↓ Skip to main content

Whole-Cell MALDI-TOF MS Versus 16S rRNA Gene Analysis for Identification and Dereplication of Recurrent Bacterial Isolates

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Whole-Cell MALDI-TOF MS Versus 16S rRNA Gene Analysis for Identification and Dereplication of Recurrent Bacterial Isolates
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01294
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michal Strejcek, Tereza Smrhova, Petra Junkova, Ondrej Uhlik

Abstract

Many ecological experiments are based on the extraction and downstream analyses of microorganisms from different environmental samples. Due to its high throughput, cost-effectiveness and rapid performance, Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Mass Spectrometry with Time-of-Flight detector (MALDI-TOF MS), which has been proposed as a promising tool for bacterial identification and classification, could be advantageously used for dereplication of recurrent bacterial isolates. In this study, we compared whole-cell MALDI-TOF MS-based analyses of 49 bacterial cultures to two well-established bacterial identification and classification methods based on nearly complete 16S rRNA gene sequence analyses: a phylotype-based approach, using a closest type strain assignment, and a sequence similarity-based approach involving a 98.65% sequence similarity threshold, which has been found to best delineate bacterial species. Culture classification using reference-based MALDI-TOF MS was comparable to that yielded by phylotype assignment up to the genus level. At the species level, agreement between 16S rRNA gene analysis and MALDI-TOF MS was found to be limited, potentially indicating that spectral reference databases need to be improved. We also evaluated the mass spectral similarity technique for species-level delineation which can be used independently of reference databases. We established optimal mass spectral similarity thresholds which group MALDI-TOF mass spectra of common environmental isolates analogically to phylotype- and sequence similarity-based approaches. When using a mass spectrum similarity approach, we recommend a mass range of 4-10 kDa for analysis, which is populated with stable mass signals and contains the majority of phylotype-determining peaks. We show that a cosine similarity (CS) threshold of 0.79 differentiate mass spectra analogously to 98.65% species-level delineation sequence similarity threshold, with corresponding precision and recall values of 0.70 and 0.73, respectively. When matched to species-level phylotype assignment, an optimal CS threshold of 0.92 was calculated, with associated precision and recall values of 0.83 and 0.64, respectively. Overall, our research indicates that a similarity-based MALDI-TOF MS approach can be routinely used for efficient dereplication of isolates for downstream analyses, with minimal loss of unique organisms. In addition, MALDI-TOF MS analysis has further improvement potential unlike 16S rRNA gene analysis, whose methodological limits have reached a plateau.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 16%
Researcher 23 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Master 17 10%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 50 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 8%
Chemistry 8 5%
Environmental Science 6 4%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 57 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,792,989
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#3,618
of 25,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,155
of 328,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#136
of 716 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 716 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.