Clinical Performance of Nanopore Targeted Sequencing for Diagnosing Infectious Diseases

Nanopore targeted sequencing (NTS) is reported to be advantageous in detection speed and range over culture in prior published reports. Investigation of the clinical performance of NTS is deficient at present. ABSTRACT The gold standard for confirming bacterial infections is culture-positive, which has a long sample-to-result turnaround time and poor sensitivity for unculturable and fastidious pathogens; therefore, it is hard to guide early, targeted antimicrobial therapy and reduce overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Nanopore targeted sequencing (NTS) is reported to be advantageous in detection speed and range over culture in prior published reports. However, investigation of the clinical performance of NTS is deficient at present. Thus, we assessed the feasibility of NTS for the first time with cohort and systematic comparisons with traditional culture assays and PCR followed by Sanger sequencing. This retrospective study was performed on 472 samples, including 6 specimen types from 436 patients, to evaluate the clinical performance of NTS designed for identifying the microbial composition of various infections. Of these samples, 86.7% were found to be NTS positive, which was significantly higher than culture-positive (26.7%). A total of 425 significant human opportunistic bacteria and fungi detected by NTS were selected to go through validation with PCR followed by Sanger sequencing. The average accuracy rate was 85.2% (maximum 100% created by Cryptococcus neoformans, the last one 66.7% provided by both Staphylococcus haemolyticus and Moraxella osloensis, minimum 0% produced by Burkholderia cepacia). The accuracy rate also varied with sample type; the highest accuracy rate was found in pleural and ascites fluid (95.8%) followed by bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (88.7%), urine (86.8%), and wound secretions (85.0%), while the lowest was present in cerebrospinal fluid (58.8%). NTS had a diagnostic sensitivity of 94.5% and specificity of 31.8%. The positive and negative predictive values of NTS were 79.9% and 66.7%, respectively. For diagnosis of infectious diseases, the sensitivity was greatly increased by 56.7% in NTS compared with culture (94.5% vs 37.8%). Therefore, NTS can accurately detect the causative pathogens in infectious samples, particularly in pleural and ascites fluid, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, urine, and wound secretions, with a short turnaround time of 8–14 h, and might innovatively contribute to personalizing antibiotic treatments for individuals with standardized protocols in clinical practices. IMPORTANCE Nanopore targeted sequencing (NTS) is reported to be advantageous in detection speed and range over culture in prior published reports. Investigation of the clinical performance of NTS is deficient at present. In our study, cohort and systematic comparisons among three assays (culture, NTS, and Sanger sequencing) were analyzed retrospectively for the first time. We found that NTS undoubtedly has incomparable advantages in accurately detecting the causative pathogens in infectious samples, particularly in pleural and ascites fluid, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, urine, and wound secretions, with a short turnaround time of 8–14 h. For sterile specimens like blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), the NTS outcomes should be validated using other nucleic acid based detection technology. Overall, NTS might innovatively contribute to guiding early, targeted antimicrobial therapy with lower cost and reduce overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

[1]  E. Castillo,et al.  279 Overdiagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in the Emergency Department , 2021, Annals of Emergency Medicine.

[2]  Aisi Fu,et al.  Microbiological diagnosis of endophthalmitis using nanopore targeted sequencing , 2021, Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.

[3]  H. Rodríguez-Pérez,et al.  Nanopore sequencing and its application to the study of microbial communities , 2021, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal.

[4]  Z. Deng,et al.  Same-Day Simultaneous Diagnosis of Bacterial and Fungal Infections in Clinical Practice by Nanopore Targeted Sequencing , 2020 .

[5]  L. Rao,et al.  Cell-Membrane-Mimicking Nanodecoys against Infectious Diseases , 2020, ACS nano.

[6]  Robert A. Player,et al.  Comparison of the performance of an amplicon sequencing assay based on Oxford Nanopore technology to real-time PCR assays for detecting bacterial biodefense pathogens , 2020, BMC Genomics.

[7]  daran teilhaben,et al.  Whole , 2020, Definitions.

[8]  M. Gerstein,et al.  Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing for species and strain-level microbiome analysis , 2019, Nature Communications.

[9]  Gregory J Tsongalis,et al.  Third-Generation Sequencing in the Clinical Laboratory: Exploring the Advantages and Challenges of Nanopore Sequencing , 2019, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[10]  Richard M Leggett,et al.  Nanopore metagenomics enables rapid clinical diagnosis of bacterial lower respiratory infection , 2019, Nature Biotechnology.

