Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 256

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

Comparison of Direct Colony Method versus Extraction Method for Identification of Gram-Positive Cocci by Use of Bruker Biotyper Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry

Open access
Alatoom, Adnan A., Cunningham, Scott A., Ihde, Sherry M., Mandrekar, Jayawant, Patel, Robin·2011·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

We evaluated Bruker Biotyper (version 2.0) matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) for the identification of 305 clinical isolates of staphylococci, streptococci, and related genera by comparing direct colony testing with preparatory extraction. Isolates were previously identified by use of phenotypic testing and/or 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Manufacturer-specified score cutoffs for genus- and species-level identification were used. After excluding 7 isolates not present in the Biotyper library, the Biotyper correctly identified 284 (95%) and 207 (69%) isolates to the genus and species levels, respectively, using extraction. By using direct colony testing, the Biotyper identified 168 (56%) and 60 (20%) isolates to the genus and species levels, respectively. Overall, more isolates were identified to the genus and species levels with preparatory extraction than with direct colony testing ( P < 0.0001). The analysis was repeated after dividing the isolates into two subgroups, staphylococci, streptococci, and enterococci ( n = 217) and “related genera” ( n = 81). For the former subgroup, the extraction method resulted in the identification of 213 (98%) and 171 (79%) isolates to the genus and species levels, respectively, whereas the direct colony method identified 136 (63%) and 56 (26%) isolates to the genus and species levels, respectively. In contrast, for the subgroup of related genera, the extraction method identified 71 (88%) and 36 (44%) isolates to the genus and species levels, respectively, while the direct colony method identified 32 (40%) and 4 (5%) isolates to the genus and species levels, respectively. For both subgroups, preparatory extraction was superior to direct colony testing for the identification of isolates to the genus and species levels ( P < 0.0001). Preparatory extraction is needed for the identification of a substantial proportion of Gram-positive cocci using the Biotyper method according to manufacturer-specified score cutoffs.

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.00506-11

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Alatoom, A. A., Cunningham, S. A., Ihde, S. M., Mandrekar, J., & Patel, R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2011-08
Volume
49
Issue
8
Pages
2868-2873
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W1970788266
Cited by
256
References
1
FWCI
11.40
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Direct Colony Method versus Extraction Method for Identification of Gram-Positive Cocci by Use of Bruker Biotyper Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.00506-11
The paper
Alatoom, A. A., Cunningham, S. A., Ihde, S. M., Mandrekar, J., & Patel, R. (2011). Comparison of Direct Colony Method versus Extraction Method for Identification of Gram-Positive Cocci by Use of Bruker Biotyper Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00506-11

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.