CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较并评价两种商业化MALDI-TOF MS系统--Bruker Biotyper和Vitek-MS在临床常规实验室细菌鉴定中的应用。方法收集沈阳军区总医院2011年1月至2013年6月临床分离的细菌共238株（包括40个菌属和81个菌种）。按照本实验室临床菌株年分离率，将其分为临床常见菌（149株）和不常见菌（89株）。同时采用两种MALDI-TOF-MS系统对上述菌株进行鉴定，结果与Vitek2 compact常规生化鉴定进行比较，对3种方法检测结果不一致菌株用16 S rDNA测序确认。结果本研究238株细菌中，Bruker Biotyper和Vitek-MS属的正确鉴定率分别为95%和90%，种的正确鉴定率分别为91%和87%，无鉴定结果的菌株分别为11株和21株。在149株常见细菌中，Bruker Biotype属和种的正确鉴定率分别为98%和96%，Vitek- MS属和种的正确鉴定率分别为97%和95%。89株不常见细菌中， Bruker Biotype和Vitek-MS属的正确鉴定率分别为90%和79%，种的正确鉴定率分别为83%和73%，无鉴定结果的菌株分别为8株和16株。结论 Bruker Biotype属的正确鉴定率高于Vitek-MS；两者种的鉴定水平相似。对不常见细菌，Bruker Biotype属的正确鉴定率高于Vitek-MS。两种质谱仪数据库都有进一步完善的空间。
목적：비교병평개량충상업화MALDI-TOF MS계통--Bruker Biotyper화Vitek-MS재림상상규실험실세균감정중적응용。방법수집침양군구총의원2011년1월지2013년6월림상분리적세균공238주（포괄40개균속화81개균충）。안조본실험실림상균주년분리솔，장기분위림상상견균（149주）화불상견균（89주）。동시채용량충MALDI-TOF-MS계통대상술균주진행감정，결과여Vitek2 compact상규생화감정진행비교，대3충방법검측결과불일치균주용16 S rDNA측서학인。결과본연구238주세균중，Bruker Biotyper화Vitek-MS속적정학감정솔분별위95%화90%，충적정학감정솔분별위91%화87%，무감정결과적균주분별위11주화21주。재149주상견세균중，Bruker Biotype속화충적정학감정솔분별위98%화96%，Vitek- MS속화충적정학감정솔분별위97%화95%。89주불상견세균중， Bruker Biotype화Vitek-MS속적정학감정솔분별위90%화79%，충적정학감정솔분별위83%화73%，무감정결과적균주분별위8주화16주。결론 Bruker Biotype속적정학감정솔고우Vitek-MS；량자충적감정수평상사。대불상견세균，Bruker Biotype속적정학감정솔고우Vitek-MS。량충질보의수거고도유진일보완선적공간。
Objective Two commercially available MALDI-TOF MS systems, Bruker MS (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) and Vitek-MS (bioMérieux, Marcy-l’Etoile, France) were compared for the identiifcation of clinically relevant bacteria. Methods A selection of 238 clinical isolates tested in this study, representing 40 different genus and 81 different species, were isolated between January 2011 and June 2013 from General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area Command and grouped into common group (149 cases) and infrequent group (89 cases) isolates according to their relative frequency of yearly occurrence in our routine laboratory identification. All isolates were analyzed in parallel by two MALDI-TOF-MS systems, which was compared with the identiifcation by traditional biochemical test system (compact Vitek2, bioMérieux). Discordant results among the three systems were resolved with 16 S rDNA gene sequencing. Results For the 238 isolates, correct genus identiifcation was achieved for 95%of isolates by Bruker Biotype and for 90%by Vitek-MS, correct species identiifcation were provided for 91%and 87%, respectively, absence of identification occurred in 11 and 21 isolates, respectively. For the 149 common isolates, Bruker Biotyper achieved a correct genus and species identification for 98% and 96%, respectively, Vitek-MS generated a correct genus and species identification for 97% and 95% isolates, respectively. For the 89 infrequent isolates, Bruker Biotyper and Vitek-MS generated accurate genus level identification for 90% and 79%isolates, respectively, accurate species level identiifcation for 83%and 73%isolates, respectively, and absent identiifcation for 8 and 16 isolates, respectively. Conclusions Bruker Biotyper system performed slightly better than Vitek-MS for genus level identification of these isolates. There was no significant difference between the two systems for species level identification. However, the Bruker Biotyper outperformed the Vitek-MS for genue level identiifcation on these infrequent isolates. The databases of both systems need to be further optimized.