ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2026
Interpreting antimicrobial resistance from bacterial whole-genome sequencing: prediction tools, database fragmentation, analytical trade-offs, and harmonized reporting.
Review 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has become a critical component of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance because it can characterize bacterial lineages, resistance determinants, and, when sequence resolution is sufficient, the mobile genetic elements that mediate dissemination. However, the practical value of WGS-based AMR inference remains constrained by fragmentation across AMR databases, inconsistent nomenclature, variable curation practices, and differences in analytical thresholds and reporting rules. Consequently, the same isolate may yield discordant resistome outputs across tools, limiting reproducibility, cross-study comparability, and surveillance integration. This review focuses on the interpretation of bacterial WGS data for AMR detection, with emphasis on AMR prediction tools, reference databases, read-mapping and assembly-based workflows, genotype-phenotype discordance, validation strategies, and harmonized reporting. General bioinformatics steps, including quality control, assembly, and polishing, are discussed only where they directly affect AMR inference, such as small-variant detection, plasmid reconstruction, and mobile genetic element context. The review further evaluates major AMR resources with respect to scope, curation depth, evidence models, updating practices, and interoperability across clinical and One Health applications. Rather than advocating a single universal database, we argue that the field would benefit more from federated harmonization based on shared ontologies, transparent provenance, versioned crosswalks, and benchmarked reporting standards. Within this context, AMR-GenoLink is introduced as a proposed reference framework for interoperable ingestion, standardized reporting, and provenance-aware integration of WGS-derived AMR evidence across human, animal, and environmental domains. The framework separates genomic feature detection from resistance interpretation, phenotype-linked validation, and evidence-proportionate reporting. Overall, this review argues that reliable WGS-based AMR interpretation is increasingly constrained not only by limitations in resistance-gene detection but also by insufficient harmonization across databases, analytical workflows, validation standards, and reporting frameworks.
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.