RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Assessing different next-generation sequencing technologies for wastewater-based epidemiology
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.05.22.24306666
DO 10.1101/2024.05.22.24306666
A1 John, Anika
A1 Dreifuss, David
A1 Kang, Seju
A1 Bratus-Neuenschwander, Anna
A1 Zajac, Natalia
A1 Topolsky, Ivan
A1 Dondi, Arthur
A1 Aquino, Catharine
A1 Julian, Timothy R.
A1 Beerenwinkel, Niko
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/23/2024.05.22.24306666.abstract
AB Wastewater-based epidemiology has proven to be an important public health asset during the COVID-19 pandemic. It can provide less biassed and more cost-effective population-level monitoring of the disease burden as compared to clinical testing. An essential component of SARS-CoV-2 wastewater monitoring is next-generation sequencing, providing genomic data to identify and quantify circulating viral strains rapidly. However, the specific choice of sequencing method influences the quality and timeliness of generated data and hence its usefulness for wastewater-based pathogen surveillance. Here, we systematically benchmarked Illumina Novaseq 6000, Element Aviti, ONT R9.4.1 MinION flow cell, and ONT R9.4.1 Flongle flow cell sequencing data to facilitate the selection of sequencing technology. Using a time series of wastewater samples from influent of six wastewater treatment plants throughout Switzerland, along with spike-in experiments, we show that higher sequencing error rates of ONT Nanopore sequencing reduce the accuracy of estimates of the relative abundance of viral variants, but the overall trend is in good concordance among all technologies. We find that the sequencing runtime for ONT Nanopore flow cells can be reduced to as little as five hours without significant impact on the quality of variant estimates. Our findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 variant tracking is readily achievable with all tested technologies, albeit with different tradeoffs in terms of cost, timeliness and accuracy.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementPart of this work has been funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation [grant number No. CRSII5_205933] and by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:For the clinical isolates used in this study, ethical approval was waived by the Ethics Committee Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz (EKNZ) in accordance with the Swiss Human Research Act (HRA) Art. 51 (Project-ID Req-2020-00563).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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are made available and cited in the manuscript. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000663827 https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB44932 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11085721