旨在评价两种检测方法的性能:FluoroType Mycobacteria VER 1.0和Maldi BioTyper (MBT) Mycobacteria。使用119个NTM对这两种检测方法进行了评估,其中包括85个慢生长分枝杆菌和34个快速生长分枝杆菌,代表从三个法国临床实验室分离的总共33种。我们使用基因型法作为物种鉴定的参考方法,如果基因型试剂盒返回分枝杆菌,则进行16S rRNA基因测序。与参考方法相比,氟型法的物种鉴定正确率为89.9%(107/119)。在临床最常见的菌种中,细胞内分枝杆菌(82.4%,14/17)、gordonae分枝杆菌(66.7%,6/9)和xenopi分枝杆菌(75%,6/8)的一致性较低。2例(耻垢分枝杆菌误认为马格利特分枝杆菌,粘原分枝杆菌误认为phocaicum)。采用MBT分枝杆菌法,78.1%(93/119)的NTM菌株在种水平上被正确鉴定。一株欧洲产分枝杆菌分离株被误鉴定为胞内分枝杆菌/嵌合体分枝杆菌。在5个案例中,与基因型分析相比,该分析提供了更准确的NTM鉴定,在基因型分析中,密切相关的物种被鉴定为一个群体。氟型分枝杆菌VER 1.0和MBT分枝杆菌检测是从阳性培养物中鉴定NTM的有用工具,与基因型检测相比,减少了处理时间。它们在实验室的常规使用必须考虑到它们在临床环境中的性能和局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of the molecular FluoroType Mycobacteria VER 1.0 and the Maldi BioTyper Mycobacteria assays for the identification of non-tuberculous mycobacteria.

Accurate identification of non-tuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) species is crucial for the diagnosis and appropriate management of NTM infections. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of two assays, FluoroType Mycobacteria VER 1.0 and Maldi BioTyper (MBT) Mycobacteria. The two assays were evaluated using 119 NTM, including 85 slow-growing mycobacteria and 34 rapid-growing mycobacteria, representing a total of 33 species isolated in three French clinical laboratories. We used the GenoType assays as reference method for species identification, followed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing if the GenoType kits returned Mycobacterium sp. Compared to the reference method, the FluoroType Mycobacteria assay provided correct species identification in 89.9% of cases (107/119). Among the most frequently encountered species in clinical settings, low concordance was obtained for Mycobacterium intracellulare (82.4%, 14/17), Mycobacterium gordonae (66.7%, 6/9), and Mycobacterium xenopi (75%, 6/8). Misidentification was obtained in two cases (Mycobacterium smegmatis instead of Mycobacterium mageritense, and Mycobacterium mucogenicum instead of Mycobacterium phocaicum). Using the MBT Mycobacteria assay, 78.1% (93/119) of NTM isolates were correctly identified at the species level. One Mycobacterium europaeum isolate was misidentified as M. intracellulare/Mycobacterium chimaera. In five cases, the assay provided more accurate NTM identification compared to GenoType assays, in which closely related species are identified as a group. The FluoroType Mycobacteria VER 1.0 and the MBT Mycobacteria assays are useful tools for NTM identification from positive cultures, reducing handling time compared to GenoType assays. Their routine use in laboratories must take into consideration their performance and limitations in clinical settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Journal of Clinical Microbiology 医学-微生物学
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
347
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Microbiology® disseminates the latest research concerning the laboratory diagnosis of human and animal infections, along with the laboratory's role in epidemiology and the management of infectious diseases.
期刊最新文献
Nanopore sequencing for precise detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and drug resistance: a retrospective multicenter study in China. External quality assessment of molecular detection and variant typing of SARS-CoV-2 in European expert laboratories in 2023. Lipid fingerprinting by MALDI Biotyper Sirius instrument fails to differentiate the three subspecies of the Mycobacterium abscessus complex. The impact of FDA-cleared molecular solutions for BK polyomavirus quantitation. A rapid and simple MALDI-TOF MS lipid profiling method for differentiating Mycobacterium ulcerans from Mycobacterium marinum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1