Next Generation Sequencing Improves Diagnostic 16 S r RNA Amplicon‐Based Microbiota Analyses of Clinical Samples Compared to Sanger Sequencing
Rattachement africain : dk. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Sequencing of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene is an important tool in addition to conventional methods for the identification of bacterial pathogens in human infections. In polymicrobial samples, Sanger sequencing can produce uninterpretable chromatograms. This limitation can be overcome by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) of the 16S rRNA gene. We investigated the applicability of Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing of the partial 16S rRNA gene as a diagnostic routine method for pathogen detection in clinical samples. From June 2021 to August 2022, 101 clinical samples positive in PCR for partial 16S rRNA gene analysis were subjected to both Sanger and ONT sequencing. Sanger sequences were edited and compared with deposited sequences in the NCBI database using BLAST, while ONT data were processed using EPI2ME Fastq 16S. The positivity rate (clinically relevant pathogen) was higher for ONT vs. Sanger sequencing: 72% and 59%, respectively. Concordance between Sanger and ONT sequencing was 80%. Furthermore, ONT detected more samples with polymicrobial presence compared to Sanger (13 vs. 5) sequencing. Interestingly, in one joint fluid sample, Borrelia bissettiiae was identified by ONT but not by Sanger. The results show that the detection of both monobacterial and multiple bacterial species is improved using ONT.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé, mais le titre doit être comparé manuellement.
- Titre Crossref
- Next Generation Sequencing Improves Diagnostic 16<scp>S</scp> r<scp>RNA</scp> Amplicon‐Based Microbiota Analyses of Clinical Samples Compared to Sanger Sequencing
- Date Crossref
- 01/09/2025
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.