Sepsis is a syndrome of life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated immune response to infection.1, 2 It is a global health priority as recognised by the World Health Organisation3 and according to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017, 11 million sepsis related fatalities and 48.9 million sepsis episodes occurred globally in 2017.4 Bloodstream infections (BSIs), defined by the presence of viable bacteria (or fungi) in the bloodstream, are an important cause of sepsis.5, 6 Early identification of a causative pathogen and its antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profile is essential for appropriate and timely treatment.7, 8 However, using the current gold standard of microbial identification through blood cultures (BCs), a causative pathogen is only detected in around 30% of cases.9 Although culture-based methods are inexpensive and simple, their turnaround time (TAT) can stretch to several days10 (Figure 1), delaying diagnoses and leading to inappropriate antimicrobial treatment.11 Furthermore, BCs may fail due to slow-growing, fastidious or non-culturable microbes, low microbial load or prior antibiotic treatment.12-14 Clinical metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) uses untargeted shotgun sequencing of all DNA or RNA in a sample to identify microbial genomes present in the sample15-18 (Figure 1). mNGS provides a high-throughput pathogen detection method and is increasingly employed in various infectious syndromes, including BSI,19, 20 central nervous system,21 bone and joint,22 respiratory infections.23 Although mNGS is pathogen agnostic and could be quicker than BC (Figure 1), sensitivity can be compromised due to high human DNA background (>99%) in blood samples and low microbial loads during BSI (1–10 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL).24-27 Thus, a more sensitive approach for diagnosing BSI using NGS is urgently required.
Targeted NGS (tNGS) is an approach that selectively amplifies specific genomic regions or gene sequences, such as AMR determinants. This targeted enrichment enhances sensitivity and minimises host nucleic acid background, offering improved performance over untargeted shotgun mNGS.32 An example of tNGS is hybridisation-based probe-capture metagenomics. Short DNA/RNA oligonucleotide probes (or “baits”) are designed to be complementary to various pathogen sequences and can be designed to identify over 3,000 species.33-35 This method enables greater genome coverage by using overlapping probes, ensuring more comprehensive target capture and reduced background or host DNA32, 36
脓毒症是一种危及生命的器官功能障碍综合征,由对感染的免疫反应失调引起。1,2根据世界卫生组织(World health组织)的认可,这是一个全球卫生优先事项3,根据2017年全球疾病负担研究,2017年全球发生了1100万例败血症相关死亡和4890万例败血症发作。血液感染(bsi)是由血液中存在活菌(或真菌)定义的,是败血症的重要原因。5,6病原及其抗微生物药物耐药性(AMR)谱的早期识别对于适当和及时的治疗至关重要。然而,使用目前通过血液培养(bc)进行微生物鉴定的金标准,仅在约30%的病例中检测到致病病原体尽管基于培养的方法既便宜又简单,但其周转时间(TAT)可能会延长至数天(图1),从而延误诊断并导致不适当的抗菌治疗11此外,BCs可能由于生长缓慢,挑剔或不可培养的微生物,低微生物负荷或先前的抗生素治疗而失败。12-14临床宏基因组新一代测序(mNGS)使用对样本中所有DNA或RNA的非靶向散弹枪测序来鉴定样本中存在的微生物基因组15-18(图1)。mNGS提供了一种高通量病原体检测方法,并越来越多地用于各种感染综合征,包括BSI,19, 20中枢神经系统,21骨和关节,22呼吸道感染23虽然mNGS与病原体无关,而且比BC更快(图1),但由于血液样本中人类DNA背景较高(>99%),而BSI期间微生物负荷较低(1 - 10菌落形成单位[CFU]/mL),敏感性可能会受到损害。因此,迫切需要一种使用NGS诊断BSI的更灵敏的方法。靶向NGS (tNGS)是一种选择性扩增特定基因组区域或基因序列(如AMR决定因子)的方法。这种靶向富集提高了灵敏度,最大限度地减少了宿主核酸背景,提供了比非靶向霰弹枪mNGS.32更好的性能tNGS的一个例子是基于杂交的探针捕获宏基因组学。短DNA/RNA寡核苷酸探针(或“诱饵”)被设计为各种病原体序列的补充,可以被设计为识别3000多种物种。33-35该方法通过使用重叠探针实现更大的基因组覆盖,确保更全面的目标捕获和减少背景或宿主DNA32, 36(图2)。尽管RNA探针比DNA探针具有更高的灵敏度和杂交稳定性,从而提高了杂交捕获效率,但其固有的不稳定性和小心处理要求导致首选使用DNA探针(图2)Probe-capture最初是为人类基因组研究开发的,用于识别人类基因组中的疾病相关突变和罕见变异38,也已开发用于Illumina和安捷伦基因组学等NGS平台。这种捕获方法在研究线粒体疾病41,42和筛查癌症患者的潜在遗传变异方面显示出有效性。43、44已证明探针捕获在传染病监测45、46和检测一系列病原体方面的有效性,包括艾滋病毒47、HCV48和严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2、49等病毒49、结核分枝杆菌50等细菌和白色念珠菌51等真菌这些寡核苷酸面板的设计既可以从合成DNA制造平台定制(例如Integrated DNA Technologies52和Twist Bioscience53),也可以作为预先设计的商业面板购买(例如综合病毒研究面板,Twist Bioscience) 54此外,可以从各种测序平台获得能够测序多种AMR基因的综合AMR面板,包括Illumina(例如Illumina Respiratory Pathogen ID/AMR Enrichment Panel [rip] Kit)55、56和Ion Torrent GeneStudio (dart - qm)。57探针捕获tNGS已成功地用于从全血和血浆样本中鉴定BSI病原体。33,59,60 Sun及其同事证明探针捕获技术与bc相比具有更高的病原体检出率(51.6% vs. 17.4%, p <;当与bc和实时聚合酶链反应(PCR)联合使用时,探针捕获的一致性率为91.8%,敏感性和特异性分别为100%和87.1%。根据探针捕获结果,64例(34.8%)患者成功调整了抗生素治疗,41例(22.3%)患者在抗生素调整后的顺序器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分降低了2分以上该研究还证明了在24小时内获得最终报告的可能性,与bc相比显着缩短(中位TAT为19.1比111小时,p <;0.001)。 虽然特异性PCR可以在12小时内提供临床诊断中的快速病原体鉴定,并且已被证明比mNGS更敏感,但它不像探针捕获那样具有不可知性在一项评估80例疑似BSI患者的前瞻性研究中,探针捕获显示出更快的TAT和更高的灵敏度,与两种BC相比(91.3% vs. 23.2%, p <;0.001)和mNGS (91.3% vs. 63.9%, p = 0.001)。此外,22/80(31.9%)的患者在基于探针捕获结果的治疗后调整中表现出临床改善。33虽然探针捕获的tNGS比传统的和基于猎枪的方法具有显著的优势,但在其更广泛的临床应用中,必须考虑到一些实际和技术上的限制。其中包括需要已知的参考基因组或转录组来设计探针,这是识别参考数据有限的新型病原体时的一个障碍使用已定义的面板可以限制新病原体的检测,因为这些探针可以容忍高达20%的差异,超过50%的覆盖率参考基因组,不能识别更多不同的生物体。65探针捕获方法对于高变序列具有挑战性,例如在具有高突变率的病原体中,随着探针和靶标之间的差异增加,捕获性能可能会降低。此外,对于高度重复区域或鸟嘌呤-胞嘧啶含量高的区域,探针捕获可能不太有效,因为它具有探针设计和杂交的复杂性此外,这种方法可能面临额外的生物信息学挑战,包括杂交偏差和下游分析中的并发症,如脱靶捕获和嵌合读取,使处理复杂化。46,70,71最后,这种方法在复杂的工作流程中可能会产生大量的成本和大量的时间投资。54,72尽管存在这些挑战,探针捕获tNGS仍然是传染病诊断(包括败血症诊断)的一种非常有前途和潜在的变革性方法。即使在低微生物负荷和高宿主背景的样品中,它也能提供强大而精确的病原体和AMR基因,这解决了传统和基于霰弹枪的mNGS方法的主要局限性。这使得探针捕获不仅是诊断的一种有价值的工具,而且也是抗菌素耐药性管理和监测行动的一种工具此外,它整合到集中临床实验室的潜力为在时间敏感的决策至关重要的重症监护环境中进行快速、可操作的诊断铺平了道路。现在必须严格评估探针捕获tNGS的临床应用,最好通过随机临床试验,关注以患者为中心的结果,以确保有意义的转化影响。所有作者对这项工作贡献均等。作者声明无利益冲突。这项工作得到了国家卫生和医学研究委员会、昆士兰卫生和昆士兰儿童医院基金会的临床研究奖学金的支持。不需要道德许可。
{"title":"Probe-capture targeted next-generation sequencing: A novel approach for pathogen and antimicrobial resistance detection in sepsis","authors":"Chitra Ravi, Adam D. Irwin, Patrick N. A. Harris","doi":"10.1002/ctd2.70079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ctd2.70079","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Sepsis is a syndrome of life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated immune response to infection.<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> It is a global health priority as recognised by the World Health Organisation<span><sup>3</sup></span> and according to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017, 11 million sepsis related fatalities and 48.9 million sepsis episodes occurred globally in 2017.<span><sup>4</sup></span> Bloodstream infections (BSIs), defined by the presence of viable bacteria (or fungi) in the bloodstream, are an important cause of sepsis.<span><sup>5, 6</sup></span> Early identification of a causative pathogen and its antimicrobial resistance (AMR) profile is essential for appropriate and timely treatment.<span><sup>7, 8</sup></span> However, using the current gold standard of microbial identification through blood cultures (BCs), a causative pathogen is only detected in around 30% of cases.