Benchmarking taxonomic classifiers with Illumina and Nanopore sequence data for clinical metagenomic diagnostic applications.

Culture-independent metagenomic detection of microbial species has the potential to provide rapid and precise real-time diagnostic results. However, it is potentially limited by sequencing and taxonomic classification errors. We use simulated and real-world data to benchmark rates of species misclassification using 100 reference genomes for each of the ten common bloodstream pathogens and six frequent blood-culture contaminants (n=1568, only 68 genomes were available for Micrococcus luteus). Simulating both with and without sequencing error for both the Illumina and Oxford Nanopore platforms, we evaluated commonly used classification tools including Kraken2, Bracken and Centrifuge, utilizing mini (8 GB) and standard (30-50 GB) databases. Bracken with the standard database performed best, the median percentage of reads across both sequencing platforms identified correctly to the species level was 97.8% (IQR 92.7:99.0) [range 5:100]. For Kraken2 with a mini database, a commonly used combination, median species-level identification was 86.4% (IQR 50.5:93.7) [range 4.3:100]. Classification performance varied by species, with Escherichia coli being more challenging to classify correctly (probability of reads being assigned to the correct species: 56.1-96.0%, varying by tool used). Human read misclassification was negligible. By filtering out shorter Nanopore reads we found performance similar or superior to Illumina sequencing, despite higher sequencing error rates. Misclassification was more common when the misclassified species had a higher average nucleotide identity to the true species. Our findings highlight taxonomic misclassification of sequencing data occurs and varies by sequencing and analysis workflow. To account for 'bioinformatic contamination' we present a contamination catalogue that can be used in metagenomic pipelines to ensure accurate results that can support clinical decision making.

Metagenomic Sequencing as a Pathogen-Agnostic Clinical Diagnostic Tool for Infectious Diseases: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies.

Metagenomic sequencing is frequently claimed to have the potential to revolutionize microbiology through rapid species identification and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) prediction. We assess the progress toward these developments. We perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published literature on culture-independent metagenomic sequencing for pathogen-agnostic infectious disease diagnostics up to 12 August 2020. Methodologic bias and applicability were assessed using the tool Quadas-2. (Prospero CRD42020163777). A total of 2,023 clinical samples from 13/21 eligible diagnostic test accuracy studies were included in the meta-analysis. Reference standards were culture, molecular testing, clinical decision, or a composite measure. Sensitivity and specificity in the most widely investigated sample types were 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78% to 96%) and 86% (45% to 98%) for blood, 75% (54% to 89%) and 96% (72% to 100%) for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and 84% (79% to 88%) and 67% (38% to 87%) for orthopedic samples, respectively. We identified a limited use of controls, especially negative controls which were used in only 62% (13/21) of studies. AMR prediction and comparison to phenotypic results were undertaken in four studies; categorical agreement was 88%(80% to 97%), and very major and major error rates were 24% (8% to 40%) and 5% (0% to 12%), respectively. Better human DNA depletion methods are required; a median 91% (interquartile range [IQR], 82% to 98%; range, 76% to 98%) of sequences was classified as human. The median (IQR; range) time from sample to result was 29 hours (24 to 94; 4 to 144 hours). The reported consumable cost per sample ranged from $130 to $685. There is scope for improving the quality of reporting in clinical metagenomic studies. Although our results are limited by the heterogeneity displayed, our results reflect a promising outlook for clinical metagenomics. Methodological improvements and convergence around protocols and best practices may improve performance in the future.

Precision Pandemic Preparedness: Improving Diagnostics with Metagenomics.

The threat posed by novel pandemics in the future remains active. Equipping our routine laboratory with clinical metagenomics to detect unknown threats early on offers a considerable advantage and may be feasible and scalable with the ability to identify complicated infectious diseases in routine care. Though several technical and regulatory challenges still exist, clinical metagenomics may improve individual patient outcomes and provide earlier warning signs to improve pandemic preparedness.