Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36314799›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2022

Optimized Method for Bacterial Nucleic Acid Extraction from Positive Blood Culture Broth for Whole-Genome Sequencing, Resistance Phenotype Prediction, and Downstream Molecular Applications.

Michelle J Bauer, Anna Maria Peri, Lukas Lüftinger, Stephan Beisken, Haakon Bergh, Brian M Forde, Cameron Buckley, Thom Cuddihy, Patrice Tan, David L Paterson and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle J BauerUniversity of Queenslandgrid.1003.2, Faculty of Medicine, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Campus, Brisbane, Australia.
Anna Maria PeriUniversity of Queenslandgrid.1003.2, Faculty of Medicine, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Campus, Brisbane, Australia.
Lukas LüftingerAres Genetics GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Stephan BeiskenAres Genetics GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Haakon BerghCentral Microbiology, Pathology Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Brian M FordeUniversity of Queenslandgrid.1003.2, Faculty of Medicine, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Campus, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2264-4785
Cameron BuckleyUniversity of Queenslandgrid.1003.2, Faculty of Medicine, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Campus, Brisbane, Australia.
Thom CuddihyUniversity of Queenslandgrid.1003.2, Faculty of Medicine, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Campus, Brisbane, Australia.
Patrice TanUniversity of Queenslandgrid.1003.2, Faculty of Medicine, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Campus, Brisbane, Australia.
David L PatersonUniversity of Queenslandgrid.1003.2, Faculty of Medicine, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Campus, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2079-4437
David M WhileyUniversity of Queenslandgrid.1003.2, Faculty of Medicine, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Campus, Brisbane, Australia.
Patrick N A HarrisUniversity of Queenslandgrid.1003.2, Faculty of Medicine, UQ Centre for Clinical Research, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Campus, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2895-0345
The University of Queensland · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AU

Funding

Pathology Queensland, Study Education and Research Committee SERC 5891_HarrisPRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Foundation (RBWH Foundation)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The application of direct metagenomic sequencing from positive blood culture broth may solve the challenges of sequencing from low-bacterial-load blood samples in patients with sepsis. Forty prospectively collected blood culture broth samples growing Gram-negative bacteria were extracted using commercially available kits to achieve high-quality DNA. Species identification via metagenomic sequencing and susceptibility prediction via a machine-learning algorithm (AREScloud) were compared to conventional methods and other rapid diagnostic platforms (Accelerate Pheno and blood culture identification [BCID] panel). A two-kit method (using MolYsis Basic and Qiagen DNeasy UltraClean kits) resulted in optimal extractions. Taxonomic profiling by direct metagenomic sequencing matched conventional identification in 38/40 (95%) samples. In two polymicrobial samples, a second organism was missed by sequencing. Prediction models were able to accurately infer susceptibility profiles for 6 common pathogens against 17 antibiotics, with an overall categorical agreement (CA) of 95% (increasing to >95% for 5/6 of the most common pathogens, if Klebsiella oxytoca was excluded). The performance of whole-genome sequencing (WGS)-antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) was suboptimal for uncommon pathogens (e.g.,

Indexed as

Blood CultureNucleic AcidsAnti-Bacterial AgentsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhenotypeAnti-Bacterial AgentsNucleic Acidsblood culture brothDNA extractionhost DNA depletionIlluminaNanoporereal-time PCR

Identifiers

PMID36314799
PMCPMC9667764
OpenAlexW4307775072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.