<span><sup>9</sup></span> Although culture-based methods are inexpensive and simple, their turnaround time (TAT) can stretch to several days<span><sup>10</sup></span> (Figure 1), delaying diagnoses and leading to inappropriate antimicrobial treatment.<span><sup>11</sup></span> Furthermore, BCs may fail due to slow-growing, fastidious or non-culturable microbes, low microbial load or prior antibiotic treatment.<span><sup>12-14</sup></span> Clinical metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) uses untargeted shotgun sequencing of all DNA or RNA in a sample to identify microbial genomes present in the sample<span><sup>15-18</sup></span> (Figure 1). mNGS provides a high-throughput pathogen detection method and is increasingly employed in various infectious syndromes, including BSI,<span><sup>19, 20</sup></span> central nervous system,<span><sup>21</sup></span> bone and joint,<span><sup>22</sup></span> respiratory infections.<span><sup>23</sup></span> Although mNGS is pathogen agnostic and could be quicker than BC (Figure 1), sensitivity can be compromised due to high human DNA background (>99%) in blood samples and low microbial loads during BSI (1–10 colony-forming units [CFU]/mL).<span><sup>24-27</sup></span> Thus, a more sensitive approach for diagnosing BSI using NGS is urgently required.</p><p>Targeted NGS (tNGS) is an approach that selectively amplifies specific genomic regions or gene sequences, such as AMR determinants. This targeted enrichment enhances sensitivity and minimises host nucleic acid background, offering improved performance over untargeted shotgun mNGS.<span><sup>32</sup></span> An example of tNGS is hybridisation-based probe-capture metagenomics. Short DNA/RNA oligonucleotide probes (or “baits”) are designed to be complementary to various pathogen sequences and can be designed to identify over 3,000 species.<span><sup>33-35</sup></span> This method enables greater genome coverage by using overlapping probes, ensuring more comprehensive target capture and reduced background or host DNA<span><sup>32, 36</sup></span> ","PeriodicalId":72605,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and translational discovery","volume":"5 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ctd2.70079","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144832612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), once recognised solely as antimicrobial defenders, have emerged as key, yet paradoxical, players in the complex theatre of cancer. These intricate webs of DNA decorated with cytotoxic granule proteins, ejected by activated or dying neutrophils via NETosis, are now implicated in nearly every stage of tumour progression. Recent advances, as comprehensively reviewed by Wang et al. in Clinical and Translational Medicine, reveal that NETs are dynamically regulated by the tumour microenvironment (TME) and exhibit context-dependent pro- or anti-tumour effects.1 Cytokines (IL-8, G-CSF, TNF-α), tumour-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs), platelets, complement factors, and even extracellular matrix (ECM) aberrations can trigger NETosis. Once formed, NETs wield a double-edged sword: their DNA scaffolds, proteases (NE, MPO), histones, and associated proteins can directly fuel tumour cell proliferation, invasion, epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), and