[11]  Wei Gu,et al.  Clinical Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for Pathogen Detection. , 2019, Annual Review of Pathology.

[12]  Davide Bolognini,et al.  NanoR: A user-friendly R package to analyze and compare nanopore sequencing data , 2019, bioRxiv.

[13]  Xiaolin Xu,et al.  Microbiological Diagnostic Performance of Metagenomic Next-generation Sequencing When Applied to Clinical Practice. , 2018, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[14]  Ping Chen,et al.  Performance comparison of blood collection tubes as liquid biopsy storage system for minimizing cfDNA contamination from genomic DNA , 2018, Journal of clinical laboratory analysis.

[15]  Huang-Ming Hu,et al.  Identification of pathogens in culture-negative infective endocarditis cases by metagenomic analysis , 2018, Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials.

[16]  Szymon T Calus,et al.  NanoAmpli-Seq: a workflow for amplicon sequencing for mixed microbial communities on the nanopore sequencing platform , 2018, bioRxiv.

[17]  Tyler A. Land,et al.  Clinical Next Generation Sequencing Outperforms Standard Microbiological Culture for Characterizing Polymicrobial Samples. , 2016, Clinical chemistry.

[18]  N. Hochberg,et al.  Principles of Infectious Diseases: Transmission, Diagnosis, Prevention, and Control , 2016, International Encyclopedia of Public Health.

[19]  J. Robson,et al.  Non-culture methods for detecting infection. , 2016, Australian prescriber.

[20]  M. Pop,et al.  Metagenomic Assembly: Overview, Challenges and Applications , 2016, The Yale journal of biology and medicine.

[21]  Dan Knights,et al.  Systematic improvement of amplicon marker gene methods for increased accuracy in microbiome studies , 2016, Nature Biotechnology.

[22]  D. Branton,et al.  Three decades of nanopore sequencing , 2016, Nature Biotechnology.

[23]  C. V. Williams,et al.  Real-time, portable genome sequencing for Ebola surveillance , 2016, Nature.

[24]  Puthen V. Jithesh,et al.  Depletion of Human DNA in Spiked Clinical Specimens for Improvement of Sensitivity of Pathogen Detection by Next-Generation Sequencing , 2016, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[25]  Y. Sanz,et al.  Species-level resolution of 16S rRNA gene amplicons sequenced through the MinION™ portable nanopore sequencer , 2015, bioRxiv.

[26]  N. McCallum,et al.  Whole genome sequencing in clinical and public health microbiology , 2015, Pathology.

[27]  Manuel Salto-Tellez,et al.  Next‐generation sequencing: a change of paradigm in molecular diagnostic validation , 2014, The Journal of pathology.

[28]  Bernadette A. Thomas,et al.  Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 , 2012, The Lancet.

[29]  Daniel J. Wilson,et al.  Transforming clinical microbiology with bacterial genome sequencing , 2012, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[30]  J. Frans,et al.  The preanalytical optimization of blood cultures: a review and the clinical importance of benchmarking in 5 Belgian hospitals. , 2012, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[31]  Susan Bullman,et al.  Molecular diagnostics , 2012, Bioengineered bugs.

[32]  E. Bouza,et al.  Role of Universal 16S rRNA Gene PCR and Sequencing in Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infection , 2011, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[33]  D. Branton,et al.  The potential and challenges of nanopore sequencing , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[34]  Samuel Yang,et al.  PCR-based diagnostics for infectious diseases: uses, limitations, and future applications in acute-care settings , 2004, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[35]  D. Jungkind Molecular Testing for Infectious Disease , 2001, Science.

[36]  Y. Senda,et al.  Multiplex PCR Using Internal Transcribed Spacer 1 and 2 Regions for Rapid Detection and Identification of Yeast Strains , 2001, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[37]  D. Relman,et al.  Application of polymerase chain reaction to the diagnosis of infectious diseases. , 1999, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[38]  Yoon-Hoh Kook,et al.  Identification of Mycobacterial Species by Comparative Sequence Analysis of the RNA Polymerase Gene (rpoB) , 1999, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[39]  Lisa C. Crossman,et al.  Identification of bacterial pathogens and antimicrobial resistance directly from clinical urines by nanopore-based metagenomic sequencing , 2016, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[40]  H. Bayley Nanopore sequencing: from imagination to reality. , 2015, Clinical chemistry.

[41]  Louis Valiquette,et al.  The changing culture of the microbiology laboratory. , 2013, The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale.