ArticleBioMed research international2021
Comparison of Autof ms1000 and Bruker Biotyper MALDI-TOF MS Platforms for Routine Identification of Clinical Microorganisms.
Article in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial Resistance in Nontyphoidal Salmonella and Clinically Relevant Enterococcus From Faecal Samples of Conservation-Priority Captive Ungulates in a United Arab Emirates Urban Zoo: A Cross-Sectional Baseline Study.Environmental microbiology reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Autof MS2600 vs. Biotyper Sirius MALDI-TOF MS: a head-to-head study for routine microbial identification in a university clinical microbiology laboratory.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Review
- Exploring human-to-food contamination potential: Genome-based analysis of diversity, toxin repertoire, and antimicrobial resistance of methicillin-resistantOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Genetic diversity, virulence genes, and antimicrobial resistance of Moraxella bovoculi and Moraxella bovis from infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis: insights from MALDI-TOF-MS, 16S rRNA analyses, and other ocular bacteria.Veterinary research communications · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Autof MS2600 and MBT Smart MALDI-TOF MS Systems for Routine Identification of Clinical Bacteria and Yeasts.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Article
- Application of MALDI-TOF MS for enumerating bacterial constituents of defined consortia.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2023Article
- "Omic" Approaches to Bacteria and Antibiotic Resistance Identification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is widely used in clinical microbiology laboratories because it is cost-effective, reliable, and fast. This study is aimed at comparing the identification performance of the recently developed Autof ms1000 (Autobio, China) with that of the Bruker Biotyper (Bruker Daltonics, Germany). From January to June 2020, 205 preserved strains and 302 clinical isolates were used for comparison. Bacteria were tested with duplicates of the direct transfer method, and formic acid extraction was performed if the results were not at the species level. Fungi were tested with formic acid extraction followed by ethanol extraction methods. 16S rRNA or ITS region sequence analysis was performed on isolates that could not be identified by any of the instruments and on isolates that showed inconsistent results. The time to result of each instrument was also compared. Among preserved strains, species-level identification results were obtained in 202 (98.5%) strains by the Autof ms1000 and 200 (97.6%) strains by the Bruker Biotyper. Correct identification at the species/complex level was obtained for 200 (97.6%) strains by the Autof ms1000 and for 199 (97.1%) strains by the Bruker Biotyper. Among clinical isolates, species-level identification results were obtained in 301 (99.7%) strains and 300 (99.3%) strains by the Autof ms1000 and Bruker Biotyper, respectively. Correct identification at the species/complex level was achieved for 299 (99.0%) strains by the Autof ms1000 and for 300 (99.3%) strains by the Bruker Biotyper. The time to analyze 96 spots was approximately 14 min for the Autof ms1000 and approximately 27 min for the Bruker Biotyper. The two instruments showed comparable performance for the routine identification of clinical microorganisms. In addition, the Autof ms1000 has a short test time, making it convenient for use in clinical microbiology laboratories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.