论文部分内容阅读
目的评估中国医院侵袭性真菌监测网(CHIF-NET)2010-2014年收集的光滑念珠菌复合体原始鉴定、Vitek MS与Bruker MS鉴定结果。方法收集CHIF-NET 2010-2014五年中12株Candida nivariensis和1株Candida bracarensis及来自CHIF-NET 2010-2014连续五年参加的11所医院的光滑念珠菌411株,所有菌株均经过分子生物学方法进行复核鉴定确认;以复核鉴定结果作为金标准,评估各医院原始常规方法鉴定结果,并评估Vitek MS和Bruker MS基质辅助激光解吸电离飞行时间质谱(MALDI-TOF MS)对光滑念珠菌复合体的鉴定性能。结果与分子生物学复核鉴定结果相比,光滑念珠菌的原始鉴定准确率为90.3%,9.7%的菌株被显色培养基、ID32C、API 20C或Vitek 2Compact错误鉴定为近平滑念珠菌、白色念珠菌等;常规方法无法鉴定C.nivariensise和C.bracarensis;Vitek MS和Bruker MS对光滑念珠菌的鉴定准确率分别为97.6%和100.0%;Vitek MS 2.0数据库中无C.nivariensise和C.bracarensis的参考谱图,故无法鉴定;Bruker Biotyper 3.1数据库中有这两种菌的参考谱图,但1株C.bracarensis无鉴定结果,12株C.nivariensise全部鉴定正确,鉴定分值为1.708~1.944。结论该研究率先在国内评估了Vitek MS与Bruker MS鉴定光滑念珠菌复合体的性能,两者对于光滑念珠菌的鉴定比较可靠;对于少见念珠菌菌种的鉴定,Bruker MS优于Vitek MS。
Objective To evaluate the original identification of C. glabrata collected from CHIF-NET in China from 2010 to 2014 and the identification results of Vitek MS and Bruker MS. METHODS: Twelve Candida nivariensis and one Candida bracarensis from CHIF-NET 2010-2014 in five years and 411 strains of Candida glabrata from 11 hospitals participating in CHIF-NET 2010-2014 for five years in succession were collected. All strains were subjected to molecular biology Methods The results of the review were used as the gold standard to evaluate the identification results of the original routine methods in each hospital and the effects of Vitek MS and Bruker MS matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) on Candida glabrata complex The identification of performance. Results The accuracy of the original identification of Candida glabrata was 90.3% compared with that of molecular identification. 9.7% strains were falsely identified as Candida parapsilosis, Candida albicans by ID32C, API 20C or Vitek 2Compact Bacteria, etc. C.nivariensise and C.bracarensis could not be identified by conventional methods. The accuracy of identification of Candida glabrata by Vitek MS and Bruker MS were 97.6% and 100.0% respectively. No C.nivariensise and C.bracarensis were found in the Vitek MS 2.0 database Reference spectra, it can not be identified; Bruker Biotyper 3.1 database reference spectra of these two kinds of bacteria, but no identification of a C.bracarensis results, 12 C.nivariensise all identified correctly, identification score of 1.708 ~ 1.944. Conclusions This study firstly evaluates the performance of Vitek MS and Bruker MS in the identification of Candida glabrata. Both of them are more reliable for the identification of Candida glabrata. Bruker MS is superior to Vitek MS for the identification of rare Candida species.