Comparative analysis of qPCR and metagenomics for detecting antimicrobial resistance in wastewater: a case study.

IF 1.6 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
William Taylor, Kristin Bohm, Kristin Dyet, Louise Weaver, Isabelle Pattis
{"title":"Comparative analysis of qPCR and metagenomics for detecting antimicrobial resistance in wastewater: a case study.","authors":"William Taylor, Kristin Bohm, Kristin Dyet, Louise Weaver, Isabelle Pattis","doi":"10.1186/s13104-024-07027-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as one of the top threats to global public health. While AMR surveillance of human clinical isolates is well-established in many countries, the increasing threat of AMR has intensified efforts to detect antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) accurately and sensitively in environmental samples, wastewater, animals, and food. Using five ARGs and the 16S rRNA gene, we compared quantitative PCR (qPCR) and metagenomic sequencing (MGS), two commonly used methods to uncover the wastewater resistome. We compared both methods by evaluating ARG detection through a municipal wastewater treatment chain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results demonstrate that qPCR was more sensitive than MGS, particularly in diluted samples with low ARG concentrations such as oxidation pond water. However, MGS was potentially more specific and has less risk of off-target binding in concentrated samples such as raw sewage. MGS analysis revealed multiple subtypes of each gene which could not be distinguished by qPCR; these subtypes varied across different sample types. Our findings affect the conclusions that can be drawn when comparing different sample types, particularly in terms of inferring removal rates or origins of genes. We conclude that both methods appear suitable to profile the resistome of wastewater and other environmental samples, depending on the research question and type of sample.</p>","PeriodicalId":9234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Research Notes","volume":"18 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11705827/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Research Notes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-07027-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as one of the top threats to global public health. While AMR surveillance of human clinical isolates is well-established in many countries, the increasing threat of AMR has intensified efforts to detect antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) accurately and sensitively in environmental samples, wastewater, animals, and food. Using five ARGs and the 16S rRNA gene, we compared quantitative PCR (qPCR) and metagenomic sequencing (MGS), two commonly used methods to uncover the wastewater resistome. We compared both methods by evaluating ARG detection through a municipal wastewater treatment chain.

Results: Our results demonstrate that qPCR was more sensitive than MGS, particularly in diluted samples with low ARG concentrations such as oxidation pond water. However, MGS was potentially more specific and has less risk of off-target binding in concentrated samples such as raw sewage. MGS analysis revealed multiple subtypes of each gene which could not be distinguished by qPCR; these subtypes varied across different sample types. Our findings affect the conclusions that can be drawn when comparing different sample types, particularly in terms of inferring removal rates or origins of genes. We conclude that both methods appear suitable to profile the resistome of wastewater and other environmental samples, depending on the research question and type of sample.

qPCR和宏基因组学检测废水中抗菌素耐药性的比较分析:一个案例研究。
目的:世界卫生组织(世卫组织)已宣布抗菌素耐药性(AMR)是全球公共卫生的最大威胁之一。虽然在许多国家已经建立了对人类临床分离株的抗菌素耐药性监测,但抗菌素耐药性日益增加的威胁已经加强了在环境样本、废水、动物和食品中准确和敏感地检测抗生素耐药基因(ARGs)的努力。利用5个ARGs和16S rRNA基因,我们比较了定量PCR (qPCR)和宏基因组测序(MGS)这两种常用的污水抗性组发现方法。我们通过评估城市污水处理链中的ARG检测来比较这两种方法。结果:我们的研究结果表明,qPCR比MGS更敏感,特别是在氧化池水等低ARG浓度的稀释样品中。然而,MGS可能更具特异性,并且在浓缩样品(如未经处理的污水)中脱靶结合的风险更小。MGS分析显示每个基因有多个亚型,qPCR无法区分;这些亚型在不同的样本类型中有所不同。我们的发现影响了在比较不同样本类型时可以得出的结论,特别是在推断去除率或基因起源方面。我们得出结论,这两种方法似乎都适用于分析废水和其他环境样品的抗性组,这取决于研究问题和样品类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Research Notes
BMC Research Notes Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
363
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Research Notes publishes scientifically valid research outputs that cannot be considered as full research or methodology articles. We support the research community across all scientific and clinical disciplines by providing an open access forum for sharing data and useful information; this includes, but is not limited to, updates to previous work, additions to established methods, short publications, null results, research proposals and data management plans.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信