The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids
The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml..
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:14 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Frontiers in Microbiology - 14(2024) |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Hiu-Yin Lao [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
doi.org [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| Themen: |
16S rRNA gene sequencing |
|---|
| doi: |
10.3389/fmicb.2023.1324494 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
DOAJ097899445 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ097899445 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240413200546.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240413s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1324494 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ097899445 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJf9ef4a627aba48829142190b5ecc008d | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a QR1-502 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Hiu-Yin Lao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Nanopore sequencing | |
| 650 | 4 | |a 16S rRNA gene sequencing | |
| 650 | 4 | |a direct bacterial identification | |
| 650 | 4 | |a body fluids | |
| 650 | 4 | |a rapid diagnosis | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Microbiology | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Lily Lok-Yee Wong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Yan Hui |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Timothy Ting-Leung Ng |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Chloe Toi-Mei Chan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Hazel Wing-Hei Lo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Miranda Chong-Yee Yau |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Eddie Chi-Man Leung |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a River Chun-Wai Wong |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Alex Yat-Man Ho |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Kam-Tong Yip |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Jimmy Yiu-Wing Lam |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Viola Chi-Ying Chow |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Kristine Shik Luk |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Tak-Lun Que |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Franklin Wang Ngai Chow |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Gilman Kit-Hang Siu |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Frontiers in Microbiology |d Frontiers Media S.A., 2011 |g 14(2024) |w (DE-627)DOAJ000031836 |x 1664302X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:14 |g year:2024 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1324494 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/f9ef4a627aba48829142190b5ecc008d |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1324494/full |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1664-302X |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 14 |j 2024 | ||