4.4 Article

Retrospective Validation of a Metagenomic Sequencing Protocol for Combined Detection of RNA and DNA Viruses Using Respiratory Samples from Pediatric Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 196-207

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2019.10.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. GENERADE Centre of Expertise Genomics (Leiden, the Netherlands) [2016_001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Viruses are the main cause of respiratory tract infections. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) enables unbiased detection of all potential pathogens. To apply mNGS in viral diagnostics, sensitive and simultaneous detection of RNA and DNA viruses is needed. Herein, were studied the performance of an in-house mNGS protocol for routine diagnostics of viral respiratory infections with potential for automated pan-pathogen detection. The sequencing protocol and bioinformatics analysis were designed and optimized, including exogenous internal controls. Subsequently, the protocol was retrospectively validated using 25 clinical respiratory samples. The developed protocol using Illumina NextSeq 500 sequencing showed high repeatability. Use of the National Center for Biotechnology Information's RefSeq database as opposed to the National Center for Biotechnology Information's nucleotide database led to enhanced specificity of classification of viral pathogens. A correlation was established between read counts and PCR cycle threshold value. Sensitivity of mNGS, compared with PCR, varied up to 83%, with specificity of 94%, dependent on the cutoff for defining positive mNGS results. Viral pathogens only detected by mNGS, not present in the routine diagnostic workflow, were influenza C, KI polyomavirus, cytomegalovirus, and enterovirus. Sensitivity and analytical specificity of this mNGS protocol were comparable to PCR and higher when considering off-PCR target viral pathogens. One single test detected all potential viral pathogens and simultaneously obtained detailed information on detected viruses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据