Back

Evaluating metagenomic sequencing as a stool-based diagnostic in children with presumptive TB in Uganda

Agudelo, C.; Nsereko, M.; Ainebyona, A.; Andama, A.; Castro, R.; Leung, S. R. M.; Nakafeero, J.; Nannyonga, G.; Nolan, K.; Teran, L.; Young, M. G.; Wambi, P.; Kato-Maeda, M.; Cattamanchi, A.; Jaganath, D.; Wobudeya, E.; Wolf, A. R.

2026-02-03 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.01.29.26345155 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundStool-based molecular tests are a noninvasive option for pediatric tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis, but have lower sensitivity compared to sputum-based tests. Untargeted metagenomic sequencing (mNGS) on stool could improve sensitivity and identify new gene targets for molecular testing. MethodsWe performed shotgun mNGS on DNA isolated from stool samples of children undergoing assessment for pulmonary TB in Uganda. We defined the performance of mNGS to identify Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) against a microbiological reference standard (MRS, TB if sputum Xpert Ultra or culture positive) and a composite reference standard (TB if confirmed or unconfirmed TB). We also compared accuracy of mNGS against the stool-based Xpert Ultra test. Finally, we identified enriched genomic loci among Mtb classified reads. ResultsWe analyzed 176 stool samples of children with a median age of 3.6 years (IQR, 1-6 years). !"#$%&()*(+,-. ()*(&*%&$$/$$*&(01(234-(5$)(60&$$/*(78(9*1$%*9(as [&ge;] 1, 2, or 5 sequence fragments were 35.5% (95% CI 19%:;;<=.(>;?@<(AB>< : 45%), and 19.4% (13%-25%) respectively, and specificities 92.64% (87%-96%), 97% (93%-99%), and 99.3% (96%-100%). Stool Xpert Ultra had similar sensitivity (22.6%) to stool mNGS considering all samples tested. In a head-to-head comparison, stool mNGS had lower sensitivity than stool Xpert Ultra (38.5% vs. 53.8%, difference -15.3%, 95% CI 14-68 to 25-81). mNGS utilized rRNA, virulence proteins and membrane proteins not targeted in current PCR-based platforms. ConclusionsMetagenomic sequencing of stool DNA did not increase sensitivity of TB detection, but identified novel targets for molecular testing that may support development of more sensitive tests.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.5%
2
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.7%
3
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.4%
4
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.4%
5
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
7
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.9%
8
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
9
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
10
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
11
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.8%
13
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
15
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
16
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 69%
1.0%
18
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
19
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.0%
20
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
21
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
22
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
23
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
25
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
27
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
28
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%