ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Contributions of Long-Read Sequencing for the Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance.
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- First case of canine paraprostatic infection caused by a high-risk ST147 Klebsiella pneumoniae harboring multiple extended-spectrum-β-lactamase genes.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Illumina and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing platforms for whole genome sequencing of bacterial genomes and use in clinical microbiology.BMC medical genomics · 2026Article
- The resistome bridge between livestock and workers: novel frameworks for early detection and monitoring of antimicrobial resistance.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- The transformative impact of ultra-rapid nanopore sequencing in precision medicine.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Review
- Smart Phages: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Tackle Prosthetic Joint Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Recent advances in diagnostic technologies for postoperative central nervous system infections: a review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Review
- Evaluation of four DNA extraction kits for implementation of nanopore sequencing in routine surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in low-resource settings.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundIn the context of increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR), whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of bacteria is considered a highly accurate and comprehensive surveillance method for detecting and tracking the spread of resistant pathogens. Two primary sequencing technologies exist: short-read sequencing (50-300 base pairs) and long-read sequencing (thousands of base pairs). The former, based on Illumina sequencing platforms (ISPs), provides extensive coverage and high accuracy for detecting single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and small insertions/deletions, but is limited by its read length. The latter, based on platforms such as Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT), enables the assembly of genomes, particularly those with repetitive regions and structural variants, although its accuracy has historically been lower.
resultsWe performed a head-to-head comparison of these techniques to sequence the
conclusionsIn this proof-of-concept study, we conclude that recent long-read sequencing technology may outperform standard short-read sequencing for the accurate identification of carbapenemase alleles. Such information is crucial given the rising prevalence of strains producing multiple carbapenemases, especially as WGS is increasingly used for epidemiological surveillance and infection control.
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.