Microorganisms (Aug 2022)

Comparative Study of Different Diagnostic Routine Methods for the Identification of <i>Acinetobacter radioresistens</i>

  • Richard Bigge,
  • Boyke Bunk,
  • Wolfram W. Rudolph,
  • Florian Gunzer,
  • Sina M. Coldewey,
  • Thomas Riedel,
  • Percy Schröttner

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10091767
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 9
p. 1767

Abstract

Read online

Recent publications indicate that A. radioresistens can cause infections in humans, even though it is rarely reported in routine diagnostics. However, the fact that it is infrequently detected may be explained by the misidentification of the species by conventional methods. It is also likely that A. radioresistens is not considered clinically relevant and therefore not consistently included in diagnostic results. To elucidate the medical significance of this probably clinically underestimated bacterial species, we created a well-documented reference strain collection of 21 strains collected in routine diagnostics. For further analysis of A. radioresistens, it is essential to know which methods can be used to achieve a trustworthy identification. We, therefore, compared three methods widely used in routine diagnostics (MALDI-TOF MS, VITEK 2, and sequencing of housekeeping genes) in terms of secure and reliable identification of A. radioresistens. As reference methods, whole genome-based approaches were applied. VITEK 2 led to misidentification for four strains. However, MALDI-TOF MS and sequencing of housekeeping genes led to reliable and robust identifications.

Keywords