Cited by 1,620Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenomics and Rare Diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 144 of the 144 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 97 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Clinical metagenomics

Open access
Chiu, Charles Y., Miller, Steven A.·2019·Nature Reviews Genetics

Abstract

Clinical metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), the comprehensive analysis of microbial and host genetic material (DNA and RNA) in samples from patients, is rapidly moving from research to clinical laboratories. This emerging approach is changing how physicians diagnose and treat infectious disease, with applications spanning a wide range of areas, including antimicrobial resistance, the microbiome, human host gene expression (transcriptomics) and oncology. Here, we focus on the challenges of implementing mNGS in the clinical laboratory and address potential solutions for maximizing its impact on patient care and public health. Clinical metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is rapidly moving from bench to bedside. This Review discusses the clinical applications of mNGS, including infectious disease diagnostics, microbiome analyses, host response analyses and oncology applications. Moreover, the authors review the challenges that need to be overcome for mNGS to be successfully implemented in the clinical laboratory and propose solutions to maximize the benefits of clinical mNGS for patients.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41576-019-0113-7

Cites

144 of 144 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

63 Not checked yet · 43 Own interpretation · 26 No basis given · 2 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 94 references — free account

Show all 46 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 60
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 41
88 of 88
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    For clinical metagenomic tests, there are no universal reference materials or established ways to show validation, reproducibility, and quality assurance.

    “Additionally, universal reference standards and proven approaches to demonstrate test validation, reproducibility and quality assurance for clinical metagenomic assays are lacking.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Whether a microorganism found in a sample is a contaminant, colonizer, or genuine pathogen is frequently uncertain.

    “it is often unclear whether a detected microorganism is a contaminant, colonizer or bona fide pathogen.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No microbiome-based test has been clinically validated for diagnosing or treating disease.

    “However, no microbiome-based tests have been clinically validated for the diagnosis or treatment of disease, in part owing to an incomplete understanding of the complexity of the microbiome and its role in disease pathogenesis.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No RNA-seq-based assay has been clinically validated for patient use.

    “Although no RNA-seq-based assay has been clinically validated to date for use in patients”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most mNGS applications have not yet entered routine clinical practice.

    “Aside from infectious disease diagnostics, adoption of mNGS in clinical laboratories has been slow, and most applications have yet to be incorporated into routine clinical practice.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    As of the paper's writing, no clinical test based on next-generation sequencing for pathogens had been validated using nanopore sequencing.

    “Currently, no NGS-based clinical test for pathogens has been validated on a nanopore sequencing platform.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Adoption of nanopore devices in clinical settings has been constrained by the fast rate of platform changes, which complicates validation that needs standardized instruments and fixed protocols, and by continuing problems with sequencing quality and output.

    “The clinical adoption of these devices has been limited by the rapid pace of improvements to the platform, which can hinder clinical validation efforts requiring standardized instruments and locked-down protocols, and by ongoing issues regarding sequencing quality and yield.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The MinION nanopore sequencer can produce as many as ten million mNGS reads in a single run as of 2019.

    “up to 10 million mNGS reads per run on the MinION nanopore sequencer as of 2019”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The selective sequencing approach requires that reads be matched computationally to reference sequences in real time.

    “the need to computationally match reads to reference sequences in real time”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 142 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chiu, C. Y., & Miller, S. A.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Chiu, Charles Y.
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Published
2019-03-27
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
341-355
ISSN
  • 1471-0056 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0064
OpenAlex
W4211037082
Cited by
1,620
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 270 · 2025: 272 · 2024: 293 · 2023: 234 · 2022: 228 · 2021: 193 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 26
FWCI
18.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (4r33ai120977-03)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL105704)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R33-AI120977)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
clinical metagenomics, metagenomic next-generation sequencing, infectious disease diagnostics, antimicrobial resistance, microbiome, host gene expression, transcriptomics, clinical laboratory implementation
MeSH terms
Animals, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Bacteria, Communicable Diseases, DNA, Fungi, Helminths, Humans, Public Health, Medical Laboratory Science, Viruses, Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial, Host-Pathogen Interactions, Metagenome, Metagenomics, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review