Evaluation of 16S-Based Metagenomic NGS as Diagnostic Tool in Different Types of Culture-Negative Infections
-
Published:2024-08-30
Issue:9
Volume:13
Page:743
-
ISSN:2076-0817
-
Container-title:Pathogens
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Pathogens
Author:
Rimoldi Sara Giordana1, Tamoni Alessandro1, Rizzo Alberto1ORCID, Longobardi Concetta1, Pagani Cristina1, Salari Federica1, Matinato Caterina2, Vismara Chiara3ORCID, Gagliardi Gloria1ORCID, Cutrera Miriam1, Gismondo Maria Rita1
Affiliation:
1. Laboratory of Clinical Microbiology, Virology and Bioemergencies, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Luigi Sacco Hospital, 20157 Milan, Italy 2. Microbiology and Virology Laboratory, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy 3. Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, 20162 Milan, Italy
Abstract
Bacterial infections pose significant global health challenges, often underestimated due to difficulties in accurate diagnosis, especially when culture-based diagnostics fail. This study assesses the effectiveness of 16S-based metagenomic next generation sequencing (NGS) for identifying pathogens in culture-negative clinical samples across various medical settings. Overall, 48% of samples were collected from orthopedics, 15% from neurosurgery, and 12% in cardiac surgery, among others. The detection rate of monomicrobial infections was 68.6%, and 5.7% for polymicrobial infections. In addition, NGS detected bacteria in all samples from the lungs, head and neck, and eye specimens. Cutibacterium acnes (11%, 12/105) was the most frequent microorganism, followed by Staphylococcus epidermidis (10.4%, 11/105), and Staphylococcus aureus (9.5%, 10/105). In conclusion, 16S-targeted metagenomic sequencing enhances pathogen detection capabilities, particularly in instances where traditional cultures fail. By the combination of NGS and bacterial cultures, microbiologists might provide a more accurate diagnosis, guiding more effective treatments and potentially reducing healthcare costs associated with empirical treatments.
Reference28 articles.
1. GBD 2019 Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators (2022). Global mortality associated with 33 bacterial pathogens in 2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 400, 2221–2248. 2. Yu, J., Zhang, L., Gao, D., Wang, J., Li, Y., and Sun, N. (2024). Comparison of metagenomic next-generation sequencing and blood culture for diagnosis of bloodstream infections. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol., 14. 3. Deshmukh, D., Joseph, J., Chakrabarti, M., Sharma, S., Jayasudha, R., Sama, K.C., Sontam, B., Tyagi, M., Narayanan, R., and Shivaji, S. (2019). New insights into culture negative endophthalmitis by unbiased next generation sequencing. Sci. Rep., 9. 4. Cultures in periprosthetic joint infections, the imperfect gold standard?;EFORT Open Rev.,2023 5. Culture-independent Next Generation Sequencing of Urine and Expressed Prostatic Secretions in Men with Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome;Werneburg;Urology,2021
|
|