ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
An exploratory study on the application of nanopore sequencing for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug resistance in respiratory specimens.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of nanopore sequencing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) drug resistance in respiratory specimens from pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) patients. It compared it to the Xpert MTB/RIF and fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) melting curve to explore the validity and feasibility of detecting MTB drug resistance in respiratory specimens.
methodsThis study retrospectively analyzed 52 respiratory specimens. The proportional method applied the phenotypic drug susceptibility test (pDST) to respiratory specimens. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), consistency statistic (kappa) with phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (pDST), and the area under the curve (AUC) from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated for nanopore sequencing, Xpert MTB/RIF, and fluorescent PCR melting curve. These calculations used the pDST results as the reference standard.
resultsAmong the resistance mutation genes detected by nanopore sequencing, rpoB, and katG were the most frequent, followed by embB, rpsL, gyrA, inhA, ahpC, gyrB, gid, and rrs. In bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) specimens, nanopore sequencing showed high sensitivity (100.00%,90.32%,82.35%,82.35%,100.00%,76.92%), specificity (70.00%,81.82%,88.00%,96.00%93.75%,93.10%0.100.00%), and AUC values (0.85,0.86,0.85, 0.89,0.97,0.85) for rifampicin (RIF), isoniazid (INH), ethambutol (EMB), streptomycin (SM), levofloxacin (LFX), moxifloxacin (MFX). Nanopore sequencing exhibited good detection efficacy (kappa value ≥ 0.70) and perfect diagnostic resistance value (AUC value ≥ 0.85). For RIF, nanopore sequencing showed Kappa values of 0.01 and 0.38 and AUC values of 0.02 and 0.18 higher than the Xpert MTB/RIF and fluorescent PCR melting curve, respectively; for INH, nanopore sequencing had a higher Kappa value of 0.65 and a higher AUC value of 0.32 than the fluorescent PCR melting curve. Nanopore sequencing provided superior overall performance.
conclusionNanopore sequencing has significant technical advantages and clinical application potential in detecting MTB drug resistance. Its rapid and highly accurate detection capabilities support early diagnosis and personalized treatment of drug-resistant MTB. As the technology continues to mature and the cost is further reduced, it is expected that nanopore sequencing technology will play a more important role in MTB resistance detection.
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.