Comparison between the Biflex III-Biotyper and the Axima-SARAMIS systems for yeast identification by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry

Abstract

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) is emerging in laboratories as a new diagnostic tool for microorganism identification. We prospectively compared the performances of the Biflex III-Biotyper (Bruker Daltonics) and the Axima (Shimadzu)-SARAMIS (AnagnosTec) systems for the identification of 312 yeasts isolated from clinical specimens (249 Candida spp., including 19 C. albicans and 230 non-albicans species and 63 isolates belonging to different species of the genera Saccharomyces [20 isolates], Rhodotorula [8 isolates], Cryptococcus [8 isolates], Trichosporon [7 isolates], Pichia [7 isolates], Geotrichum [12 isolates], and Sporopachydermia cereana [1 isolate]). Species were identified by using routine conventional phenotypical methods and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequencing in case of discrepancy. We used expanded thresholds for species identification (log score of ≥1.7 with 3 identical consecutive propositions and no discrepancy between the duplicates for the Bruker Daltonics system and similitude of ≥40% with 5 successive identical propositions and no discrepancy between the duplicates for the Shimadzu system). Of the 312 isolates, 272 (87.2%) and 258 (82.7%) were successfully identified by the Bruker Daltonics and Shimadzu systems, respectively. All isolates were successfully identified within the most frequent and clinically relevant Candida species by the two systems. Nonvalid results corresponded mainly to species not or poorly represented in the databases. Major misidentifications were observed for 2 isolates (0.6%) by the Bruker Daltonics system and 4 isolates (1.3%) by the Shimadzu system. In conclusion, the performances of the Bruker Daltonics and the Shimadzu systems for yeast identification were good and comparable under routine clinical conditions, despite their differences in sample preparation, database content, and spectrum analysis.