Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36533931›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2023

Validation and Application of Long-Read Whole-Genome Sequencing for Antimicrobial Resistance Gene Detection and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing.

Thomas Weinmaier, Rick Conzemius, Yehudit Bergman, Shawna Lewis, Emily B Jacobs, Pranita D Tamma, Arne Materna, Johannes Weinberger, Stephan Beisken, Patricia J Simner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Genomic epidemiology ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Infection and immunity · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Characterizing the resistome ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Thomas WeinmaierAres Genetics GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Rick ConzemiusAres Genetics GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Yehudit BergmanDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicinegrid.471401.7, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Shawna LewisDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicinegrid.471401.7, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Emily B JacobsDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicinegrid.471401.7, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Pranita D TammaDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicinegrid.471401.7, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4143-6324
Arne MaternaAres Genetics GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Johannes WeinbergerAres Genetics GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Stephan BeiskenAres Genetics GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Patricia J SimnerDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicinegrid.471401.7, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6134-151X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing applications are increasingly used for detection and characterization of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens in clinical settings. Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing offers advantages for clinical use compared with other sequencing methodologies because it enables real-time basecalling, produces long sequencing reads that increase the ability to correctly assemble DNA fragments, provides short turnaround times, and requires relatively uncomplicated sample preparation. A drawback of ONT sequencing, however, is its lower per-read accuracy than short-read sequencing. We sought to identify best practices in ONT sequencing protocols. As some variability in sequencing results may be introduced by the DNA extraction methodology, we tested three DNA extraction kits across three independent laboratories using a representative set of six bacterial isolates to investigate accuracy and reproducibility of ONT technology. All DNA extraction techniques showed comparable performance; however, the DNeasy PowerSoil Pro kit had the highest sequencing yield. This kit was subsequently applied to 42 sequentially collected bacterial isolates from blood cultures to assess Ares Genetics's pipelines for predictive whole-genome sequencing antimicrobial susceptibility testing (WGS-AST) performance compared to phenotypic triplicate broth microdilution results. WGS-AST results ranged across the organisms and resulted in an overall categorical agreement of 95% for penicillins, 82.4% for cephalosporins, 76.7% for carbapenems, 86.9% for fluoroquinolones, and 96.2% for aminoglycosides. Very major errors/major errors were 0%/16.7% (penicillins), 11.7%/3.6% (cephalosporins), 0%/24.4% (carbapenems), 2.5%/7.7% (fluoroquinolones), and 0%/4.1% (aminoglycosides), respectively. This work showed that, although additional refinements are necessary, ONT sequencing demonstrates potential as a method to perform WGS-AST on cultured isolates for patient care.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialAminoglycosidesCarbapenemsCephalosporinsFluoroquinolonesHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPenicillinsReproducibility of ResultsAminoglycosidesAnti-Bacterial AgentsCarbapenemsCephalosporinsFluoroquinolonesPenicillinsantibiotic resistanceantimicrobial resistanceantimicrobial susceptibility testingnanopore sequencingONTWGSWGS-ASTwhole-genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID36533931
PMCPMC9872642

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.