The novel biomarker t6A accurately identified septic patients at admission but failed to predict outcome

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition caused by the body’s extreme response to infection [1]. Early diagnosis of sepsis is crucial for improving patient outcomes, yet current diagnostic methods including microbiological cultures are delayed and frequently inconclusive. This has driven the search for novel biomarkers and detection systems capable of recognizing sepsis more rapidly and accurately [2]. Procalcitonin (PCT) is the most widely used biomarker for sepsis detection but its use is limited as circulating PCT concentration is influenced by noninfectious inflammation (e.g. trauma, surgery).

Nucleoside modifications are a hallmark of the post-transcriptional processing of transfer ribonucleic acid (tRNA) that generate multiple structurally modified nucleosides [3]. One of such tRNA-modified nucleosides, N6-threonylcarbamoyladenosine (t⁶A), is critical for ensuring efficient protein synthesis in health and disease [4]. We discovered that circulating t⁶A possesses a diagnostic potential in sepsis. Consequently, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of t⁶A in differentiating bacterial sepsis and COVID-19 from two different non-septic patient cohorts: i) patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and ii) severe polytrauma patients. In all cohorts, t⁶A diagnostic accuracy was compared to PCT. Additionally, we tested t⁶A potential to predict death/survival in patients with sepsis.

This multicenter retrospective observational study analyzed plasma samples from four cohorts (Supplementary Table 1). The study included 81 patients with bacterial sepsis (cohort 1) and 49 patients with severe COVID-19 infection (cohort 2) diagnosed upon ICU/Emergency admission , 87 patients undergoing elective CABG surgery (cohort 3) and 64 severe (Injury Severity Score > 15) polytrauma patients (cohort 4). Sepsis in cohort 1 was defined according to the Sepsis-3 criteria, and all patients received treatment aligned with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. In COVID-19 patients, SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed by molecular test. The CABG and polytrauma groups were used as non-septic comparators to assess t⁶A’s diagnostic specificity and accuracy against patients with sepsis and those with COVID-19. We compared blood samples collected at admission for the sepsis and COVID-19 cohorts, to samples collected 24 h post-surgery (cohort 3) and trauma (cohort 4). Plasma t⁶A concentrations were measured using tandem mass spectrometry with stable isotope internal standardization. PCT was measured using standard Brahms PCT luminescence immunoassay. Statistical analyses of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were carried out with a total of 50,000 stratified bootstrap samples to estimate the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curve and its optimal threshold. The AUCs were compared via De Long’s two-sided test [5].

t⁶A demonstrated outstanding diagnostic accuracy for sepsis at the ICU/Emergency admission. In separately evaluated exploratory and validation CABG cohorts, t⁶A consistently showed greater accuracy (AUC > 90%) compared to PCT (AUC 80–88%). t⁶A accuracy against the pooled CABG patients (cohort 3) achieved an AUC of 95% (vs. 88% for PCT, p < 0.05) (Fig. 1A). Against the polytrauma group, which represented a more clinically relevant comparator, t⁶A again outperformed PCT; its AUC was 97% compared to 88% for PCT (p < 0.05) (Fig. 1B). In the COVID-19 cohort, t⁶A also displayed excellent diagnostic performance when SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were compared to CABG (AUC 87%, Fig. 1C) and polytrauma (AUC 93%, Fig. 1D) patients. PCT measurement was not differentiating (AUC 50–52%, p > 0.05). Notably, the optimal diagnostic threshold for t⁶A was nearly identical (3% deviation) against CABG (40.0 ng/mL) and polytrauma (38.8 ng/mL) comparators; it varied by 22% for PCT (2.04 and 1.6 ng/mL).

Fig. 1

Diagnostic performance of t⁶A and PCT for detecting bacterial sepsis (A, B) and COVID-19 (C, D) at the ICU/Emergency admission. n: the first number in parentheses defines the number of sepsis or COVID-19 patients; the second number indicates the number of CABG or polytrauma patients. CI: 95% Confidence Intervals

Full size image

Despite its strong diagnostic performance, t⁶A showed a limited utility for predicting sepsis outcomes. At the ICU/Emergency admission, t⁶A concentrations exhibited a considerable overlap between survivors and non-survivors and failed to show any protracted post-admission separation, resulting in an AUC of only 62%. PCT concentrations demonstrated a similar overlap dynamics and performed only modestly better, with an AUC of 72%, suggesting that while t⁶A is highly effective for identifying sepsis, it lacks prognostic value. This discrepancy highlights the biomarker’s primary utility in diagnosis rather than outcome prediction.

