Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37333442›Full record

ArticleFEMS microbes2023

Quantitative PCR versus metagenomics for monitoring antibiotic resistance genes: balancing high sensitivity and broad coverage.

Catarina Ferreira, Saria Otani, Frank Møller Aarestrup, Célia M Manaia

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FEMS microbes, 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
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Plastics as vectors for pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes in aquatic systems.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance inInfection and drug resistance · 2025
    Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Catarina FerreiraUniversidade Católica Portuguesa, CBQF - Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina - Laboratório Associado, Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Rua de Diogo Botelho, 1327, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal.
Saria OtaniResearch Group for Genomic Epidemiology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Frank Møller AarestrupResearch Group for Genomic Epidemiology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7116-2723
Célia M ManaiaUniversidade Católica Portuguesa, CBQF - Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina - Laboratório Associado, Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, Rua de Diogo Botelho, 1327, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3674-1789
Technical University of Denmark · DKUniversidade Católica Portuguesa · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The widespread occurrence of clinically relevant antibiotic resistance within humans, animals, and environment motivates the development of sensitive and accurate detection and quantification methods. Metagenomics and quantitative PCR (qPCR) are amongst the most used approaches. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of these methods to screen antibiotic resistance genes in animal faecal, wastewater, and water samples. Water and wastewater samples were from hospital effluent, different treatment stages of two treatment plants, and of the receiving river at the discharge point. The animal samples were from pig and chicken faeces. Antibiotic resistance gene coverage, sensitivity, and usefulness of the quantitative information were analyzed and discussed. While both methods were able to distinguish the resistome profiles and detect gradient stepwise mixtures of pig and chicken faeces, qPCR presented higher sensitivity for the detection of a few antibiotic resistance genes in water/wastewater. In addition, the comparison of predicted and observed antibiotic resistance gene quantifications unveiled the higher accuracy of qPCR. Metagenomics analyses, while less sensitive, provided a markedly higher coverage of antibiotic resistance genes compared to qPCR. The complementarity of both methods and the importance of selecting the best method according to the study purpose are discussed.

Indexed as

gene quantificationlimit of detectionlimit of quantificationmetagenomics sequencingqPCRsensitivity

Identifiers

PMID37333442
PMCPMC10117749
OpenAlexW4323349661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.