Abstract
Before implementing metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in the routine diagnostic laboratory, several challenges need to be resolved. To address strengths and limitations of mNGS in bacterial detection and quantification in samples with overwhelming host DNA abundance, we used the pig muscle tissue spiked with a home-made bacterial mock community, consisting of four species from different phyla. From the spiked tissue, we extracted DNA using: (i) a procedure based on mechanical/chemical lysis (no bacterial DNA enrichment); (ii) the Ultra-Deep Microbiome Prep (Molzym) kit for bacterial DNA enrichment; and (iii) the same enrichment kit but replacing the original proteinase K treatment for tissue solubilization by a collagenases/thermolysin digestion and cell filtration. Following mNGS, we determined bacterial: ‘host’ read ratios and taxonomic abundance profiles. We calculated the load of each mock-community member by combining its read counts with read counts and microscopically-determined cell counts of other co-spiked bacteria. In unenriched samples, bacterial quantification and taxonomic profiling were fairly accurate but at the expense of the sensitivity of detection. The removal of ‘host’ DNA by the modified enrichment protocol substantially improved bacterial detection in comparison to the other two extraction procedures and generated less distorted taxonomic profiles as compared to the original enrichment protocol.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Gaïa, Nadia 1 ; Girard, Myriam 1 ; Mauffrey, Florian 1 ; Ruppé, Etienne 2 ; Schrenzel, Jacques 3 1 University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Genomic Research Laboratory, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland (GRID:grid.8591.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2322 4988)
2 Université de Paris Cité, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord and INSERM UMR1137 IAME, Paris, France (GRID:grid.462844.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2308 1657); Laboratoire de Bactériologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, France (GRID:grid.411119.d) (ISNI:0000 0000 8588 831X)
3 University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Genomic Research Laboratory, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland (GRID:grid.8591.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2322 4988); Geneva University Hospitals, Bacteriology Laboratory, Division of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Diagnostics, Geneva, Switzerland (GRID:grid.150338.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 0721 9812)





