TABLE 3.
Identification of A. otitidis, D. pigrum, Facklamia species, and I. ruoffiae by three commercial rapid identification systems
| Species | No. of strains | Identification results (no. of profiles: identification data)a with:
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID32 | Crystal | IDS | ||
| A. otitidis | 7 | 7 profiles: 6 strains, 3 different S. acidiminimus profiles (98.7, 99.8, 99.9); 1 strain, 4 different S. oralis profiles (99.5, 98.2, 94.1, 75.3) | 4 profiles: 3 strains, 1 profile M. luteus (99.5); 2 strains, 1 profile M. luteus (99.9); 1 strain, 1 profile S. pneumoniae (99.9); 1 strain, 1 profile M. roseus (58.6) | 4 profiles: 4 strains, probable overlap between G. morbillorum and A. viridans; 2 strains implicit G. morbillorum; 1 strain implicit S. mitis; 1 strain, probable S. mitis |
| F. hominis | 4 | 8 profiles: 3 strains, 6 different “unacceptable ID”; 1 strain, 1 profile S. oralis (99.7)b; 1 strain, 1 profile S. acidiminimus (97) | 5 profiles: 3 strains, 1 profile M. luteus (75.7); 2 strains, 1 profile M. luteus (89.7); 1 strain, 1 profile M. luteus (99.99); 1 strain, 2 “unacceptable ID” profiles | 2 profiles: 3 strains, 1 profile S. acidiminimus (99); 3 strains, 1 profile S. acidiminimus (76) |
| F. ignava | 5 | 8 profiles: 3 strains, 4 different “unacceptable ID” profiles; 1 strain, 2 different S. acidiminimus profiles (99.9, 96.3); 1 strain, 1 profile S. oralis (86.2); 1 strain, 1 “doubtful ID” profile G. morbillorum (71) | 7 profiles: 3 strains, 5 different “unacceptable ID” profiles; 3 strains, 1 profile M. luteus (75.7); 1 strain, 1 profile M. luteus (99.7) | 6 profiles: 2 strains, 3 different “no choice” profiles; 2 strains, 2 different S. acidiminimus profiles (99 and 76); 1 strain, 1 profile S. constellatus (99) |
| F. languida | 6 | 3 profiles: 4 strains, one “doubtful ID” profile G. morbillorum (86.8); 1 strain, 1 profile G. morbillorum (85.5); 1 strain, 1 “doubtful ID” profile G. morbillorum (55) | 7 profiles: 7 strains, 5 different M. luteus profiles (99.9); 1 strain, 1 profile M. luteus (75.7); 1 strain, 1 profile M. roseus (59) | 3 profiles: 4 strains, 1 profile G. morbillorum (99); 1 strain, 1 profile G. morbillorum (98.8); 1 strain, 1 profile G. morbillorum (99) |
| F. sourekii | 3 | 3 profiles: 1 strain, 1 profile S. acidiminimus (99.9); 1 strain, 1 “doubtful ID” profile A. viridans (94.5); 1 strain, 1 “unacceptable ID” profile | 6 profiles: 3 strains, 5 different “unacceptable ID” profiles; 1 strain, 1 profile M. luteus (99.5) | 5 profiles: 2 strains, 3 E. avium profiles (99); 1 strain, 1 profile G. morbillorum (99); 1 strain, 1 “no choice” profile |
| D. pigrum | 27 | 46 profiles: 2 strains, 4 different “unacceptable ID” profiles; 2 strains, 3 different “unacceptable ID” profiles; 9 strains, 2 different “unacceptable ID” profiles; 14 strains, 1 “unacceptable ID” profile each | 36 profiles: 2 strains, 6 different profiles, M. cristinae (66.1), M. roseus (99.6, 67.2), S. sanguis (89.7), and two “unacceptable ID” profiles; 3 strains, 6 different profiles, S. agalactiae (58.2), M. roseus (99.4, 93.4), L. lactis (72), and two different “unacceptable ID” profiles; 1 strain, 2 different profiles, M. roseus (93.4) and 1 “unacceptable ID” profile; 10 strains, 12 different “unacceptable ID” profiles | 8 profiles: 19 strains, same profile, “inadequate ID” E. faecalis (90); 2 strains, same profile, presumptive S. mitis (99.8); 2 strains, same “questionable code” profile, S. intermedius; 1 strain, 2 different “no acceptable choice” profiles; 1 strain, group A streptococcus (99); 1 strain, Enterococcus sp. |
| I. ruoffiae | 3 | 2 profiles: 2 strains, 1 “unacceptable ID”; 1 strain, 1 “doubtful profile” G. vaginalis (99.8) | 3 profiles: 2 strains, two different profiles, M. luteus (60.5, 79.6); 1 strain, “unacceptable ID” profile | 3 profiles: 1 strain, “no choice profile”; 1 strain, unreliable profile; 1 strain, “inadequate identification” profile |
a
Most strains were tested two times; consequently, there are more profiles than the total number of strains. The percentage values, given in parentheses, were provided by the manufacturer of each product and refer to the confidence levels of identification.
b
The percentage value refers to the confidence level of identification provided by the manufacturer of each product.