This is the first report regarding the potential utility of t⁶A as a diagnostic biomarker in patients with sepsis. We show t⁶A as a highly accurate and reliable biomarker for early sepsis diagnosis at the ICU/Emergency admission. t⁶A outperformed PCT in differentiating septic patients from non-septic controls including CABG and polytrauma cohorts. Insensitivity of t⁶A to sterile inflammation positions it as a promising diagnostic tool for clinical use. However, the lack of a commercially available assay for rapid t⁶A measurement limits its utility and this deficiency needs to be addressed. Further studies are required to evaluate t⁶A under different ICU conditions, including localized (non-sepsis) infections and extracorporeal therapies, to confirm its broader clinical applicability.

The patient datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request.

The patient datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request.

AUC :

Area under the curve

CABG :

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery

COVID-19 :

Coronavirus disease 2019

CI :

Confidence interval

ICU :

Intensive care unit

ISS :

Injury severity score

PCT :

Procalcitonin

ROC :

Receiver-operating characteristic

t ⁶ A :

N⁶-Threonylcarbamoyladenosine

tRNA :

Transfer ribonucleic acid

1. Vincent JL, Jones G, David S, et al. Frequency and mortality of septic shock in Europe and North America: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):196.

   PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

2. Liu C, Song X, Liu J, et al. Consistency between metagenomic next-generation sequencing versus traditional microbiological tests for infective disease: systemic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2025;29(1):55.

   PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

3. Boccaletto P, Machnicka MA, Purta E, et al. MODOMICS: a database of RNA modification pathways. 2017 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D303–7.

   CAS PubMed Google Scholar

4. Chujo T, Tomizawa K. Human transfer RNA modopathies: diseases caused by aberrations in transfer RNA modifications. FEBS J. 2021;288(24):7096–122.

   CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

5. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–45.

   CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Traumatology, The Research Center in Cooperation With AUVA, Donaueschingenstraße 13, 1200, Vienna, Austria

   Marcin F. Osuchowski, Heinz Redl, Johannes Zipperle & Gerhard Fritsch

2. Clinical Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland

   Barbara Adamik, Waldemar Gozdzik & Tomasz Skalec

3. Pharm-Analyt Labor, Baden, Austria

   Daniel Mascher & Hermann Mascher

4. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, AUVA Trauma Center Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

   Gerhard Fritsch & Wolfgang Voelckel

5. Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

   Martin S. Winkler & Onnen Moerer

6. BEBAC, Vienna, Austria

   Helmut Schütz

7. Center for Medical Data Science of the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

   Helmut Schütz

Authors

1. Marcin F. OsuchowskiView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

2. Barbara AdamikView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

3. Waldemar GozdzikView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

4. Tomasz SkalecView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

5. Daniel MascherView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

6. Heinz RedlView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

7. Johannes ZipperleView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

8. Gerhard FritschView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

9. Wolfgang VoelckelView author publications

   You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

10. Martin S. WinklerView author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

11. Onnen MoererView author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

12. Helmut SchützView author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

13. Hermann MascherView author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MFO and HM conceived of the study and MFO wrote the text. MFO, BA, WG, WV and HM developed the study design. DM, HM, MFO, TS, JZ, OM and GF performed research analysis. HS, BA, JZ and MFO performed data analysis. All authors helped with data interpretation, editing of the manuscript, and read and approved the final text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcin F. Osuchowski.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study including patients in the cohorts 1 (sepsis) and 3 (CABG) was approved by the Bioethical Committee of Wroclaw Medical University on November 29, 2018 (approval no. 710/2018). The study including patients in the cohort 3 (COVID-19) was approved by the Bioethical Committee of the University Medical Center Göttingen on June 27, 2018 (SeptImmun Study No. 24/4/19Ü). The study including patients in the cohort 4 (polytrauma) was approved by the Bioethical Committee of Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt on September 15, 2016 (PRIME study No. 09/2016). This research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Prof. Mascher is a consultant at pharm-analyt Labor, Baden, Austria, and holds patent applications for the use of t⁶A to monitor sepsis conditions. The other authors report no competing interest.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary file 1.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Cite this article

Osuchowski, M.F., Adamik, B., Gozdzik, W. et al. The novel biomarker t⁶A accurately identified septic patients at admission but failed to predict outcome. Crit Care 29, 129 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05354-2

Download citation

• Received: 12 February 2025

• Accepted: 04 March 2025

• Published: 20 March 2025

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05354-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative