What is your experience with bacteria identification by MATDITOF versus 16s rRNA? Which one is more reliable or maybe both methods give good, clear results?
Hello, If you have good database the MALDI-TOF is better as tool for detection of bacteria by protein profiling teqiue which gives you more valuable info about bacteria and their content than PCR, both methods are reliable, but if your aim only idnetification of bacteria the PCR method is chiper.
The answer of this question might be not clear, since it is highly variable in terms of users.
- Both method can differ in information and the result. Moreover, there must be good database for both approches. In absence of a good database, neither would be good.
2. What do you mean by reliability? On what level?
- MALDI can give accurate results on several taxonomic levels but 16S rDNA sequencing (NGS) have its own limitations and one can not always resolve below genus level. Also, due to the limilations in reference databases, some higher taxa are also can not be identified.
3. Choice of method is highly dependent of several factors like cost, through-put, availability of resources etc. There are several method which can serve the purpose of strain level identification, still 16S sequencing is the most popular, due to some obvious reasons. So, users need to decide what suits best in their frame-work.
Hello, If you have good database the MALDI-TOF is better as tool for detection of bacteria by protein profiling teqiue which gives you more valuable info about bacteria and their content than PCR, both methods are reliable, but if your aim only idnetification of bacteria the PCR method is chiper.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Statistics
- Probability
- Probability Theory
- Reliability