2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2021.09.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As with all new technologies, there are still significant difficulties and challenges in interpreting and reporting the data. Therefore, there is a high variability between laboratories in identifying microorganisms and true pathogens (39). This is related not only to different laboratory environments and sequencing platforms but also to the expertise and experience of interpreters.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As with all new technologies, there are still significant difficulties and challenges in interpreting and reporting the data. Therefore, there is a high variability between laboratories in identifying microorganisms and true pathogens (39). This is related not only to different laboratory environments and sequencing platforms but also to the expertise and experience of interpreters.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Host depletion methods, such as differential lysis method, can filter human DNA ( Ji et al., 2020 ), increasing pathogen DNA ratio ( Thoendel et al., 2018 ; Ji et al., 2020 ; Gu et al., 2021 ) at the expense of some viruses, parasites, and bacteria ( Ji et al., 2020 ). Besides, host depletion methods lose the cfDNA in supernatant, bring in contamination of engineered strains from reagents ( Gu et al., 2021 ), and decrease the detection rates of pathogens ( Han et al., 2021 ). The long-held conflict in location of proliferation and infection between intracellular and extracellular pathogens ( Casadevall and Fang, 2020 ) challenged whether mNGS of cfDNA can accurately detect causative pathogens.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We propose that the better performance of mNGS using cfDNA is attributed to its advantage in DNA extraction and bioinformatics analysis for trace pathogens. Although sample pretreatment for host depletion is not included in this study, wcDNA extraction involves cell wall lysis ( Wilson et al., 2019 ), increasing the risk of DNA degradation ( Thoendel et al., 2018 ; Gu et al., 2021 ) and decreasing DNA recovery rate of pathogens with low loads ( Han et al., 2021 ), rather than high loads. Mild extraction of cfDNA without cell wall lysis should have few effect on the DNA recovery, which has been confirmed by successful detection of trace pathogens from cerebrospinal fluid using mNGS of cfDNA ( Ji et al., 2020 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations