4.5 Article

Development of a novel matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrum (MALDI-TOF-MS)-based typing method to identify meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clones

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
卷 90, 期 2, 页码 147-155

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.11.025

关键词

Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight; Meticillin-resistant; Staphylococcus aureus; Typing; Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis; Phage open-reading frame typing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mass spectrum analysis enables species-and subspecies-level identification, and can be used as an epidemiological tool in outbreak management. However, its reliability at clonal level has yet to be established. Aim: To establish a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass-spectrum-based method that enables bacterial clone identification with accuracy equivalent to pulsed-field gel-electrophoresis/phage open-reading frame typing (PFGE/POT). Methods: Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was used in this study. Mass spectra were obtained from a standard strain of S. aureus (ATCC29213) and 57 clinically isolated strains, categorized according to POT. Peaks associated with MRSA clone identification (N = 67) were extracted. Based on this peak information, the feasibility of MRSA clone identification was examined by cluster analysis. Findings: In addition to the 58 strains used for peak extraction, mass spectrum analysis of 24 clinically isolated outbreak strains revealed that peak data could be used for successful identification of clones. These typing results were fully consistent with the PFGE and POT results. Conclusion: This novel method enables simple and rapid typing with accuracy equivalent to PFGE/POT. This method would be suited to rapid outbreak analysis, offering accurate information to combat infectious diseases. (C) 2015 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据