Metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the identification of infections caused by Gram-negative pathogens and the prediction of antimicrobial resistance.
{"title":"Metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the identification of infections caused by Gram-negative pathogens and the prediction of antimicrobial resistance.","authors":"Yang-Hua Xiao, Zhao-Xia Luo, Hong-Wen Wu, De-Rong Xu, Rui Zhao","doi":"10.1093/labmed/lmad039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) for the identification of Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections and the prediction of antimicrobial resistance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 182 patients with diagnosis of GNB infections who underwent mNGS and conventional microbiological tests (CMTs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The detection rate of mNGS was 96.15%, higher than CMTs (45.05%) with a significant difference (χ 2 = 114.46, P < .01). The pathogen spectrum identified by mNGS was significantly wider than CMTs. Interestingly, the detection rate of mNGS was substantially higher than that of CMTs (70.33% vs 23.08%, P < .01) in patients with but not without antibiotic exposure. There was a significant positive correlation between mapped reads and pro-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin-6 and interleukin-8). However, mNGS failed to predict antimicrobial resistance in 5 of 12 patients compared to phenotype antimicrobial susceptibility testing results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Metagenomic next-generation sequencing has a higher detection rate, a wider pathogen spectrum, and is less affected by prior antibiotic exposure than CMTs in identifying Gram-negative pathogens. The mapped reads may reflect a pro-inflammatory state in GNB-infected patients. Inferring actual resistance phenotypes from metagenomic data remains a great challenge.</p>","PeriodicalId":17951,"journal":{"name":"Laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":"71-79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmad039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) for the identification of Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections and the prediction of antimicrobial resistance.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 182 patients with diagnosis of GNB infections who underwent mNGS and conventional microbiological tests (CMTs).
Results: The detection rate of mNGS was 96.15%, higher than CMTs (45.05%) with a significant difference (χ 2 = 114.46, P < .01). The pathogen spectrum identified by mNGS was significantly wider than CMTs. Interestingly, the detection rate of mNGS was substantially higher than that of CMTs (70.33% vs 23.08%, P < .01) in patients with but not without antibiotic exposure. There was a significant positive correlation between mapped reads and pro-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin-6 and interleukin-8). However, mNGS failed to predict antimicrobial resistance in 5 of 12 patients compared to phenotype antimicrobial susceptibility testing results.
Conclusions: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing has a higher detection rate, a wider pathogen spectrum, and is less affected by prior antibiotic exposure than CMTs in identifying Gram-negative pathogens. The mapped reads may reflect a pro-inflammatory state in GNB-infected patients. Inferring actual resistance phenotypes from metagenomic data remains a great challenge.