MALDI-TOF MS与PFGE在铜绿假单胞菌分型与传播链分析中的应用

Application of MALDI-TOF MS and PFGE in typing and transmission chain Pseudomonas aeruginosa

    摘要
  • 摘要:
    目的 比较基质辅助激光解吸电离飞行时间质谱（MALDI-TOF MS）与脉冲场凝胶电泳（PFGE）在铜绿假单胞菌分型与传播链分析中的应用。
    方法 本研究收集广州医科大学附属第五医院ICU分离的16株铜绿假单胞菌，对其进行药物敏感性试验，采用PFGE进行分型，并利用MALDI-TOF MS进行蛋白质谱分析。质谱数据分别通过MALDI Biotyper和Mass-Up进行处理，并计算辛普森多样性指数（SDI）、调整兰德指数（ARI）和华莱士系数（AW），以评估MALDI-TOF MS与PFGE结果的一致性。此外，基于PFGE分型结合菌株的ICU床位分布及采样时间，评估ICU内该菌的潜在传播模式。
    结果 PFGE将16株铜绿假单胞菌划分为12型，而MALDI Biotyper和Mass-Up处理的质谱数据分别分为10型和11型。SDI计算结果显示，MALDI Biotyper和Mass-Up处理的数据多样性较低（SDI值分别为0.925和0.875），均未达到PFGE（0.975）的分辨水平。ARI（MALDI Biotyper VS PFGE）值为0.134，而ARI（Mass-Up VS PFGE）值仅为0.072，二者与PFGE的一致性均较低，分型结果与PFGE差异较大。在分型推导能力方面，AW（MALDI Biotyper→PFGE）值为0.088，优于Mass-Up，但仍难以复现PFGE的分型模式。
    结论 MALDI-TOF MS的分型能力低于PFGE，且在菌株传播链的复现方面存在局限。经MALDI Biotyper处理的数据能提供有限参考，但经Mass-Up处理的数据稳定性不足。

     

    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE  To compare the applications of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry （MALDI-TOF MS） and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis （PFGE） in the typing and transmission chain analysis of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
    METHODS  This study collected 16 strains of P. aeruginosa isolated from the ICU of the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Drug susceptibility tests were conducted, which were then typed with PFGE and subjected to protein spectrum analysis with MALDI-TOF MS. The mass spectrometry data were processed through MALDI Biotyper and Mass-Up, respectively, and the Simpson's Diversity Index （SDI）, Adjusted Rand Index （ARI） and Adjusted Wallace Coefficient （AW） were calculated to evaluate the consistency between the results of MALDI-TOF MS and PFGE. Furthermore, based on PFGE typing combined with the ICU bed layout and sampling time of the strains, the potential transmission patterns of the bacteria within the ICU were assessed.
    RESULTS  PFGE classified the 16 strains of P. aeruginosa into 12 types, and the mass spectrometry data processed by MALDI Biotyper and Mass-Up were classified into 10 and 11 types, respectively. The SDI calculation results showed that the data processed by MALDI Biotyper and Mass-Up had lower diversity （SDI values of 0.925 and 0.875, respectively）, failing to reach the resolution level of PFGE （0.975）. The ARI （MALDI Biotyper VS PFGE） value was 0.134, while the ARI （Mass-Up VS PFGE） value was only 0.072, the two had low consistency with PFGE, and there were significant differences between results and PFGE. In terms of typing derivation capability, the AW （MALDI Biotyper→PFGE） value was 0.088, superior to Mass-Up, but still difficult to replicate the typing pattern of PFGE.
    CONCLUSIONS  The typing capability of MALDI-TOF MS is lower than that of PFGE and has limitations in replicating the transmission chain of strains. Data processed by MALDI Biotyper can provide limited reference, while data processed by Mass-Up lacks stability.

     

    • HTML全文
    • 参考文献(24)
    • 相关文章
    • 施引文献
  • 资源附件(0)

/

返回文章
返回
下载中心