Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 438

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identification of Rare Pathogenic Bacteria in a Clinical Microbiology Laboratory: Impact of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry

Open access
Seng, Piseth, Abat, Cedric, Rolain, Jean Marc, Colson, Philippe, Lagier, Jean-Christophe, Gouriet, Frédérique, Fournier, Pierre Edouard, Drancourt, Michel, La Scola, Bernard, Raoult, Didier·2013·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

During the past 5 years, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) has become a powerful tool for routine identification in many clinical laboratories. We analyzed our 11-year experience in routine identification of clinical isolates (40 months using MALDI-TOF MS and 91 months using conventional phenotypic identification [CPI]). Among the 286,842 clonal isolates, 284,899 isolates of 459 species were identified. The remaining 1,951 isolates were misidentified and required confirmation using a second phenotypic identification for 670 isolates and using a molecular technique for 1,273 isolates of 339 species. MALDI-TOF MS annually identified 112 species, i.e., 36 species/10,000 isolates, compared to 44 species, i.e., 19 species/10,000 isolates, for CPI. Only 50 isolates required second phenotypic identifications during the MALDI-TOF MS period (i.e., 4.5 reidentifications/10,000 isolates) compared with 620 isolates during the CPI period (i.e., 35.2/10,000 isolates). We identified 128 bacterial species rarely reported as human pathogens, including 48 using phenotypic techniques (22 using CPI and 37 using MALDI-TOF MS). Another 75 rare species were identified using molecular methods. MALDI-TOF MS reduced the time required for identification by 55-fold and 169-fold and the cost by 5-fold and 96-fold compared with CPI and gene sequencing, respectively. MALDI-TOF MS was a powerful tool not only for routine bacterial identification but also for identification of rare bacterial species implicated in human infectious diseases. The ability to rapidly identify bacterial species rarely described as pathogens in specific clinical specimens will help us to study the clinical burden resulting from the emergence of these species as human pathogens, and MALDI-TOF MS may be considered an alternative to molecular methods in clinical laboratories.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.00492-13

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 438

Metadata

Authors
Seng, P., Abat, C., Rolain, J. M., Colson, P., Lagier, J.-C., Gouriet, F., Fournier, P. E., Drancourt, M., La Scola, B., & Raoult, D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2013-07
Volume
51
Issue
7
Pages
2182-2194
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2065465329
Cited by
438
References
1
FWCI
36.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.