Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Bacteriology

Assessment of Reproducibility of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry for Bacterial and Yeast Identification

Lars F. Westblade, Omai B. Garner, Karen MacDonald, Constance Bradford, David H. Pincus, A. Brian Mochon, Rebecca Jennemann, Ryhana Manji, Maureen Bythrow, Michael A. Lewinski, Carey-Ann D. Burnham, Christine C. Ginocchio
D. J. Diekema, Editor
Lars F. Westblade
aDepartment of Pathology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
bDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
cDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Omai B. Garner
dDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen MacDonald
ebioMérieux, Inc., Durham, North Carolina, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Constance Bradford
fbioMérieux, Inc., Hazelwood, Missouri, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David H. Pincus
fbioMérieux, Inc., Hazelwood, Missouri, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Brian Mochon
dDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
gDivision of Infectious Diseases, Laboratory Sciences of Arizona/Sonora Quest Laboratories, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
hDepartment of Pathology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca Jennemann
iBarnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ryhana Manji
jDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, North Shore-LIJ Laboratories, Lake Success, New York, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maureen Bythrow
jDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, North Shore-LIJ Laboratories, Lake Success, New York, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael A. Lewinski
dDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
kRoche Molecular Systems, Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carey-Ann D. Burnham
cDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Carey-Ann D. Burnham
Christine C. Ginocchio
ebioMérieux, Inc., Durham, North Carolina, USA
lHofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. J. Diekema
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00187-15
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) has revolutionized the identification of clinical bacterial and yeast isolates. However, data describing the reproducibility of MALDI-TOF MS for microbial identification are scarce. In this study, we show that MALDI-TOF MS-based microbial identification is highly reproducible and can tolerate numerous variables, including differences in testing environments, instruments, operators, reagent lots, and sample positioning patterns. Finally, we reveal that samples of bacterial and yeast isolates prepared for MALDI-TOF MS identification can be repeatedly analyzed without compromising organism identification.

TEXT

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) has revolutionized the identification of microorganisms in the clinical microbiology laboratory, and numerous studies have documented the superior analytical performance characteristics of MALDI-TOF MS compared to those of manual and automated biochemical methods for microorganism identification (1–4). Compared to biochemical-based identification, MALDI-TOF MS-based identification significantly reduces the cost and time to microbial identification while simultaneously enhancing favorable patient outcomes and reducing the cost and length of hospitalization (5–8).

Despite the implementation of MALDI-TOF MS in clinical microbiology laboratories, studies specifically designed to assess the reproducibility of MALDI-TOF MS platforms for microorganism identification are limited. As part of a multicenter study, using the manufacturer's default unmodified settings, we assessed the ability of a MALDI-TOF MS platform, the Vitek MS version 2.0 system (bioMérieux, Durham, NC, USA), to reproducibly identify bacterial and yeast isolates at three different sites. We probed variations in operators, reagent lots, and sample positioning patterns. Finally, the reproducibility of microbial identification after initial analysis (initial read) of the samples compared to repeat analysis (reread) of the same samples was investigated. The rereading of samples may be of importance in instances when the definition of additional microbiological characteristics is required, e.g., in the detection of antimicrobial resistance determinants, or when the initial read failed due to operator or instrument error.

Over five different days, reproducibility studies were performed with three independent Vitek MS version 2.0 systems located at three geographically distinct sites in the United States: site 1 was in Missouri, site 2 was in New York, and site 3 was in California. At each site, two different operators conducted reproducibility testing. All isolates were applied to target slides (bioMérieux) using disposable loops (Sarstedt, Newton, NC, USA). For bacterial isolates, 1 μl of matrix solution (α-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid; bioMérieux) was overlaid and allowed to dry at room temperature before analysis. Prior to the application of 1 μl of matrix solution, yeast isolates were lysed on the target slide by direct application of 0.5 μl of formic acid (25% [vol/vol]; bioMérieux) according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The testing of samples was conducted using a defined algorithm: if an identification result was recorded and data acquisition was acceptable, the identification was accepted. If no identification was recorded (i.e., the organism was not identified) and data acquisition was acceptable, the result was accepted as not identified. Finally, if no identification was recorded due to acquisition of a bad spectrum (typically due to inadequate sample preparation), the sample was reapplied in the same position on a new target slide and the analysis repeated once.

