ArticleHeliyon2024
The effects of sequencing strategies on Metagenomic pathogen detection using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimisation and validation of capture mNGS for predicting antimicrobial resistance.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- GWAS Reveals Key Candidate Genes Associated with Milk-Production in Saanen Goats.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of proteinase K and dithiothreitol as pretreatments for extracting nucleic acids from respiratory samples for multiplex PCR.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- RpNGS: an automated platform for pathogen identification and monitoring in clinical metagenomics data.PeerJ · 2025Article
- Exploring the utility of bioaerosol metagenomics compared to PCRs for swine pathogen surveillance.Frontiers in microbiomes · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is a powerful tool for pathogen detection. The accuracy depends on both wet lab and dry lab procedures. The objective of our study was to assess the influence of read length and dataset size on pathogen detection. Methods: In this study, 43 clinical BALF samples, which tested positive via clinical mNGS and were consistent with the diagnosis, were subjected to re-sequencing on the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform. The raw re-sequencing data, consisting of 100 million (M) paired-end 150 bp (PE150) reads, were divided into simulated datasets with eight different data sizes (5 M, 10 M, 15 M, 20 M, 30 M, 50 M, 75 M, 100 M) and five different read lengths (single-end 50 bp (SE50), SE75, SE100, PE100, and PE150). Both Kraken2 and IDseq bioinformatics pipelines were employed to analyze the previously diagnosed pathogens in the simulated data. Detection of pathogens was based on read counts ranging from 1 to 10 and RPM values ranging from 0.2 to 2. Results: Our results revealed that increasing dataset sizes and read lengths can enhance the performance of mNGS in pathogen detection. However, a larger data sizes for mNGS require higher economic costs and longer turnaround time for data analysis. Our findings indicate 20 M reads being sufficient for SE75 mode to achieve high recall rates. Additionally, high nucleic acid loads in samples can lead to increased stability in pathogen detection efficiency, reducing the impact of sequencing strategies. The choice of bioinformatics pipelines had a significant impact on recall rates achieved in pathogen detection. Conclusions: Increasing dataset sizes and read lengths can enhance the performance of mNGS in pathogen detection but increase the economic and time costs of sequencing and data analysis. Currently, the 20 M reads in SE75 mode may be the best sequencing option.
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.