ArticleScientific reports2025
Identification of Legionella by MALDI Biotyper through three preparation methods and an in-house library comparing phylogenetic and hierarchical cluster results.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Draft genomes of 53Microbiology resource announcements · 2026Article
- Community-AcquiredPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identification and typing of bacteria are very expensive and time-consuming due to their growth times, and the expertise needed. MALDI-TOF MS represents a fast technique, reproducible with molecular approaches. This technique is still poorly applied in Legionella surveillance with estimation occurring only at the genus level. The aim of this study was to compare three sample preparation methods: direct smear (DS), extended direct smear (EDS), and full extraction (E), using MALDI Biotyper, developing an in-house library. Moreover, Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was compared to mip and rpoB gene sequencing. The dataset was composed of 104 isolates belonging to six Legionella species. The isolates were identified with a sensitivity of 97.11% for DS, 98.08% for EDS, and 95.19% for E. The error rates were 2.88% for DS, 1.92% for EDS, and 4.90% for E, with no significant differences among them. The HCA confirmed the relationship among the isolates reported in the phylogenetic trees. An improvement in sensitivity was obtained using an in-house library. The results suggest the use of a fast and inexpensive DS method, combined with instrument and in-house library for routine Legionella surveillance. HCA analysis could be useful for screening isolates, before undertaking expensive and time-laborious molecular techniques.
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.