宋明辉, 范一灵, 秦峰, 刘浩, 杨美成. 激光解吸快速菌种鉴定与不同前处理方法对常见食源性致病菌菌种的鉴定分析[J]. 上海预防医学, 2020, 32(5): 375-380. DOI: 10.19428/j.cnki.sjpm.2020.20069
引用本文: 宋明辉, 范一灵, 秦峰, 刘浩, 杨美成. 激光解吸快速菌种鉴定与不同前处理方法对常见食源性致病菌菌种的鉴定分析[J]. 上海预防医学, 2020, 32(5): 375-380. DOI: 10.19428/j.cnki.sjpm.2020.20069
SONG Ming-hui, FAN Yi-ling, QIN Feng, LIU Hao, YANG Mei-cheng. Evaluation of different samples pretreatment method of MALDI-TOF MS on the identification of common foodborne pathogens[J]. Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2020, 32(5): 375-380. DOI: 10.19428/j.cnki.sjpm.2020.20069
Citation: SONG Ming-hui, FAN Yi-ling, QIN Feng, LIU Hao, YANG Mei-cheng. Evaluation of different samples pretreatment method of MALDI-TOF MS on the identification of common foodborne pathogens[J]. Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2020, 32(5): 375-380. DOI: 10.19428/j.cnki.sjpm.2020.20069

激光解吸快速菌种鉴定与不同前处理方法对常见食源性致病菌菌种的鉴定分析

Evaluation of different samples pretreatment method of MALDI-TOF MS on the identification of common foodborne pathogens

  • 摘要:
    目的比较研究基质辅助激光解吸电离飞行时间质谱(MALDI-TOF MS)技术与不同样品前处理方法对常见食源性致病菌菌种鉴定的影响。
    方法收集51株常见的食源性致病菌,包括沙门氏菌、葡萄球菌、李斯特菌、弧菌、埃希氏菌及志贺氏菌等,分别研究直接涂抹法、原位甲酸提取法、甲酸乙腈提取法对菌种鉴定结果的影响。
    结果不同样品前处理方法对沙门氏菌、志贺氏菌和大肠杆菌的鉴定结果无明显差异;头状葡萄球菌、科氏葡萄球菌、副溶血弧菌和创伤弧菌,采用直接涂抹法无法获得有效鉴定结果,而原位甲酸提取法和甲酸乙腈提取法则均能获得准确的鉴定结果;采用直接涂抹法和原位甲酸提取法,李斯特菌属中的非单增李斯特菌常被错误鉴定为单增李斯特菌,采用甲酸乙腈提取法能够有效改善李斯特菌属不同种的鉴定准确性。
    结论不同样品前处理方法对常见食源性致病菌菌种的MALDI-TOF MS鉴定结果具有一定影响,对于不同菌种选择合适的样品前处理方法才能获得可靠准确的鉴定结果。

     

    Abstract:
    ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of different sample pretreatment methods of MALDI-TOF MS on the identification of common foodborne pathogens.
    MethodsA total of 51 common foodborne pathogens were collected, covering Salmonella, Staphylococcus, Listeria, Vibrio, Escherichia, and Shigella.Then the effects of three sample treatment methods including direct smear method, in-situ formic acid extraction method and formic acid acetonitrile extraction method of MALDI-TOF MS on the identification of common foodborne pathogens were evaluated.
    ResultsThere were no significant differences in the identification results of Salmonella, Shigella, and Escherichia by three sample pretreatment methods; Staphylococcus captis, Staphylococcus cohnii, Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio vulnificus could not be identified effectively by direct smear method, but these strains could be accurately identified by other methods.Non-listeria monocytogenes strains of listeria genus were often mistakenly identified by using direct smear method and in-situ formic acid extraction method, and the use of formic acid and acetonitrile extraction could improve the identification accuracy for different species of listeria.
    ConclusionDifferent sample pretreatment methods of MALDI-TOF MS have certain influence on the identification of common foodborne pathogenic bacteria.Therefore, selecting appropriate sample pretreatment methods is important to obtain reliable and accurate identification results.

     

/

返回文章
返回