长读16S rRNA新一代测序在临床诊断实验室中鉴定细菌分离物的评价。

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 MICROBIOLOGY
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Pub Date : 2025-05-14 Epub Date: 2025-04-22 DOI:10.1128/jcm.01670-24
Victoria L Campodónico, Jean Ruelle, Anna Fitzgerald, Yehudit Bergman, Brenda Osborne, Dimitrios Bourdas, Jennifer Lu, Karen C Carroll, Patricia J Simner
{"title":"长读16S rRNA新一代测序在临床诊断实验室中鉴定细菌分离物的评价。","authors":"Victoria L Campodónico, Jean Ruelle, Anna Fitzgerald, Yehudit Bergman, Brenda Osborne, Dimitrios Bourdas, Jennifer Lu, Karen C Carroll, Patricia J Simner","doi":"10.1128/jcm.01670-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sanger sequencing of the first ~500 bp of the 16S rRNA gene is frequently used to identify bacterial pathogens that have ambiguous biochemical profiles or proteomic mass spectra. When diversity does not occur within that region, genus-level and/or species-level identification may not be possible, and a longer sequence or alternative target may be required to distinguish between genera/species. In this study, we evaluated a clinically relevant end-to-end solution for long-read (~1,500 nt) 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing by Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) compared to a ~500 nt Sanger sequencing approach for the identification of 153 bacterial clinical isolates. Sequencing data were analyzed using the IDNS software from SmartGene and its proprietary 16S Centroid reference database (Centroid database) SmartGene software and the Centroid database. The agreement of the two platforms on species- and genus-level identification was determined, and discrepancies were resolved by whole-genome sequencing. ONT had a higher taxonomic resolution at the genus level (<i>P</i> < 0.01). When genus-level identification was achieved by both methods, concordance to the best matching genus was 100%. When species-level identification was achieved by both methods, concordance to the best matching species was 91%. The costs per test were ~$25.30 (when multiplexing 24 samples/run) and $74 for ONT and Sanger sequencing, respectively. The hands-on time spent performing sequencing was similar for both methods, but the turnaround time of ONT was significantly shorter than that of Sanger sequencing.IMPORTANCEThis study adds to existing literature by describing a validated end-to-end solution of 16S rRNA gene Oxford Nanopore sequencing for bacterial isolate identification, including sequencing run time evaluation, automated analysis (SmartGene 16S Identification App) and interpretation of results, that can be incorporated into clinical and public health laboratories with a simple and cost-effective workflow.</p>","PeriodicalId":15511,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":"63 5","pages":"e0167024"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12077174/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of long-read 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing for identification of bacterial isolates in a clinical diagnostic laboratory.\",\"authors\":\"Victoria L Campodónico, Jean Ruelle, Anna Fitzgerald, Yehudit Bergman, Brenda Osborne, Dimitrios Bourdas, Jennifer Lu, Karen C Carroll, Patricia J Simner\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/jcm.01670-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Sanger sequencing of the first ~500 bp of the 16S rRNA gene is frequently used to identify bacterial pathogens that have ambiguous biochemical profiles or proteomic mass spectra. When diversity does not occur within that region, genus-level and/or species-level identification may not be possible, and a longer sequence or alternative target may be required to distinguish between genera/species. In this study, we evaluated a clinically relevant end-to-end solution for long-read (~1,500 nt) 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing by Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) compared to a ~500 nt Sanger sequencing approach for the identification of 153 bacterial clinical isolates. Sequencing data were analyzed using the IDNS software from SmartGene and its proprietary 16S Centroid reference database (Centroid database) SmartGene software and the Centroid database. The agreement of the two platforms on species- and genus-level identification was determined, and discrepancies were resolved by whole-genome sequencing. ONT had a higher taxonomic resolution at the genus level (<i>P</i> < 0.01). When genus-level identification was achieved by both methods, concordance to the best matching genus was 100%. When species-level identification was achieved by both methods, concordance to the best matching species was 91%. The costs per test were ~$25.30 (when multiplexing 24 samples/run) and $74 for ONT and Sanger sequencing, respectively. The hands-on time spent performing sequencing was similar for both methods, but the turnaround time of ONT was significantly shorter than that of Sanger sequencing.IMPORTANCEThis study adds to existing literature by describing a validated end-to-end solution of 16S rRNA gene Oxford Nanopore sequencing for bacterial isolate identification, including sequencing run time evaluation, automated analysis (SmartGene 16S Identification App) and interpretation of results, that can be incorporated into clinical and public health laboratories with a simple and cost-effective workflow.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\"63 5\",\"pages\":\"e0167024\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12077174/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01670-24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01670-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