Bacterial isolates were cultured aerobically on Trypticase soy agar with 5% (vol/vol) sheep blood (Thermo Scientific [Remel], Lenexa, KS, USA) for 18 to 24 h at 35 to 37°C, while yeast isolates were cultured aerobically on Sabouraud's dextrose agar, Emmons' modification (Thermo Scientific [Remel]) for 24 to 72 h at 25 to 37°C. A collection of 10 blinded isolates (labeled R1 to R10) was analyzed at all sites on each day of testing. The collection was composed of well-characterized organisms to ensure that organism identification in response to variations in testing environments, instruments, operators, reagents, sample positioning patterns, and initial and repeat reading of samples could be accurately assessed. Therefore, the collection included nine isolates obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) (Manassas, VA, USA): Enterobacter aerogenes ATCC 13048 (R1), Escherichia coli ATCC 8739 (R2), Klebsiella pneumoniae (specifically, K. pneumoniae subsp. ozaenae) ATCC 11296 (R3), Proteus mirabilis ATCC 29906 (R4), Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 10145 (R5), Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213 (R6), Streptococcus agalactiae ATCC 13813 (R7), Klebsiella oxytoca ATCC 13182 (R8), and Candida glabrata ATCC MYA-2950 (R10); and an isolate from the Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures (CBS) (Utrecht, The Netherlands), Candida albicans CBS 5703 (R9). Of the 10 isolates, only two of the isolates were not used to generate the organism database, K. pneumoniae ATCC 11296 and C. albicans CBS 5703, which is a possible limitation of the study.

At each site, two independent testing runs were performed daily (for a total of 10 testing runs over 5 days at each site). In the first run, isolates were applied to the target slide in duplicate (thus, two replicates of each isolate) in sequential order by sample number (e.g., R1 to R10) by one operator, while in a second separate run, the isolates were applied to the target slide, again in duplicate, in random order by a second operator. Hence, a single isolate was applied to a target slide four times a day at each site and 12 times a day at all three sites. For every run the instruments were calibrated with a calibrant strain, E. coli ATCC 8739. Quality control organisms (E. aerogenes ATCC 13048, K. oxytoca ATCC 13182, P. aeruginosa ATCC 10145, S. aureus ATCC 29213, and C. glabrata ATCC MYA-2950) and a negative control (matrix only) were also tested by each technologist every day of testing.

Three different lots of matrix solution and formic acid (reagents) and target slides were used by both operators at each site for sample preparation throughout the 5 days of testing. Reagents and target slides belonging to lot 1 were used a total of four times at each site, while lots 2 and 3 were used at each site a total of three times each. The prepared isolates were analyzed once and data recorded to generate initial read identification results. Subsequently, the isolates were reanalyzed to produce reread results. In situations in which a sample was repeated due to the initial acquisition of a bad spectrum, the repeat result served as the initial and only identification result. In theory, each day a single isolate could be analyzed a total of eight times (four initial reads and four rereads) at an individual site and 24 times (12 initial reads and 12 rereads) at all three sites. Therefore, over 5 days each isolate could be analyzed a total of 40 times (20 initial reads and 20 rereads) at each site and a total of 120 times (60 initial reads and 60 rereads) at all three sites. Collectively, for the 10 isolates analyzed at all sites over the five days of testing, a possible total of 1,200 reads (600 initial reads and 600 rereads) could be recorded. Only species-level identifications were accepted. All statistical calculations were performed using SAS 9.3 (SAS, Cary, NC, USA).

For all sites, 598/600 (99.7%) initial read identification results were correctly identified to the species level. In one instance each, C. albicans and C. glabrata were not identified, but importantly, they were not misidentified (Table 1). Upon initial read, two samples (K. pneumoniae and K. oxytoca) assayed during day three of testing recorded no identification due to acquisition of a bad spectrum. Per our algorithm, the K. pneumoniae and K. oxytoca isolates were reapplied in the same position on another target slide and analyzed, and the results were recorded as the initial and only results. Therefore, of 598 possible reread results, 595 (99.5%) were correctly identified to the species level (Table 2), while one sample of P. mirabilis and two samples of P. aeruginosa were unidentified but not misidentified. For the 1,193 combined initial and reread results that generated an identification, the mean confidence value for organism identification was 99.84% (standard deviation, 1.24%), thus indicating that the confidence values for organism identification were reproducibly high. These data clearly indicate that initial and reread organism identification using the Vitek MS version 2.0 system is highly reproducible.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Reproducibility of organism identification at all sites after initial read of samples

