4.7 Article

The Use of Comparative Genomic Analysis for the Development of Subspecies-Specific PCR Assays for Mycobacterium abscessus

Journal

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.816615

Keywords

Mycobacterium abscessus; Mycobacterium bolletii; Mycobacterium massiliense; multiplex polymerase chain reaction; cystic fibrosis; genomics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Comparative genomics was used to design MABC subspecies-specific PCR assays, successfully distinguishing M. abscessus, M. bolletii, and M. massiliense subspecies. The analysis showed high sensitivity and specificity, and experimental validation confirmed the effectiveness of the PCR assays.
Mycobacterium abscessus complex (MABC) is an important pathogen of immunocompromised patients. Accurate and rapid determination of MABC at the subspecies level is vital for optimal antibiotic therapy. Here we have used comparative genomics to design MABC subspecies-specific PCR assays. Analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms and core genome multilocus sequence typing showed clustering of genomes into three distinct clusters representing the MABC subspecies M. abscessus, M. bolletii and M. massiliense. Pangenome analysis of 318 MABC genomes from the three subspecies allowed for the identification of 15 MABC subspecies-specific genes. In silico testing of primer sets against 1,663 publicly available MABC genomes and 66 other closely related Mycobacterium genomes showed that all assays had >97% sensitivity and >98% specificity. Subsequent experimental validation of two subspecies-specific genes each showed the PCR assays worked well in individual and multiplex format with no false-positivity with 5 other mycobacteria of clinical importance. In conclusion, we have developed a rapid, accurate, multiplex PCR-assay for discriminating MABC subspecies that could improve their detection, diagnosis and inform correct treatment choice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available