ABSTRACT
Background Direct metagenomic sequencing from positive blood culture (BC) broths, to identify bacteria and predict antimicrobial susceptibility, has been previously demonstrated using Illumina-based methods, but is relatively slow. We aimed to evaluate this approach using nanopore sequencing to provide more rapid results.
Methods Patients with suspected sepsis in 4 intensive care units were prospectively enrolled. Human-depleted DNA was extracted from positive BC broths and sequenced using nanopore (MinION). Species abundance was estimated using Kraken2, and a cloud-based artificial intelligence (AI) system (AREScloud) provided in silico antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) from assembled contigs. These results were compared to conventional identification and phenotypic AST.
Results Genus-level agreement between conventional methods and metagenomic whole genome sequencing (MG-WGS) was 96.2% (50/52), but increased to 100% in monomicrobial infections. In total, 262 high quality AREScloud AST predictions across 24 samples were made, exhibiting categorical agreement (CA) of 89.3%, with major error (MA) and very major error (VME) rates of 10.5% and 12.1%, respectively. Over 90% CA was achieved for some taxa (e.g. Staphylococcus aureus), but was suboptimal for Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CA 50%). In 470 AST predictions across 42 samples, with both high quality and exploratory-only predictions, overall CA, ME and VME rates were 87.7%, 8.3% and 28.4%. VME rates were inflated by false susceptibility calls in a small number of species / antibiotic combinations with few representative resistant isolates. Time to reporting from MG-WGS could be achieved within 8-16 hours from blood culture positivity.
Conclusions Direct metagenomic sequencing from positive BC broths is feasible and can provide accurate predictive AST for some species and antibiotics, but is sub-optimal for a subset of common pathogens, with unacceptably high VME rates. Nanopore-based approaches may be faster but improvements in accuracy are required before it can be considered for clinical use. New developments in nanopore sequencing technology, and training of AI algorithms on larger and more diverse datasets may improve performance.
Competing Interest Statement
Lukas Lueftinger (LL) and Stephan Beisken (SB) are employees of Ares Genetics. Patrick Harris (PNAH) reports research grants from Gilead, and has served on advisory boards for OpGen, Merck and Sandoz, has received honoraria from OpGen, Sandoz, Pfizer and BioMerieux. David Paterson (DLP) reports grants from Shionogi, Pfizer, Merck and bioMerieux, and consultancies with the AMR Action Fund, Entasis, QPex, Spero, VenatoRx, Pfizer, Merck, Gilead, bioMerieux and Accelerate Diagnostics. Adam Irwin (ADL) has received research grants and honoraria from Gilead, and honoraria from bioMerieux unrelated to this work. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest. Jason Roberts (JR) reported grants from Qpex, Gilead, Pfizer, Sandoz, MSD, Summit Pharma and Cipla.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by a grant from the Queensland Genomics Health Alliance (QGHA; now Queensland Genomics) clinical implementation, innovation and incubation program and by a Brisbane Diamantina Health Partners Health System Improvement Ideas Grant (MRFF Rapid Applied Research Translation Program). PNAH was supported by an Early Career Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1157530). J. A. Roberts would like to acknowledge funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council for a Centre of Research Excellence (APP2007007) and an Investigator Grant (APP2009736) as well as an Advancing Queensland Clinical Fellowship
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval was granted by the Childrens Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) HREC-19-QCHQ-55177 with governance approvals for all participating sites. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants (or their parent or legal guardian). Approval was granted by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal CRL024-19 to include patients unable to consent for themselves under the Guardianship and Administration Act 2000.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
.
