Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34347385›Full record

ArticleTransboundary and emerging diseases2022

Application of shotgun metagenomics sequencing and targeted sequence capture to detect circulating porcine viruses in the Dutch-German border region.

Leonard Schuele, Erley Lizarazo-Forero, Katrin Strutzberg-Minder, Sabine Schütze, Sandra Löbert, Claudia Lambrecht, Jürgen Harlizius, Alex W Friedrich, Silke Peter, John W A Rossen and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Leonard SchueleDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1721-5879
Erley Lizarazo-ForeroDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2749-9780
Katrin Strutzberg-MinderIVD Innovative Veterinary Diagnostics (IVD GmbH), Seelze, Germany.
Sabine SchützeAnimal Health Services, Chamber of Agriculture of North Rhine-Westphalia, Bad Sassendorf, Germany.
Sandra LöbertAnimal Health Services, Chamber of Agriculture of North Rhine-Westphalia, Bad Sassendorf, Germany.
Claudia LambrechtAnimal Health Services, Chamber of Agriculture of North Rhine-Westphalia, Bad Sassendorf, Germany.
Jürgen HarliziusAnimal Health Services, Chamber of Agriculture of North Rhine-Westphalia, Bad Sassendorf, Germany.
Alex W FriedrichDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Silke PeterInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
John W A RossenDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7167-8623
Natacha CoutoDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infection Prevention, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9152-5464
University Medical Center Groningen · NLLandwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen · DEFIND · CHInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Porcine viruses have been emerging in recent decades, threatening animal and human health, as well as economic stability for pig farmers worldwide. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can detect and characterize known and unknown viruses but has limited sensitivity when an unbiased approach, such as shotgun metagenomics sequencing, is used. To increase the sensitivity of NGS for the detection of viruses, we applied and evaluated a broad viral targeted sequence capture (TSC) panel and compared it to an unbiased shotgun metagenomic approach. A cohort of 36 pooled porcine nasal swab and blood serum samples collected from both sides of the Dutch-German border region were evaluated. Overall, we detected 46 different viral species using TSC, compared to 40 viral species with a shotgun metagenomics approach. Furthermore, we performed phylogenetic analysis on recovered influenza A virus (FLUAV) genomes from Germany and revealed a close similarity to a zoonotic influenza strain previously detected in the Netherlands. Although TSC introduced coverage bias within the detected viruses, it improved sensitivity, genome sequence depth and contig length. In-depth characterization of the swine virome, coupled with developing new enrichment techniques, can play a crucial role in the surveillance of circulating porcine viruses and emerging zoonotic pathogens.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsVirusesAnimalsGenome, ViralHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMetagenomePhylogenySwineinfluenza A virusone healthporcine viromeshotgun metagenomics sequencingsurveillancetargeted sequence capture

Identifiers

PMID34347385
PMCPMC9540031
OpenAlexW3187134131

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.