TABLE 5.
Comparison of the results of the three techniques.
| Mip-gene sequencingresults | Latex agglutination test results | MALDI Biotyper system results | ||||
| Isolate identification (n) | positive (+), negative (–), and ambiguous (±) results (n) | |||||
| + | – | ± | 2.00–3.00(n) | 1.70–1.99(n) | 0.00–1.69 *(n) | |
| L. anisa (52) | 34 | 14 | 4 | L. anisa(50) | L. anisa(2) | |
| L. feeleii (11) | 11 | L. feeleii(1) | L. feeleii(8) | L. feeleii(2) | ||
| L. jordanis (1) | 1 | L. jordanis(1) | ||||
| L. londiniensis (7) | 5 | 2 | Not Identified (7) | |||
| L. nautarum (15) | 14 | 1 | Not Identified (15) | |||
| L. quateirensis (4) | 4 | Not Identified (4) | ||||
| L. quinvilanii (1) | 1 | Not Identified (1) | ||||
| L. rubrilucens (30) | 30 | L. rubrilucens(8) | L. rubrilucens(17) |
L. rubrilucens(2) Not Identified (3) |
||
| L. species H (1) | 1 | Not Identified (1) | ||||
| L. steelei (1) | 1 | Not Identified (1) | ||||
| L. taurinensis (79) | 76 | 3 | L. rubrilucens (3) |
L. rubrilucens (36) Not Identified (40) |
||
* Manufacturer’s criteria plus sub-criteria (Christner et al., 2010; Schubert et al., 2011; Martiny et al., 2012). In bold type the concordance between techniques.