Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 527

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Two Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry Methods with Conventional Phenotypic Identification for Routine Identification of Bacteria to the Species Level

Open access
Cherkaoui, Abdessalam, Hibbs, Jonathan, Emonet, Stéphane, Tangomo, Manuela, Girard, Myriam, Francois, Patrice, Schrenzel, Jacques·2010·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Bacterial identification relies primarily on culture-based methodologies requiring 24 h for isolation and an additional 24 to 48 h for species identification. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is an emerging technology newly applied to the problem of bacterial species identification. We evaluated two MALDI-TOF MS systems with 720 consecutively isolated bacterial colonies under routine clinical laboratory conditions. Isolates were analyzed in parallel on both devices, using the manufacturers' default recommendations. We compared MS with conventional biochemical test system identifications. Discordant results were resolved with “gold standard” 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The first MS system (Bruker) gave high-confidence identifications for 680 isolates, of which 674 (99.1%) were correct; the second MS system (Shimadzu) gave high-confidence identifications for 639 isolates, of which 635 (99.4%) were correct. Had MS been used for initial testing and biochemical identification used only in the absence of high-confidence MS identifications, the laboratory would have saved approximately US$5 per isolate in marginal costs and reduced average turnaround time by more than an 8-h shift, with no loss in accuracy. Our data suggest that implementation of MS as a first test strategy for one-step species identification would improve timeliness and reduce isolate identification costs in clinical bacteriology laboratories now.

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.01881-09

Cites

20 of 20 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 20 references

Cited by

See all 527

Metadata

Authors
Cherkaoui, A., Hibbs, J., Emonet, S., Tangomo, M., Girard, M., Francois, P., & Schrenzel, J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2010-04
Volume
48
Issue
4
Pages
1169-1175
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2050018214
Cited by
527
References
20
FWCI
30.41
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 Two Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry Methods with Conventional Phenotypic Identification for Routine Identification of Bacteria to the Species Level. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.01881-09
The paper
Cherkaoui, A., Hibbs, J., Emonet, S., Tangomo, M., Girard, M., Francois, P., & Schrenzel, J. (2010). Comparison of Two Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry Methods with Conventional Phenotypic Identification for Routine Identification of Bacteria to the Species Level. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01881-09

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.