Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39885402›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2025

Comparison of Illumina and Oxford Nanopore sequencing data quality for Clostridioides difficile genome analysis and their application for epidemiological surveillance.

Semeh Bejaoui, Sofie Holtsmark Nielsen, Astrid Rasmussen, John Eugenio Coia, Dorte Terp Andersen, Tobias Bruun Pedersen, Martin Vad Møller, Marc Trunjer Kusk Nielsen, Dorte Frees, Søren Persson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Nanopore Sequencing for Chikungunya Virus: Principles and Application.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Macrotranscriptomics analysis for decoding the role ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Semeh BejaouiDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Science, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Sofie Holtsmark NielsenDepartment of Bacteria, Parasites and Fungi, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Astrid RasmussenDepartment of Bacteria, Parasites and Fungi, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
John Eugenio CoiaDepartment of Regional Health Research (Esbjerg), University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Dorte Terp AndersenDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Esbjerg and Grindsted Hospital, University Hospital of Southern, Odense, Denmark.
Tobias Bruun PedersenDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Esbjerg and Grindsted Hospital, University Hospital of Southern, Odense, Denmark.
Martin Vad MøllerDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Esbjerg and Grindsted Hospital, University Hospital of Southern, Odense, Denmark.
Marc Trunjer Kusk NielsenDepartment of Clinical Diagnostics, Esbjerg and Grindsted Hospital, University Hospital of Southern, Odense, Denmark.
Dorte FreesDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Science, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Søren PerssonDepartment of Bacteria, Parasites and Fungi, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark. spn@ssi.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe burden of Clostridioides difficile as a nosocomial- and community-acquired pathogen has been increasing over the recent decades, including reports of severe outbreaks. Molecular and virulence genotyping are central for the epidemiological surveillance of this pathogen, but need to balance accuracy and rapid turnaround time of the results. While Illumina short-read sequencing has been adopted as the gold standard to investigate C. difficile virulence and transmission routes, little is known about the potential of Nanopore long-read sequencing in this field. The goal of our study was to compare sequencing and assembly quality of 37 C. difficile isolates using Illumina (SPAdes assembled) and Nanopore (Flye and Unicycler assembled) data alone, along with hybrid assemblies obtained with short-read polishing of long reads.

resultsIllumina sequencing produced reads with an average quality of 99.68% (Q25), while Nanopore sequencing produced reads reaching an average quality of 96.84% (Q15), showing a tenfold difference in quality. Sequence type (ST) designation from Nanopore assemblies failed to detect ST5, ST7, ST8, ST13 and ST49, while ST designation based on unpolished Nanopore reads using Krocus was successful for all STs. Nanopore sequences exhibited an average of 640 base errors per genome (~ 0.015% substitution rate), which was reflected by the incorrect assignment of over 180 alleles in core genome multilocus sequence typing (cgMLST) analysis. As a result, Nanopore-derived phylogenies were not as accurate as the Illumina reference, and therefore inadequate for precise investigation of transmission events. Both sequencing platforms provided comparable, satisfactory results for the detection of virulence genes tcdA, tcdB, cdtAB and in-frame deletions in tcdC.

conclusionCompared to Illumina, Nanopore has higher error rate, which limits its application for high-resolution epidemiological surveillance. However, the short analysis time, lower cost and more simple procedure combined with correctly identified STs and virulence genes, makes it an alternative when fast and less detailed analyses are preferred.

Indexed as

Clostridioides difficileGenome, BacterialHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingNanopore SequencingClostridium InfectionsData AccuracyEpidemiological MonitoringHumansNanoporesClostridioides difficileEpidemiological surveillanceGenotypingIlluminaOxford NanoporeWhole genome sequencing (WGS)

Identifiers

PMID39885402
PMCPMC11783910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.