ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2026
Validation of a long-read 16S rRNA-gene sequencing approach for analysis of clinical samples and bacterial identification in a routine clinical laboratory.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, microbiological diagnosis relies heavily on classical culture-based techniques, which have notable limitations. These methods often struggle with detecting non-culturable or slow-growing microorganisms and can yield negative results in patients who have already received antimicrobial treatment before sample collection. 16S rRNA gene sequencing offers an alternative to culture-based methods, enabling bacterial identification without the need for cultivation. This study presents the validation and clinical implementation of a 16S rRNA-gene Nanopore-based sequencing workflow in a routine hospital. Methods: Estimated limit of detection and linearity were investigated using spiking experiments with a dilution series of ATCC strains and commercial quality control material. Accuracy and including taxonomic resolution was evaluated for 37 strains obtained from external quality control programs and 30 clinical from a clinical collection. Utility was investigated by comparing 16S rRNA gene Nanopore-based sequencing with culture results and other clinical findings for 54 prospectively collected clinical samples. Results: An estimated limit of detection of 260 and 747 CFU/ml was found for respectively Discussion: This study demonstrates that the implementation of 16S rRNA gene sequencing is feasible in a routine clinical laboratory setting and provides additional utility for the identification of bacterial isolates and direct detection on clinical samples, increasing recovery of non-culturable isolates.
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.