Cargando…

Multilaboratory assessment of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for unbiased microbe detection

INTRODUCTION: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) assay for detecting infectious agents is now in the stage of being translated into clinical practice. With no approved approaches or guidelines available, laboratories adopt customized mNGS assays to detect clinical samples. However, the ac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Han, Dongsheng, Diao, Zhenli, Lai, Huiying, Han, Yanxi, Xie, Jiehong, Zhang, Rui, Li, Jinming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9091723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35572414
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2021.09.011
_version_ 1784704990613340160
author Han, Dongsheng
Diao, Zhenli
Lai, Huiying
Han, Yanxi
Xie, Jiehong
Zhang, Rui
Li, Jinming
author_facet Han, Dongsheng
Diao, Zhenli
Lai, Huiying
Han, Yanxi
Xie, Jiehong
Zhang, Rui
Li, Jinming
author_sort Han, Dongsheng
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) assay for detecting infectious agents is now in the stage of being translated into clinical practice. With no approved approaches or guidelines available, laboratories adopt customized mNGS assays to detect clinical samples. However, the accuracy, reliability, and problems of these routinely implemented assays are not clear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of 90 mNGS laboratories under routine testing conditions through analyzing identical samples. METHODS: Eleven microbial communities were generated using 15 quantitative microbial suspensions. They were used as reference materials to evaluate the false negatives and false positives of participating mNGS protocols, as well as the ability to distinguish genetically similar organisms and to identify true pathogens from other microbes based on fictitious case reports. RESULTS: High interlaboratory variability was found in the identification and the quantitative reads per million reads (RPM) values of each microbe in the samples, especially when testing microbes present at low concentrations (1 × 10(3) cell/ml or less). 42.2% (38/90) of the laboratories reported unexpected microbes (i.e. false positive problem). Only 56.7% (51/90) to 83.3% (75/90) of the laboratories showed a sufficient ability to obtain clear etiological diagnoses for three simulated cases combined with patient information. The analysis of the performance of mNGS in distinguishing genetically similar organisms in three samples revealed that only 56.6% to 63.0% of the laboratories recovered RPM ratios (RPM(S. aureus)/RPM(S. epidermidis)) within the range of a 2-fold change of the initial input ratios (indicating a relatively low level of bias). CONCLUSION: The high interlaboratory variability found in both identifying microbes and distinguishing true pathogens emphasizes the urgent need for improving the accuracy and comparability of the results generated across different mNGS laboratories, especially in the detection of low-microbial-biomass samples.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9091723
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90917232022-05-12 Multilaboratory assessment of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for unbiased microbe detection Han, Dongsheng Diao, Zhenli Lai, Huiying Han, Yanxi Xie, Jiehong Zhang, Rui Li, Jinming J Adv Res Medicine INTRODUCTION: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) assay for detecting infectious agents is now in the stage of being translated into clinical practice. With no approved approaches or guidelines available, laboratories adopt customized mNGS assays to detect clinical samples. However, the accuracy, reliability, and problems of these routinely implemented assays are not clear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of 90 mNGS laboratories under routine testing conditions through analyzing identical samples. METHODS: Eleven microbial communities were generated using 15 quantitative microbial suspensions. They were used as reference materials to evaluate the false negatives and false positives of participating mNGS protocols, as well as the ability to distinguish genetically similar organisms and to identify true pathogens from other microbes based on fictitious case reports. RESULTS: High interlaboratory variability was found in the identification and the quantitative reads per million reads (RPM) values of each microbe in the samples, especially when testing microbes present at low concentrations (1 × 10(3) cell/ml or less). 42.2% (38/90) of the laboratories reported unexpected microbes (i.e. false positive problem). Only 56.7% (51/90) to 83.3% (75/90) of the laboratories showed a sufficient ability to obtain clear etiological diagnoses for three simulated cases combined with patient information. The analysis of the performance of mNGS in distinguishing genetically similar organisms in three samples revealed that only 56.6% to 63.0% of the laboratories recovered RPM ratios (RPM(S. aureus)/RPM(S. epidermidis)) within the range of a 2-fold change of the initial input ratios (indicating a relatively low level of bias). CONCLUSION: The high interlaboratory variability found in both identifying microbes and distinguishing true pathogens emphasizes the urgent need for improving the accuracy and comparability of the results generated across different mNGS laboratories, especially in the detection of low-microbial-biomass samples. Elsevier 2021-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9091723/ /pubmed/35572414 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2021.09.011 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Cairo University. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Medicine
Han, Dongsheng
Diao, Zhenli
Lai, Huiying
Han, Yanxi
Xie, Jiehong
Zhang, Rui
Li, Jinming
Multilaboratory assessment of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for unbiased microbe detection
title Multilaboratory assessment of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for unbiased microbe detection
title_full Multilaboratory assessment of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for unbiased microbe detection
title_fullStr Multilaboratory assessment of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for unbiased microbe detection
title_full_unstemmed Multilaboratory assessment of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for unbiased microbe detection
title_short Multilaboratory assessment of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for unbiased microbe detection
title_sort multilaboratory assessment of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for unbiased microbe detection
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9091723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35572414
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2021.09.011
work_keys_str_mv AT handongsheng multilaboratoryassessmentofmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingforunbiasedmicrobedetection
AT diaozhenli multilaboratoryassessmentofmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingforunbiasedmicrobedetection
AT laihuiying multilaboratoryassessmentofmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingforunbiasedmicrobedetection
AT hanyanxi multilaboratoryassessmentofmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingforunbiasedmicrobedetection
AT xiejiehong multilaboratoryassessmentofmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingforunbiasedmicrobedetection
AT zhangrui multilaboratoryassessmentofmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingforunbiasedmicrobedetection
AT lijinming multilaboratoryassessmentofmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingforunbiasedmicrobedetection