Multicenter benchmarking of short and long read wet lab protocols for clinical viral metagenomics
Language English Country Netherlands Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
38823290
DOI
10.1016/j.jcv.2024.105695
PII: S1386-6532(24)00057-X
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Benchmark, Clinical viral metagenomics, Wet lab protocols,
- MeSH
- Benchmarking * MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Metagenomics * methods standards MeSH
- Sensitivity and Specificity * MeSH
- Virus Diseases diagnosis virology MeSH
- Viruses * genetics classification isolation & purification MeSH
- Computational Biology methods MeSH
- High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing methods standards MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
Metagenomics is gradually being implemented for diagnosing infectious diseases. However, in-depth protocol comparisons for viral detection have been limited to individual sets of experimental workflows and laboratories. In this study, we present a benchmark of metagenomics protocols used in clinical diagnostic laboratories initiated by the European Society for Clinical Virology (ESCV) Network on NGS (ENNGS). A mock viral reference panel was designed to mimic low biomass clinical specimens. The panel was used to assess the performance of twelve metagenomic wet lab protocols currently in use in the diagnostic laboratories of participating ENNGS member institutions. Both Illumina and Nanopore, shotgun and targeted capture probe protocols were included. Performance metrics sensitivity, specificity, and quantitative potential were assessed using a central bioinformatics pipeline. Overall, viral pathogens with loads down to 104 copies/ml (corresponding to CT values of 31 in our PCR assays) were detected by all the evaluated metagenomic wet lab protocols. In contrast, lower abundant mixed viruses of CT values of 35 and higher were detected only by a minority of the protocols. Considering the reference panel as the gold standard, optimal thresholds to define a positive result were determined per protocol, based on the horizontal genome coverage. Implementing these thresholds, sensitivity and specificity of the protocols ranged from 67 to 100 % and 87 to 100 %, respectively. A variety of metagenomic protocols are currently in use in clinical diagnostic laboratories. Detection of low abundant viral pathogens and mixed infections remains a challenge, implying the need for standardization of metagenomic analysis for use in clinical settings.
Hospital Henri Mondor Paris France
Institute for Infectious Diseases University of Bern Switzerland
Institute of Medical Virology University of Zurich Switzerland
Leibniz Institute for Virology Hamburg Germany
Virology Department AP HP Hôpital Saint Louis F 75010 Paris France
Viroscience Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam the Netherlands
References provided by Crossref.org