Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28143403›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2017

Decision criteria for MALDI-TOF MS-based identification of filamentous fungi using commercial and in-house reference databases.

Anne-Cécile Normand, Carole Cassagne, Magali Gautier, Pierre Becker, Stéphane Ranque, Marijke Hendrickx, Renaud Piarroux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Antimicrobial Resistance inPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  17. Mass spectrometry in research laboratories and clinical diagnostic: a new era in medical mycology.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anne-Cécile NormandLaboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, CHU Timone, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France. anne-cecile.normand@ap-hm.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7307-4380
Carole CassagneLaboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, CHU Timone, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France.
Magali GautierLaboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, CHU Timone, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France.
Pierre BeckerService of Mycology and Aerobiology, BCCM/IHEM Fungal Collection, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Stéphane RanqueLaboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, CHU Timone, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France.
Marijke HendrickxService of Mycology and Aerobiology, BCCM/IHEM Fungal Collection, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Renaud PiarrouxLaboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, CHU Timone, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight mass spectrometry protocols, which differ in identification criteria, have been developed for mold and dermatophyte identification. Currently, the most widely used approach is Bruker technology, although no consensus concerning the log(score) threshold has been established. Furthermore, it remains unknown how far increasing the number of spots to compare results might improve identification performance. In this study, we used in-house and Bruker reference databases as well as a panel of 422 isolates belonging to 126 species to test various thresholds. Ten distinct identification algorithms requiring one to four spots were tested.

resultsOur findings indicate that optimal results were obtained by applying a decisional algorithm in which only the highest score of four spots was taken into account with a 1.7 log(score) threshold. Testing the entire panel enabled identification of 87.41% (in-house database) and 35.15% (Bruker database) of isolates, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1 at the genus level for both databases as well as 0.89 PPV (in-house database) and 0.72 PPV (Bruker database) at the species level. Applying the same rules to the isolates for which the species were represented by at least three strains in the database enabled identification of 92.1% (in-house database) and 46.6% (Bruker database) of isolates, with 1 PPV at the genus level for both databases as well as 0.95 PPV (in-house database) and 0.93 PPV (Bruker database) at the species level.

conclusionsDepositing four spots per extract and lowering the threshold to 1.7, a threshold which is notably lower than that recommended for bacterial identification, decreased the number of unidentified specimens without altering the reliability of the accepted results. Nevertheless, regardless of the criteria used for mold and dermatophyte identification, commercial databases require optimization.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualAlgorithmsBase SequenceDNA, FungalFungiGenes, FungalMycological Typing TechniquesReproducibility of ResultsSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationDNA, FungalFilamentous FungiInterpretation criterialog(score) thresholdMass SpectrometryMatrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization

Identifiers

PMID28143403
PMCPMC5282874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.