ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023
The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance and practicality of 16S nanopore sequencing for routine bacterial identification in clinical samples.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Full-Length 16S rRNA Amplicon Sequencing for the Simple and Simultaneous Detection of Multiple Probiotic Species in Commercial Products.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Improving the Precision of Etiological Diagnosis in Bacterial Infections Using Molecular Technologies: A Comparative Analysis of Platforms, AI Integration, and Point-of-Care Deployment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Validation of a long-read 16S rRNA-gene sequencing approach for analysis of clinical samples and bacterial identification in a routine clinical laboratory.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Significant impact of threshold adjustments on microbiome characterization following Nanopore sequencing.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Enhanced blood parasite species identification using V4-V9 18S rDNA barcoding by universal primers on a nanopore platform.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessment of Microbiome-Based Pathogen Detection Using Illumina Short-Read and Nanopore Long-Read Sequencing in 144 Patients Undergoing Bronchoalveolar Lavage in a University Hospital in Germany.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Nanopore 16S-Full Length and ITS Sequencing for Microbiota Identification in Intra-Abdominal Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Rapid and reliable species-level identification from clinical samples using 16 S rRNA gene nanopore sequencing analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Polymicrobial Biofilms: Interkingdom Interactions, Resistance and Therapeutic Strategies.Microbial biotechnology · 2025Review
- Microbiome-based surveillance of zoonotic tick-borne pathogens from urban wild boars in Barcelona, 2022-2023.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Impact of DNA extraction techniques and sequencing approaches on microbial community profiling accuracy.Frontiers in microbiomes · 2025Article
- Two Cases of Group A Streptococcus-Induced Right Empyema: Rare Occurrences in Adult Medicine.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.