Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38264489›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023

The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.

Hiu-Yin Lao, Lily Lok-Yee Wong, Yan Hui, Timothy Ting-Leung Ng, Chloe Toi-Mei Chan, Hazel Wing-Hei Lo, Miranda Chong-Yee Yau, Eddie Chi-Man Leung, River Chun-Wai Wong, Alex Yat-Man Ho and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Nationwide multicentre study of Nanopore long-read sequencing for 16S rRNA-species identification.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

17 authors.

Hiu-Yin LaoDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Lily Lok-Yee WongDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yan HuiDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Timothy Ting-Leung NgDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Chloe Toi-Mei ChanDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Hazel Wing-Hei LoDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Miranda Chong-Yee YauDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Chai Wan, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Eddie Chi-Man LeungDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Chai Wan, Hong Kong SAR, China.
River Chun-Wai WongDepartment of Microbiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Alex Yat-Man HoDepartment of Pathology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Kam-Tong YipDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Tuen Mun Hospital, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Jimmy Yiu-Wing LamDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Chai Wan, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Viola Chi-Ying ChowDepartment of Microbiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Kristine Shik LukDepartment of Pathology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Tak-Lun QueDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Tuen Mun Hospital, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Franklin Wang Ngai ChowDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Gilman Kit-Hang SiuDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.

Indexed as

16S rRNA gene sequencingbody fluidsdirect bacterial identificationNanopore sequencingrapid diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID38264489
PMCPMC10803466

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.