ArticleScientific reports2025
Rapid and reliable species-level identification from clinical samples using 16 S rRNA gene nanopore sequencing analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Forensic Microbiomics and Trace Microbial Evidence: Molecular Innovations for Linking Suspects, Objects, and Environments.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Performance and practicality of 16S nanopore sequencing for routine bacterial identification in clinical samples.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- A comprehensive review on bacterial endophytic secondary metabolites: a road map from crude extract to lead molecule production.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- A framework of Microbial Genomic Database for clinical metagenomic pathogen diagnosis: development and multi-cohort evaluation.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Application and Limitations of 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing for Identifying WHO Priority Pathogenic Gram-Negative Bacilli.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Review
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
The detection and identification of bacterial species in clinical samples are crucial for patient management and antibiotic treatment. When culture-based identification methods fail, 16 S rRNA gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) serves as a valuable alternative. However, its clinical utility is often limited by prolonged time to results (TtR) and limited species-level resolution. This study aimed to develop and validate a faster, more discriminative 16 S rRNA gene NGS workflow. Our current 16 S rRNA gene NGS protocol uses micelle-based PCR (micPCR) targeting the V4 region, followed by Illumina sequencing. This method ensures accurate quantification of 16 S rRNA gene copies in (low biomass) clinical samples by reducing PCR artefacts and correcting for background DNA contamination. To shorten the TtR and improve species-level determination, the micPCR protocol was adapted to amplify full-length 16s rRNA genes, followed by nanopore sequencing using the Flongle Flow Cell with automated data analysis using the Genome Detective platform. Testing with a synthetic microbial community and six clinical samples showed that the 16 S rRNA gene micPCR/nanopore sequencing protocol maintains good accuracy and sensitivity, reducing TtR to 24 h and enhancing species-level resolution. This optimized workflow improves clinical diagnostics, making it a valuable tool for guiding patient treatment decisions.
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.