Table 1.
Comparative results of the identification methods used in this study
| Microorganism | Total no. of strains | No. of strains identified by indicated method |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| API Coryne V2.0 | MALDI-TOF | 16S rRNA sequencing | ||
| Corynebacterium amycolatum | 12 | 12 | 12 | |
| Corynebacterium glucuronolyticum | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Corynebacterium jeikeium | 19 | 19 | 18 C. jeikeium | |
| 1 C. amycolatum | 1 C. amycolatum | |||
| Corynebacterium minutissimum | 7 | 7 | 3 C. minutissimuma | |
| 3 C. aurimucosum | 3 C. aurimucosum | |||
| 1 C. amycolatum | 1 C. amycolatum | |||
| Corynebacterium pseudodiphtheriticum | 16 | 16 | 11 C. pseudodiphtheriticumb | |
| 5 C. propinquuma | 5 C. propinquum | |||
| Corynebacterium striatum | 16 | 16 | 16 | |
| Corynebacterium urealyticum | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| Rhodococcus equi | 11 | 11 | 10 R. equi | |
| 1 Dietzia maris | 1 D. maris | |||
| Arcanobacterium haemolyticum | 13 | 13 | 13 | |
a
Two of these three strains were identified as C. aurimucosum by sequencing the rpoB gene.
b
All C. pseudodiphteriticum and C. propinquum isolates identified by MALDI-TOF MS were confirmed by sequencing the rpoB gene.