RESUMEN
Se evaluaron 3 metodologías de extracción de proteínas para la identificación de hongos miceliales por MALDI-TOF MS en 44 aislados: la extracción con agua-ácido fórmico (E. agua), la extracción con zirconio-etanol-acetonitrilo-ácido fórmico (E. zirconio) y la recomendada por el proveedor del equipo (E. tubo). Se compararon 2 bases de datos: Bruker (BK) y BK + National Institutes of Health. Los resultados obtenidos utilizando dichas bases fueron los siguientes (en el orden citado): identificación correcta (IC) a nivel de género, 10 y 16 con E. agua; 27 y 32 con E. zirconio y 18 y 23 con E. tubo; IC a nivel de especie, 5 y 7 con E. agua; 17 y 20 con E. zirconio y 11 y 14 con E. tubo; identificaciones no confiables, 18 y 12 con E. agua y 9 y 4, tanto con E. zirconio como con E. tubo; ausencia de pico, 16 con E. agua, 8 con E. zirconio y 17 con E. tubo. La extracción con zirconio mostró el mejor rendimiento (p < 0,05).
In order to optimize the identification of molds with MALDI-TOF MS, three protein extraction-methodologies were evaluated against 44 isolates: water extraction (WE), zirconium extraction (ZE) and the provider's recommended method (PRM). Two data bases were compared, Bruker (BK) and Bruker + National Institutes of Health. Considering both databases, results were respectively as follows: correct identification (CI) at gender level, 10 and 16 by WE; 27 and 32 by ZE and 18 and 23 by PRM; CI at species level, 5 and 7 by WE; 17 and 20 by ZE and 11 and 14 by PRM; non-reliable identification, 18 and 12 by WE; 9 and 4 by ZE and by PRM. No peaks were observed in 16 by WE, 8 by ZE and 17 by PRM. ZE showed the best perfomance (p < 0.05).
Asunto(s)
Proteínas/análisis , Micelio/clasificación , Hongos/clasificación , Espectrometría de Masas/métodos , Bases de Datos Factuales/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
In order to optimize the identification of molds with MALDI-TOF MS, three protein extraction-methodologies were evaluated against 44 isolates: water extraction (WE), zirconium extraction (ZE) and the provider's recommended method (PRM). Two data bases were compared, Bruker (BK) and Bruker+National Institutes of Health. Considering both databases, results were respectively as follows: correct identification (CI) at gender level, 10 and 16 by WE; 27 and 32 by ZE and 18 and 23 by PRM; CI at species level, 5 and 7 by WE; 17 and 20 by ZE and 11 and 14 by PRM; non-reliable identification, 18 and 12 by WE; 9 and 4 by ZE and by PRM. No peaks were observed in 16 by WE, 8 by ZE and 17 by PRM. ZE showed the best perfomance (p<0.05).
