Multicenter benchmarking of short and long read wet lab protocols for clinical viral metagenomics.

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.

Comparison of the performance of two targeted metagenomic virus capture probe-based methods using reference control materials and clinical samples.

Viral enrichment by probe hybridization has been reported to significantly increase the sensitivity of viral metagenomics. This study compares the analytical performance of two targeted metagenomic virus capture probe-based methods: (i) SeqCap EZ HyperCap by Roche (ViroCap) and (ii) Twist Comprehensive Viral Research Panel workflow, for diagnostic use. Sensitivity, specificity, and limit of detection were analyzed using 25 synthetic viral sequences spiked in increasing proportions of human background DNA, eight clinical samples, and American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) Virome Virus Mix. Sensitivity and specificity were 95% and higher for both methods using the synthetic and reference controls as gold standard. Combining thresholds for viral sequence read counts and genome coverage [respectively 500 reads per million (RPM) and 10% coverage] resulted in optimal prediction of true positive results. Limits of detection were approximately 50-500 copies/mL for both methods as determined by ddPCR. Increasing proportions of spike-in cell-free human background sequences up to 99.999% (50 ng/mL) did not negatively affect viral detection, suggesting effective capture of viral sequences. These data show analytical performances in ranges applicable to clinical samples, for both probe hybridization metagenomic approaches. This study supports further steps toward more widespread use of viral metagenomics for pathogen detection, in clinical and surveillance settings using low biomass samples. IMPORTANCE: Viral metagenomics has been gradually applied for broad-spectrum pathogen detection of infectious diseases, surveillance of emerging diseases, and pathogen discovery. Viral enrichment by probe hybridization methods has been reported to significantly increase the sensitivity of viral metagenomics. During the past years, a specific hybridization panel distributed by Roche has been adopted in a broad range of different clinical and zoonotic settings. Recently, Twist Bioscience has released a new hybridization panel targeting human and animal viruses. This is the first report comparing the performance of viral metagenomic hybridization panels.

A Practical Approach to Using the Genomic Standards Consortium MIxS Reporting Standard for Comparative Genomics and Metagenomics.

Comparative analysis of (meta)genomes necessitates aggregation, integration, and synthesis of well-annotated data using standards. The Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) collaborates with the research community to develop and maintain the Minimum Information about any (x) Sequence (MIxS) reporting standard for genomic data. To facilitate the use of the GSC's MIxS reporting standard, we provide a description of the structure and terminology, how to navigate ontologies for required terms in MIxS, and demonstrate practical usage through a soil metagenome example.

Variability and bias in microbiome metagenomic sequencing: an interlaboratory study comparing experimental protocols.

Several studies have documented the significant impact of methodological choices in microbiome analyses. The myriad of methodological options available complicate the replication of results and generally limit the comparability of findings between independent studies that use differing techniques and measurement pipelines. Here we describe the Mosaic Standards Challenge (MSC), an international interlaboratory study designed to assess the impact of methodological variables on the results. The MSC did not prescribe methods but rather asked participating labs to analyze 7 shared reference samples (5 × human stool samples and 2 × mock communities) using their standard laboratory methods. To capture the array of methodological variables, each participating lab completed a metadata reporting sheet that included 100 different questions regarding the details of their protocol. The goal of this study was to survey the methodological landscape for microbiome metagenomic sequencing (MGS) analyses and the impact of methodological decisions on metagenomic sequencing results. A total of 44 labs participated in the MSC by submitting results (16S or WGS) along with accompanying metadata; thirty 16S rRNA gene amplicon datasets and 14 WGS datasets were collected. The inclusion of two types of reference materials (human stool and mock communities) enabled analysis of both MGS measurement variability between different protocols using the biologically-relevant stool samples, and MGS bias with respect to ground truth values using the DNA mixtures. Owing to the compositional nature of MGS measurements, analyses were conducted on the ratio of Firmicutes: Bacteroidetes allowing us to directly apply common statistical methods. The resulting analysis demonstrated that protocol choices have significant effects, including both bias of the MGS measurement associated with a particular methodological choices, as well as effects on measurement robustness as observed through the spread of results between labs making similar methodological choices. In the analysis of the DNA mock communities, MGS measurement bias was observed even when there was general consensus among the participating laboratories. This study was the result of a collaborative effort that included academic, commercial, and government labs. In addition to highlighting the impact of different methodological decisions on MGS result comparability, this work also provides insights for consideration in future microbiome measurement study design.