Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32048983›Full record

ArticleMicrobial genomics2020

Discordant bioinformatic predictions of antimicrobial resistance from whole-genome sequencing data of bacterial isolates: an inter-laboratory study.

Ronan M Doyle, Denise M O'Sullivan, Sean D Aller, Sebastian Bruchmann, Taane Clark, Andreu Coello Pelegrin, Martin Cormican, Ernest Diez Benavente, Matthew J Ellington, Elaine McGrath and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial genomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 14 institutions in 6 countries.

Ronan M DoyleClinical Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Denise M O'SullivanMolecular and Cell Biology Team, National Measurement Laboratory, Queens Road, Teddington, Middlesex, UK.
Sean D AllerInstitute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK.
Sebastian BruchmannPathogen Genomics, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, UK.
Taane ClarkDepartment of Infection Biology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Andreu Coello PelegrinClinical Unit, bioMérieux, La Balme Les Grottes, France.
Martin CormicanNational University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Ernest Diez BenaventeDepartment of Infection Biology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Matthew J EllingtonNIS Laboratories, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Elaine McGrathCarbapenemase-Producing Enterobacterales Reference Laboratory, Department of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Yair MotroSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Thi Phuong Thuy NguyenDepartment of BiNano Technology, College of BiNano Technology, Gachon University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jody PhelanDepartment of Infection Biology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Liam P ShawNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Richard A StablerAMR Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Alex van BelkumClinical Unit, bioMérieux, La Balme Les Grottes, France.
Lucy van DorpUCL Genetics Institute, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK.
Neil WoodfordNIS Laboratories, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Jacob Moran-GiladSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Jim F HuggettSchool of Biosciences and Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Science, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Kathryn A HarrisMicrobiology Department, Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBBen-Gurion University of the Negev · ILGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust · GBNational Physical Laboratory · GBPublic Health England · GBbioMérieux (France) · FRGachon University · KRJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IESt George's, University of London · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity Hospital Galway · IEUniversity of Antwerp · BEWellcome Sanger Institute · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a threat to public health. Clinical microbiology laboratories typically rely on culturing bacteria for antimicrobial-susceptibility testing (AST). As the implementation costs and technical barriers fall, whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has emerged as a 'one-stop' test for epidemiological and predictive AST results. Few published comparisons exist for the myriad analytical pipelines used for predicting AMR. To address this, we performed an inter-laboratory study providing sets of participating researchers with identical short-read WGS data from clinical isolates, allowing us to assess the reproducibility of the bioinformatic prediction of AMR between participants, and identify problem cases and factors that lead to discordant results. We produced ten WGS datasets of varying quality from cultured carbapenem-resistant organisms obtained from clinical samples sequenced on either an Illumina NextSeq or HiSeq instrument. Nine participating teams ('participants') were provided these sequence data without any other contextual information. Each participant used their choice of pipeline to determine the species, the presence of resistance-associated genes, and to predict susceptibility or resistance to amikacin, gentamicin, ciprofloxacin and cefotaxime. We found participants predicted different numbers of AMR-associated genes and different gene variants from the same clinical samples. The quality of the sequence data, choice of bioinformatic pipeline and interpretation of the results all contributed to discordance between participants. Although much of the inaccurate gene variant annotation did not affect genotypic resistance predictions, we observed low specificity when compared to phenotypic AST results, but this improved in samples with higher read depths. Had the results been used to predict AST and guide treatment, a different antibiotic would have been recommended for each isolate by at least one participant. These challenges, at the final analytical stage of using WGS to predict AMR, suggest the need for refinements when using this technology in clinical settings. Comprehensive public resistance sequence databases, full recommendations on sequence data quality and standardization in the comparisons between genotype and resistance phenotypes will all play a fundamental role in the successful implementation of AST prediction using WGS in clinical microbiology laboratories.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialGenome, BacterialAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaCarbapenemsCiprofloxacinComputational BiologyHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarbapenemsCiprofloxacinantimicrobial resistanceantimicrobial-susceptibility testingbioinformaticscarbapenem resistancewhole-genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID32048983
PMCPMC7067211
OpenAlexW3005670610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.