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Reproducibility of organism identification at all sites after reread of samples

To ensure there were no obvious differences in reproducibility testing between the sites, the results of testing at each site were analyzed separately. For site 1, 199/200 (99.5%) and 200/200 (100%) of the identification results were correct to the species level after initial and reread testing, respectively. At site 2, 200/200 (100%) of the initial and 195/198 (98.5%) of the reread results were correct to the species level. Finally, 199/200 (99.5%) and 200/200 (100%) of the identification results were correct to the species level at site 3 after initial and reread testing, respectively. Using Fisher's exact test to analyze the combined initial and reread results, no significant difference in organism identification between the testing sites was observed at the 0.05 level of significance (P = 0.463).

Finally, given that reproducible quality control testing forms the foundation of all testing in clinical microbiology, we sought to understand the reproducibility of the quality control testing at all sites. Upon initial reading, all quality control organisms were correctly identified to the species level (Table 3), while after rereading, with the exception of one K. oxytoca sample and two P. aeruginosa samples, which were unidentified rather than misidentified, all quality control organisms were correctly identified to the species level (Table 3). When analyzed initially, 30/31 (96.8%) of the negative control (matrix only) samples were not identified, i.e., the expected result was achieved. For one of the samples, a Vitek MS version 2.0 result of mixed genera (Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum, Tatumella ptyseos, Bacillus megaterium, and Streptococcus salivarius subsp. thermophilus), which is considered unidentified, was obtained. The reread result for this sample was no identification. The initial discordant result may have been due to extraneous debris on the spot. To unequivocally demonstrate the absence of contaminating material, the initial testing operator applied matrix from the same vial to a target slide. The expected result of no identification after both the initial read and reread of the sample was obtained, confirming the matrix was not contaminated. Unfortunately, due to operator error one of the 31 negative control samples was not reread; consequently, of 30 possible negative control reread results, 30 (100%) were not identified (expected result). For the 301 combined initial read and reread results that generated an organism identification, the mean confidence value for organism identification was 99.9% (standard deviation, 0.008%), indicating that the confidence values for quality control organism identification were reproducibly high. Using Fisher's exact test to analyze the combined initial read and reread results, no significant difference in quality control testing between the testing sites was observed at the 0.05 level of significance (P = 0.175). Based on these data, it can be concluded that quality control testing on the Vitek MS version 2.0 system is highly reproducible.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Reproducibility of quality control testing at all sites after initial read and reread of samples

Prior to this report, data describing the reproducibility of microbial identification using MALDI-TOF MS were limited. To the best of our knowledge, only a single multicenter study focused on the reproducibility of microbial identification using MALDI-TOF MS has been described (9). The study concentrated on the ability of different Bruker MALDI-TOF MS platforms (Bruker Daltonics, Billerica, MA, USA) to identify Gram-negative nonfermentative bacterial isolates at different testing sites. Despite the importance of the work, yeast isolates were not assayed. In addition, differences in reagent lots, target slides, sample positioning patterns, and initial read and reread of samples do not appear to have been tested.

Here, we describe the reproducibility of organism identification using the Vitek MS version 2.0 system. We unambiguously demonstrate that bacterial and yeast identification using the Vitek MS version 2.0 system is highly reproducible and can tolerate numerous variables, including different testing environments, instruments, operators, reagent and target slide lots, and sample positioning patterns. Furthermore, we show that both initial and repeat testing of samples is not only possible but highly reproducible within and between laboratories. This has important practical implications in a diagnostic microbiology laboratory where subsequent analysis of an isolate may be required to further define key microbiological characteristics, e.g., in the detection of antimicrobial resistance determinants, or as a result of operator or instrument error. In conclusion, MALDI-TOF mass spectrometric-based microbial identification is highly reproducible in the setting of the routine clinical microbiology laboratory.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

C. Bradford, C. C. Ginocchio, K. MacDonald, and D. H. Pincus are employees of bioMérieux, Inc. O. B. Garner has received honoraria for educational lectures from bioMérieux, Inc.

Funding for this study was provided by bioMérieux, Inc.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 24 January 2015.
    • Returned for modification 3 March 2015.
    • Accepted 18 April 2015.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 29 April 2015.
  • Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Clark AE,
    2. Kaleta EJ,
    3. Arora A,
    4. Wolk DM
    . 2013. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry: a fundamental shift in the routine practice of clinical microbiology. Clin Microbiol Rev 26:547–603. doi:10.1128/CMR.00072-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Dingle TC,
    2. Butler-Wu SM
    . 2013. MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry for microorganism identification. Clin Lab Med 33:589–609. doi:10.1016/j.cll.2013.03.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Fournier PE,
    2. Drancourt M,
    3. Colson P,
    4. Rolain JM,
    5. La Scola B,
    6. Raoult D
    . 2013. Modern clinical microbiology: new challenges and solutions. Nat Rev Microbiol 11:574–585. doi:10.1038/nrmicro3068.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Patel R
    . 2015. MALDI-TOF MS for the diagnosis of infectious diseases. Clin Chem 61:100–111. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2014.221770.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Tan KE,
    2. Ellis BC,
    3. Lee R,
    4. Stamper PD,
    5. Zhang SX,
    6. Carroll KC
    . 2012. Prospective evaluation of a matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry system in a hospital clinical microbiology laboratory for identification of bacteria and yeasts: a bench-by-bench study for assessing the impact on time to identification and cost-effectiveness. J Clin Microbiol 50:3301–3308. doi:10.1128/JCM.01405-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Vlek AL,
    2. Bonten MJ,
    3. Boel CH
    . 2012. Direct matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry improves appropriateness of antibiotic treatment of bacteremia. PLoS One 7:e32589. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032589.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Huang AM,
    2. Newton D,
    3. Kunapuli A,
    4. Gandhi TN,
    5. Washer LL,
    6. Isip J,
    7. Collins CD,
    8. Nagel JL
    . 2013. Impact of rapid organism identification via matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight combined with antimicrobial stewardship team intervention in adult patients with bacteremia and candidemia. Clin Infect Dis 57:1237–1245. doi:10.1093/cid/cit498.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Seng P,
    2. Abat C,
    3. Rolain JM,
    4. Colson P,
    5. Lagier JC,
    6. Gouriet F,
    7. Fournier PE,
    8. Drancourt M,
    9. La Scola B,
    10. Raoult D
    . 2013. Identification of rare pathogenic bacteria in a clinical microbiology laboratory: impact of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry. J Clin Microbiol 51:2182–2194. doi:10.1128/JCM.00492-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Mellmann A,
    2. Bimet F,
    3. Bizet C,
    4. Borovskaya AD,
    5. Drake RR,
    6. Eigner U,
    7. Fahr AM,
    8. He Y,
    9. Ilina EN,
    10. Kostrzewa M,
    11. Maier T,
    12. Mancinelli L,
    13. Moussaoui W,
    14. Prévost G,
    15. Putignani L,
    16. Seachord CL,
    17. Tang YW,
    18. Harmsen D
    . 2009. High interlaboratory reproducibility of matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry-based species identification of nonfermenting bacteria. J Clin Microbiol 47:3732–3734. doi:10.1128/JCM.00921-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Assessment of Reproducibility of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry for Bacterial and Yeast Identification
Lars F. Westblade, Omai B. Garner, Karen MacDonald, Constance Bradford, David H. Pincus, A. Brian Mochon, Rebecca Jennemann, Ryhana Manji, Maureen Bythrow, Michael A. Lewinski, Carey-Ann D. Burnham, Christine C. Ginocchio
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jun 2015, 53 (7) 2349-2352; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00187-15

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Assessment of Reproducibility of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry for Bacterial and Yeast Identification
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Assessment of Reproducibility of Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry for Bacterial and Yeast Identification
Lars F. Westblade, Omai B. Garner, Karen MacDonald, Constance Bradford, David H. Pincus, A. Brian Mochon, Rebecca Jennemann, Ryhana Manji, Maureen Bythrow, Michael A. Lewinski, Carey-Ann D. Burnham, Christine C. Ginocchio
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Jun 2015, 53 (7) 2349-2352; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00187-15
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X