awakening of dormant cells, whilst simultaneously establishing physical traps for circulating tumour cells (CTCs) in distant organs, facilitating metastasis.2 They contribute to a pro-thrombotic state, therapy resistance (particularly to chemotherapy and immunotherapy), and immunosuppression by excluding cytotoxic T cells. Conversely, under specific contexts, NETs may exert anti-tumour cytotoxicity. Clinically, NETs components (e.g., citrullinated histone H3 [CitH3], cell-free DNA [cfDNA]) serve as diagnostic/prognostic biomarkers, whilst therapeutic strategies targeting NET formation (e.g., PAD4 inhibitors) or degradation (e.g., DNase I) show promise in preclinical models. Despite progress, key challenges—including NETs heterogeneity, detection standardisation, and therapeutic specificity—remain unresolved.
The burgeoning field of NETs in oncology holds immense potential, but significant challenges and exciting opportunities lie ahead. Future studies should prioritise (Figure 1).
The intricate dance between NETs and cancer is far from fully choreographed. Whilst their detrimental roles in promoting metastasis, thrombosis, immunosuppression, and therapy resistance are increasingly clear, harnessing their biology offers unprecedented opportunities. The future lies in moving beyond broad inhibition towards precision targeting—understanding the nuances of NET heterogeneity, context-specific functions, and their intricate interactions within the TME. Overcoming technical hurdles in detection and drug delivery, rigorously validating biomarkers, and designing intelligent clinical trials combining NET-targeting strategies with established and emerging therapies are critical next steps. Success in this endeavour promises not only deeper biological insights but also the development of novel diagnostic tools and therapeutic arsenals to disrupt the dark side of NETs, ultimately improving outcomes for cancer p
中性粒细胞细胞外陷阱(NETs),一度被认为是抗菌防御者,在复杂的癌症舞台上成为关键的,但矛盾的角色。这些由活化或死亡的中性粒细胞通过NETosis喷射出的带有细胞毒性颗粒蛋白的复杂DNA网,现在几乎涉及肿瘤进展的每个阶段。Wang等人在《临床与转化医学》(Clinical and Translational Medicine)杂志上全面回顾了最近的进展,发现NETs受肿瘤微环境(TME)的动态调节,并表现出与环境相关的促肿瘤或抗肿瘤作用细胞因子(IL-8、G-CSF、TNF-α)、肿瘤源性细胞外囊泡(ev)、血小板、补体因子,甚至细胞外基质(ECM)畸变都可引发NETosis。net一旦形成,就会使用一把双刃剑:它们的DNA支架、蛋白酶(NE、MPO)、组蛋白和相关蛋白可以直接促进肿瘤细胞的增殖、侵袭、上皮-间质转化(EMT)和休眠细胞的唤醒,同时为远处器官中的循环肿瘤细胞(ctc)建立物理陷阱,促进转移它们有助于促血栓形成状态、治疗抵抗(特别是对化疗和免疫治疗)以及通过排除细胞毒性T细胞而产生的免疫抑制。相反,在特定情况下,NETs可能发挥抗肿瘤细胞毒性。临床上,NETs成分(如瓜氨酸化组蛋白H3 [CitH3],无细胞DNA [cfDNA])作为诊断/预后的生物标志物,而针对NET形成(如PAD4抑制剂)或降解(如DNase I)的治疗策略在临床前模型中显示出希望。尽管取得了进展,但关键的挑战——包括网络异质性、检测标准化和治疗特异性——仍未解决。肿瘤学中新兴的神经网络领域拥有巨大的潜力,但重大的挑战和令人兴奋的机会摆在面前。未来的研究应该优先考虑(图1)。net和癌症之间错综复杂的关系远没有完全编排好。虽然它们在促进转移、血栓形成、免疫抑制和治疗耐药性方面的有害作用越来越清楚,但利用它们的生物学提供了前所未有的机会。未来在于从广泛的抑制转向精确的目标——理解NET异构性的细微差别、上下文特定的功能以及它们在TME中复杂的相互作用。克服检测和给药方面的技术障碍,严格验证生物标志物,设计将net靶向策略与现有和新兴疗法相结合的智能临床试验是接下来的关键步骤。这一努力的成功不仅预示着更深入的生物学见解,而且预示着新的诊断工具和治疗手段的发展,以破坏NETs的阴暗面,最终改善被它们纠缠的网络所负担的癌症患者的预后。从理解NET机制到将其转化为有效药物的过程是复杂的,但征服转移和治疗耐药性的潜在回报使其成为肿瘤学领域一个引人注目的前沿。这个手稿的初稿是曹博写的。Ting La和Bo Cao审阅了手稿。作者声明无利益冲突。陕西省自然科学基础研究计划项目[2023-JC-QN-0858]和国家自然科学基金项目[82372638]资助。不适用。
{"title":"Sticky situation, strategic strike: Targeting neutrophil extracellular trap-work in cancer","authors":"Bo Cao, Ting La","doi":"10.1002/ctd2.70068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ctd2.70068","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), once recognised solely as antimicrobial defenders, have emerged as key, yet paradoxical, players in the complex theatre of cancer. These intricate webs of DNA decorated with cytotoxic granule proteins, ejected by activated or dying neutrophils via NETosis, are now implicated in nearly every stage of tumour progression. Recent advances, as comprehensively reviewed by Wang et al. in <i>Clinical and Translational Medicine</i>, reveal that NETs are dynamically regulated by the tumour microenvironment (TME) and exhibit context-dependent pro- or anti-tumour effects.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Cytokines (IL-8, G-CSF, TNF-α), tumour-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs), platelets, complement factors, and even extracellular matrix (ECM) aberrations can trigger NETosis. Once formed, NETs wield a double-edged sword: their DNA scaffolds, proteases (NE, MPO), histones, and associated proteins can directly fuel tumour cell proliferation, invasion, epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), and awakening of dormant cells, whilst simultaneously establishing physical traps for circulating tumour cells (CTCs) in distant organs, facilitating metastasis.<span><sup>2</sup></span> They contribute to a pro-thrombotic state, therapy resistance (particularly to chemotherapy and immunotherapy), and immunosuppression by excluding cytotoxic T cells. Conversely, under specific contexts, NETs may exert anti-tumour cytotoxicity. Clinically, NETs components (e.g., citrullinated histone H3 [CitH3], cell-free DNA [cfDNA]) serve as diagnostic/prognostic biomarkers, whilst therapeutic strategies targeting NET formation (e.g., PAD4 inhibitors) or degradation (e.g., DNase I) show promise in preclinical models. Despite progress, key challenges—including NETs heterogeneity, detection standardisation, and therapeutic specificity—remain unresolved.</p><p>The burgeoning field of NETs in oncology holds immense potential, but significant challenges and exciting opportunities lie ahead. Future studies should prioritise (Figure 1).</p><p>The intricate dance between NETs and cancer is far from fully choreographed. Whilst their detrimental roles in promoting metastasis, thrombosis, immunosuppression, and therapy resistance are increasingly clear, harnessing their biology offers unprecedented opportunities. The future lies in moving beyond broad inhibition towards precision targeting—understanding the nuances of NET heterogeneity, context-specific functions, and their intricate interactions within the TME. Overcoming technical hurdles in detection and drug delivery, rigorously validating biomarkers, and designing intelligent clinical trials combining NET-targeting strategies with established and emerging therapies are critical next steps. Success in this endeavour promises not only deeper biological insights but also the development of novel diagnostic tools and therapeutic arsenals to disrupt the dark side of NETs, ultimately improving outcomes for cancer p","PeriodicalId":72605,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and translational discovery","volume":"5 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ctd2.70068","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144758656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}