Cited by 124Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications

Rapid antifungal susceptibility testing by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry analysis.

Open access
Vella, Antonietta, De Carolis, Elena, Vaccaro, Luisa, Posteraro, Patrizia, Perlin, David S., Kostrzewa, Markus, Posteraro, Brunella, Sanguinetti, Maurizio·2013·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

The widespread use of antifungal agents, which is likely to expand with their enhanced availability, has promoted the emergence of drug-resistant strains. Antifungal susceptibility testing (AFST) is now an essential procedure for guiding appropriate antifungal therapy. Recently, we developed a matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS)-based method that enables the detection of fungal isolates with reduced echinocandin susceptibility, relying on the proteome changes that are detectable after a 15-h exposure of fungal cells to serial drug concentrations. Here, we describe a simplified version of this approach that facilitates discrimination of the susceptible and resistant isolates of Candida albicans after a 3-h incubation in the presence of "breakpoint" level drug concentrations of the echinocandin caspofungin (CSF). Spectra at concentrations of 0 (null), 0.03 (intermediate), and 32 (maximal) μg/ml of CSF were used to create individual composite correlation index (CCI) matrices for 65 C. albicans isolates, including 13 fks1 mutants. Isolates are then classified as susceptible or resistant to CSF if the CCI values of spectra at 0.03 and 32 μg/ml are higher or lower, respectively, than the CCI values of spectra at 0.03 and 0 μg/ml. In this way, the drug resistance of C. albicans isolates to echinocandin antifungals can be quickly assessed. Furthermore, the isolate categorizations determined using MALDI-TOF MS-based AFST (ms-AFST) were consistent with the wild-type and mutant FKS1 genotypes and the AFST reference methodology. The ms-AFST approach may provide a rapid and reliable means of detecting emerging antifungal resistance and accelerating the initiation of appropriate antifungal treatment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.00903-13

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The performance of commercial susceptibility tests for echinocandins is somewhat more variable.

    “The updated antifungal susceptibility testing reference methods identify echinocandin resistant isolates reliably; while the performance of commercial tests is somewhat more variable.”

    From Echinocandin resistance: an emerging clinical problem? (2014) · cites this paper as [49]

  • In one study evaluating the performance of the VITEK system for caspofungin susceptibility, a relatively high number (19.4%) of mutant isolates were mis-classified as susceptible.

    “In one such study evaluating the performance the VITEK system for caspofungin susceptibility, a relatively high number (19.4%) of mutant isolate were mis-classified as susceptible (49).”

    From Echinocandin resistance: an emerging clinical problem? (2014) · cites this paper as [49]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vella, A., De Carolis, E., Vaccaro, L., Posteraro, P., Perlin, D. S., Kostrzewa, M., Posteraro, B., & Sanguinetti, M.
Affiliations
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
  • Institute of Microbiology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
  • Clinical Laboratory, Ospedale San Carlo, Rome, Italy
  • Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (US)
  • Bruker (Germany) (DE)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2013-09
Volume
51
Issue
9
Pages
2964-2969
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2111573375
Cited by
124
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 3
FWCI
9.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI069397, R01AI069397)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Keywords
antifungal susceptibility testing, Candida albicans, echinocandin resistance, caspofungin, MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry, proteomic profiling, antifungal resistance
MeSH terms
Caspofungin, Antifungal Agents, Candida albicans, Fungal Proteins, Humans, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Time Factors, Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization, Proteome, Echinocandins, Lipopeptides

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