Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 3;60(12):e01032-22. doi: 10.1128/jcm.01032-22

TABLE 2.

Fusarium species overall performance of databasesg

FSSCa (n = 6)
FFSCa (n = 6)
FOSCa (n = 3)
FIESCa (n = 3)
All Fusarium spp. (n = 18)
Level of
ID
BT
n (%)
MSI-2
n (%)
BT
n (%)
MSI-2
n (%)
BT
n (%)
MSI-2
n (%)
BT
n (%)
MSI-2
n (%)
BT
n (%)
MSI-2
n (%)
Species 1 (16.7%) 2 (33.3%) 6 (100%) 5 (83.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0b (0%) 0b (0%) 7b (43.8%) 7b (43.8%)
Species Complex 5 (83.3%)c,d 6 (100%)c,d 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 3 (100%)c,e 3 (100%) 3 (100%)c,f 3 (100%)c,f 17 (94.4%) 18 (100%)
Genus 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 3 (100%) 3 (100%) 3 (100%) 3 (100%) 18 (100%) 18 (100%)
No ID 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
a

FSSC, Fusarium solani species complex; FFSC, Fusarium fujikuroi species complex; FOSC, Fusarium oxysporum species complex; FIESC, Fusarium incarnatum-equiseti species complex.

b

Denominator is smaller for species versus others classification levels.

c

Misidentification to the classification level above.

d

2/5 isolates misidentified to species, but correctly identified to species complex.

e

3/3 isolates misidentified to species, but correctly identified to species complex.

f

1/3 isolates misidentified to species, but correctly identified to species complex.

g

Performance of each database (Bruker Filamentous Fungi v3 [BT] versus Mass Spectral Identification-2 [MSI-2]) by species (n = 16), species complex (n = 18), and genus (n = 18). The best score was taken from each replicate. The reference standard was translation elongation factor sequencing and DNA phylogenetic tree-based approach analysis.