Back

Combined use of metagenomic sequencing and host response profiling for the diagnosis of suspected sepsis.

Cheng, H. K.; Tan, S. K.; Sweeney, T. E.; Jeganathan, P.; Briese, T.; Khadka, V.; Strouts, F.; Thair, S.; Dalai, S.; Hitchcock, M.; Multani, A.; Aronson, J.; Andermann, T.; Yu, A.; Yang, S.; Holmes, S.; Lipkin, W. I.; Khatri, P.; Relman, D. A.

2019-11-25 microbiology
10.1101/854182 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCurrent diagnostic techniques are inadequate for rapid microbial diagnosis and optimal management of patients with suspected sepsis. We assessed the clinical impact of three powerful molecular diagnostic methods. MethodsWith blood samples from 200 consecutive patients with suspected sepsis, we evaluated 1) metagenomic shotgun sequencing together with a Bayesian inference approach for contaminant sequence removal, for detecting bacterial DNA; 2) viral capture sequencing; and 3) transcript-based host response profiling for classifying patients as infected or not, and if infected, with bacteria or viruses. We then evaluated changes in diagnostic decision-making among three expert physicians by unblinding the results of these methods in a staged fashion. ResultsMetagenomic shotgun sequencing confirmed positive blood culture results in 14 of 26 patients. In 17 of 200 patients, metagenomic sequencing and viral capture sequencing revealed organisms that were 1) not detected by conventional hospital tests within 5 days after presentation, and 2) classified as of probable clinical relevance by physician consensus. Host response profiling led at least two of three physicians to change their diagnostic decisions in 46 of 100 patients. The data suggested possible bacterial DNA translocation in 8 patients who were originally classified by physicians as noninfected and illustrate how host response profiling can guide interpretation of metagenomic shotgun sequencing results. ConclusionsThe integration of host response profiling, metagenomic shotgun sequencing, and viral capture sequencing enhances the utility of each, and may improve the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected sepsis.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
54.6%
50% of probability mass above
2
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.5%
3
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.5%
4
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.8%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 42%
3.2%
6
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.2%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
8
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
9
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
10
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
11
Journal of Hospital Infection
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.8%
13
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
14
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
15
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
16
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
17
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
18
The FASEB Journal
175 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
19
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
20
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
22
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
23
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
24
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.5%
25
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.5%