Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36624272›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Genotypic resistance determined by whole genome sequencing versus phenotypic resistance in 234 Escherichia coli isolates.

R Vanstokstraeten, D Piérard, F Crombé, D De Geyter, I Wybo, A Muyldermans, L Seyler, B Caljon, T Janssen, T Demuyser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. MixedInfectious disease reports · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Pilot Study ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Genome-wide investigation of outbreak-associatedFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Genomic insights into extended-spectrumJournal of medical microbiology · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Phylogenetic analysisOpen veterinary journal · 2024
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R VanstokstraetenDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium. robin.vanstokstraeten@uzbrussel.be.
D PiérardDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
F CrombéDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
D De GeyterDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
I WyboDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
A MuyldermansDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
L SeylerDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
B CaljonBrussels Interuniversity Genomics High Throughput Core (BRIGHTcore) Platform, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
T JanssenBrussels Interuniversity Genomics High Throughput Core (BRIGHTcore) Platform, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
T DemuyserDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel · BEVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) enables detailed characterization of bacteria at single nucleotide resolution. It provides data about acquired resistance genes and mutations leading to resistance. Although WGS is becoming an essential tool to predict resistance patterns accurately, comparing genotype to phenotype with WGS is still in its infancy. Additional data and validation are needed. In this retrospective study, we analysed 234 E. coli isolates from positive blood cultures using WGS as well as microdilution for 11 clinically relevant antibiotics, to compare the two techniques. We performed whole genome sequencing analyses on 234 blood culture isolates (genotype) to detect acquired antibiotic resistance. Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) for E. coli were performed for amoxicillin, cefepime, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, meropenem, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, amikacin, gentamicin, tobramycin, and ciprofloxacin, using the ISO 20776-1 standard broth microdilution method as recommended by EUCAST (phenotype). We then compared the two methods for statistical 'agreement'. A perfect (100%) categorical agreement between genotype and phenotype was observed for gentamicin and meropenem. However, no resistance to meropenem was observed. A high categorical agreement (> 95%) was observed for amoxicillin, cefepime, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, amikacin, and tobramycin. A categorical agreement lower than 95% was observed for amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, piperacillin/tazobactam, and ciprofloxacin. Most discrepancies occurred in isolates with MICs within ± 1 doubling dilution of the breakpoint and 22.73% of the major errors were samples that tested phenotypically susceptible at higher antibiotic exposure and were therefore considered as 'not resistant'. This study shows that WGS can be used as a valuable tool to predict phenotypic resistance against most of the clinically relevant antibiotics used for the treatment of E. coli bloodstream infections.

Indexed as

Escherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsAmikacinAmoxicillinAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefepimeCefotaximeCeftazidimeCiprofloxacinClavulanic AcidGenotypeGentamicinsHumansMeropenemMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPhenotypeAmikacinAmoxicillinAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefepimeCefotaximeCeftazidimeCiprofloxacinClavulanic AcidGentamicinsMeropenemPiperacillinTazobactamTobramycin

Identifiers

PMID36624272
PMCPMC9829913
OpenAlexW4313830871

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.