The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry for Identification of Bacterial Strains Routinely Isolated in a Clinical Microbiology Laboratory
Open accessAbstract
Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) has recently been introduced in diagnostic microbiology laboratories for the identification of bacterial and yeast strains isolated from clinical samples. In the present study, we prospectively compared MALDI-TOF MS to the conventional phenotypic method for the identification of routine isolates. Colonies were analyzed by MALDI-TOF MS either by direct deposition on the target plate or after a formic acid-acetonitrile extraction step if no valid result was initially obtained. Among 1,371 isolates identified by conventional methods, 1,278 (93.2%) were putatively identified to the species level by MALDI-TOF MS and 73 (5.3%) were identified to the genus level, but no reliable identification was obtained for 20 (1.5%). Among the 1,278 isolates identified to the species level by MALDI-TOF MS, 63 (4.9%) discordant results were initially identified. Most discordant results (42/63) were due to systematic database-related taxonomical differences, 14 were explained by poor discrimination of the MALDI-TOF MS spectra obtained, and 7 were due to errors in the initial conventional identification. An extraction step was required to obtain a valid MALDI-TOF MS identification for 25.6% of the 1,278 valid isolates. In conclusion, our results show that MALDI-TOF MS is a fast and reliable technique which has the potential to replace conventional phenotypic identification for most bacterial strains routinely isolated in clinical microbiology 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Seng, P., Drancourt, M., Gouriet, F., La Scola, B., Fournier, P., Rolain, J. M., & Raoult, D. (2009) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/600885 · Cited by 1,983 · cited 4×
“Very recently, the first study to have assessed the performance of MALDI-TOF MS for the identification of bacterial strains isolated from clinical samples has been published (20).”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
Lévesque, S., Dufresne, P. J., Soualhine, H., Domingo, M.-C., Bekal, S., Lefebvre, B., & Tremblay, C. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144878 · Cited by 172
Han, X., Liu, Q., Li, Y., Zhang, M., Liu, K., Kwok, L.-Y., Zhang, H., & Zhang, W. (2025) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2025.104938 · Cited by 64
Top-Down LESA Mass Spectrometry Protein Analysis of Gram-Positive and Gram-Negative Bacteria
Kocurek, K. I., Stones, L., Bunch, J., May, R. C., & Cooper, H. J. (2017) · Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · doi:10.1007/s13361-017-1718-8 · Cited by 37
“Thanks to its long development time and resulting robustness, it is currently being rolled out worldwide as a clinical and diagnostic tool with the potential to eventually replace classic microbiological identification methods [7, 8], although discrimination between certain strains and species (e.”
BackgroundIdentification and differentiation of avian Mycoplasma species using MALDI-TOF MS
Baudler, L., Scheufen, S., Ziegler, L., Möller Palau-Ribes, F., Ewers, C., & Lierz, M. (2019) · Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · doi:10.1177/1040638719856932 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Bizzini, A., Durussel, C., Bille, J., Greub, G., & Prod'hom, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2010-05
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1549-1554
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W2168086802
- Cited by
- 615
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 30.06
- 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.