16S rRNA基因前~500 bp的Sanger测序常用于鉴定生化特征或蛋白质组质谱不明确的细菌病原体。当该区域内不存在多样性时,可能无法进行属级和/或种级鉴定,可能需要更长的序列或替代目标来区分属/种。在这项研究中,我们评估了牛津纳米孔技术(ONT)的长读(~ 1500 nt) 16S rRNA下一代测序的临床相关端到端解决方案,并将其与~500 nt Sanger测序方法进行比较,以鉴定153种细菌临床分离株。测序数据采用SmartGene的IDNS软件及其专有的16S Centroid参考数据库(Centroid数据库)SmartGene软件和Centroid数据库进行分析。确定了两个平台在物种和属水平鉴定上的一致性,并通过全基因组测序解决了差异。ONT在属水平上具有较高的分类分辨率(P < 0.01)。当两种方法均达到属级鉴定时,最佳匹配属的一致性为100%。当两种方法均达到种级鉴定时,最佳匹配种的一致性为91%。每次测试的成本约为25.30美元(当复用24个样本/运行时),ONT和Sanger测序的成本分别为74美元。两种方法进行测序的实际操作时间相似,但ONT的周转时间明显短于Sanger测序。本研究通过描述一种经过验证的16S rRNA基因牛津纳米孔测序的端到端解决方案,用于细菌分离物鉴定,包括测序运行时评估、自动分析(SmartGene 16S鉴定应用程序)和结果解释,从而增加了现有文献的重要性,该解决方案可以通过简单且具有成本效益的工作流程纳入临床和公共卫生实验室。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of long-read 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing for identification of bacterial isolates in a clinical diagnostic laboratory.

Sanger sequencing of the first ~500 bp of the 16S rRNA gene is frequently used to identify bacterial pathogens that have ambiguous biochemical profiles or proteomic mass spectra. When diversity does not occur within that region, genus-level and/or species-level identification may not be possible, and a longer sequence or alternative target may be required to distinguish between genera/species. In this study, we evaluated a clinically relevant end-to-end solution for long-read (~1,500 nt) 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing by Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) compared to a ~500 nt Sanger sequencing approach for the identification of 153 bacterial clinical isolates. Sequencing data were analyzed using the IDNS software from SmartGene and its proprietary 16S Centroid reference database (Centroid database) SmartGene software and the Centroid database. The agreement of the two platforms on species- and genus-level identification was determined, and discrepancies were resolved by whole-genome sequencing. ONT had a higher taxonomic resolution at the genus level (P < 0.01). When genus-level identification was achieved by both methods, concordance to the best matching genus was 100%. When species-level identification was achieved by both methods, concordance to the best matching species was 91%. The costs per test were ~$25.30 (when multiplexing 24 samples/run) and $74 for ONT and Sanger sequencing, respectively. The hands-on time spent performing sequencing was similar for both methods, but the turnaround time of ONT was significantly shorter than that of Sanger sequencing.IMPORTANCEThis study adds to existing literature by describing a validated end-to-end solution of 16S rRNA gene Oxford Nanopore sequencing for bacterial isolate identification, including sequencing run time evaluation, automated analysis (SmartGene 16S Identification App) and interpretation of results, that can be incorporated into clinical and public health laboratories with a simple and cost-effective workflow.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Journal of Clinical Microbiology 医学-微生物学
CiteScore
17.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
347
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Microbiology® disseminates the latest research concerning the laboratory diagnosis of human and animal infections, along with the laboratory's role in epidemiology and the management of infectious diseases.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信