| Literature DB >> 26350205 |
Yannick Charretier1,2, Olivier Dauwalder3,4, Christine Franceschi5, Elodie Degout-Charmette1, Gilles Zambardi5, Tiphaine Cecchini1, Chloe Bardet1, Xavier Lacoux6, Philippe Dufour5, Laurent Veron1, Hervé Rostaing7, Veronique Lanet1, Tanguy Fortin1, Corinne Beaulieu1, Nadine Perrot5, Dominique Dechaume5, Sylvie Pons1, Victoria Girard5, Arnaud Salvador2, Géraldine Durand5, Frédéric Mallard7, Alain Theretz1, Patrick Broyer7, Sonia Chatellier5, Gaspard Gervasi1, Marc Van Nuenen8, Carolyn Ann Roitsch9, Alex Van Belkum5, Jérôme Lemoine2, François Vandenesch3,4, Jean-Philippe Charrier1.
Abstract
Mass spectrometry (MS) in Selected Reaction Monitoring (SRM) mode is proposed for in-depth characterisation of microorganisms in a multiplexed analysis. Within 60-80 minutes, the SRM method performs microbial identification (I), antibiotic-resistance detection (R), virulence assessment (V) and it provides epidemiological typing information (T). This SRM application is illustrated by the analysis of the human pathogen Staphylococcus aureus, demonstrating its promise for rapid characterisation of bacteria from positive blood cultures of sepsis patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26350205 PMCID: PMC4563557 DOI: 10.1038/srep13944
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Workflow strategies for positive blood culture analysis.
Case 1 is the usual workflow using Gram staining (1–4 h), isolation culture on Petri dishes (16–24 h), MALDI-TOF MS identification (15 min-1 h) and conventional AST (6–24 h). Gram staining is performed directly from positive blood cultures at day 0, but microbial identification is obtained at day 1 and, generally, AST at day 2. For cases 2–4, Gram staining and MALDI-TOF MS identification are performed at day 0, but when MALDI-TOF MS identification is inconclusive, isolation culture on Petri dishes is required (second line in each cases). Case 2 (upper line): following identification, conventional AST is performed7. Identification is obtained at day 0 and AST at the end of day 0, or at day 1. Case 3 (upper line): AST is replaced by a multiplexed PCR resistance screening (2 h) according to Klein et al.27. Identification and resistance information are available at day 0. However PCR could be confounded by polymicrobial cultures which happen in 5–10% of all cases. Case 4 (upper line): SRM (1 h) replaces PCR. Identity and resistance information are available at day 0. Notably, the results are less sensitive to the confounding effects of a polymicrobial culture, since proteins are detected without molecular amplification. Only resistance proteins from the dominant microorganism are detectable. High multiplexing capabilities of LC-ESI-QqQ MS in SRM mode allows additional information: molecular confirmation of closely-related species as well as virulence and typing information. The same workflow and reagents are used irrespective of the species; only an appropriate SRM method has to be selected.
Figure 2SRM method development for Identification, Resistance, Virulence and Type profiling.
(a) Sample analysis workflow. Bacteria were lysed and proteins digested. The mixture of peptides was separated by conventional chromatography and analysed by ESI-QqQ MS in SRM mode. After electrospray ionisation (ESI), specific precursor ions were filtered in quadrupole Q1, fragmented in quadrupole q2, filtered in quadrupole Q3 and detected. For each peptide, 3 transitions (pairs of precursor and fragment ion mass/charge) were monitored using a 3-minute window targeting the expected elution time. (b) Typical ion chromatogram acquired during a single injection. Extracted-ion chromatogram from peptides for S. aureus identification (I-peptides: green stars), resistance screening (R-peptides: red stars), virulence screening (V-peptides: blue stars) and typing (T-peptides: grey stars). All I, R and V-peptides contain typing information and could be used as T-peptides. Isobaric transitions (biological noise) are identified by black cross. (c) Validation strategy method. A training set was used to develop the method, an independent testing set permitted the method verification and two blinded evaluation sets allowed to verify the method using blinded clinical samples, either pure cultures or unprocessed positive blood cultures. In addition to these two evaluation sets, a repeat set was studied to assess robustness.
Identification, resistance and virulence results using SRM versus reference methods.
| | Reference methods: MALDI-TOF for identification, PCR test for mecA, mecC, lukF, lukS and tst genes detection | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | Train set | Test set | Blind Evaluation set 1 | Blind Evaluation set 2 | Repeat set 1 | ||||||
| Experimental method: SRM profiling | Positive controls | Negative controls | Positive controls | Negative controls | Positive controls | Negative controls | Positive controls | Negative controls | Positive controls | Negative controls | |
| Positive results | 29 | 0 | 29 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 32 | 0 | |
| Negative results | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| PBP2a producing strains | Positive results | 16 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17 | 0 |
| Negative results | 0 | 22 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 17 | |
| PBP2c producing strains | Positive results | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| Negative results | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 28 | |
| PVL producing strains | Positive results | 9 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 |
| Negative results | 0 | 29 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 25 | |
| TSST-1 producing strains | Positive results | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 |
| Negative results | 0 | 37 | 1a | 33 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 25 | |
a A strain harboring TSST-1 gene was seen as negative for TSST-1 by SRM. However, sequencing detected a mutation in the proteotypic TSST-1 peptide selected for the SRM method. LPTPIELPLK peptide was mutated into LLTPIELPLK peptide. The corresponding precursor masses are different and the LLTPIELPLK peptide detection was impossible with the SRM method. Nevertheless, the current SRM method should be easily modified to integrate the transitions of the mutated peptide (data not shown).
Figure 3Features detection using linear regression statistics.
(a) Linear regression curves between Strain_026 and reference normalised ratios for S. aureus positive identification feature. (b) Linear regression curves between Strain_026 and reference normalised ratios for PBP2a positive detection feature. (c) Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (r) for PBP2a feature in training, testing and repeat sets. (d) Linear regression slopes for PBP2a feature in training, testing and repeat sets.