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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
63 Not checked yet · 43 Own interpretation · 26 No basis given · 2 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
In the paper
“In a published research study126, mNGS-based detection of Ebola and chikungunya virus infections on a nanopore sequencer was possible in <10 minutes of sequencing time and in <6 hours of sample-to-answer turnaround time overall.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [126] Greninger, A. et al. Rapid metagenomic identification of viral pathogens in clinical samples by real-time nanopore sequencing analysis. Genome Med. 7, 99 (2015). source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“mNGS enables a broad range of pathogens — viruses, bacteria, fungi and/or parasites — to be identified from culture or directly from clinical samples on the basis of uniquely identifiable DNA and/or RNA sequences32.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Lefterova, M. I., Suarez, C. J., Banaei, N. & Pinsky, B. A. Next-generation sequencing for infectious disease diagnosis and management: a report of the association for molecular pathology. J. Mol. Diagn. 17, 623–634 (2015). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the potential and recent successes of metagenomics, clinical diagnostic applications have lagged behind research advances owing to a number of factors.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: For clinical metagenomic tests, there are no universal reference materials or established ways to show validation, reproducibility, and quality assurance.
- Rests on an assumption: Whether a microorganism found in a sample is a contaminant, colonizer, or genuine pathogen is frequently uncertain.
In the paper
“NGS was used for the clinical diagnosis of neuroleptospirosis in a 14-year-old critically ill boy with meningoencephalitis19”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Wilson, M. R. et al. Actionable diagnosis of neuroleptospirosis by next-generation sequencing. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 2408–2417 (2014). This case report describes the first use of clinical metagenomics for actionable diagnosis and treatment in a critically ill patient with a mysterious neurological infection. source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the clinical utility of NGS in diagnosis may be in the most difficult-to-diagnose cases or for immunocompromised patients, in whom the spectrum of potential pathogens is greater.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With pure cultures of bacteria or fungi, mNGS reads can be assembled into partial or complete genomes.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The importance of the microbiome in C. difficile infection is underscored by the 80–90% effectiveness of faecal stool transplantation in treating and potentially curing the disease62,63.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Clinical microbiome analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [62] Shogbesan, O. et al. A Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplant for Clostridium difficile infection in immunocompromised patients. Can. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 1394379 (2018). source
- Not checked yetcites [63] van Nood, E. et al. Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. N. Engl. J. Med. 368, 407–415 (2013). This paper demonstrates the therapeutic potential of manipulating the microbiome with donor faecal transplantation to treat refractory C. difficile disease. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Classification of genes by expression profiling using RNA-seq has been used to characterize several infections, including staphylococcal bacteraemia67, Lyme disease68, candidiasis69, tuberculosis (discriminating between latent and active disease risk)70–72 and influenza73–75.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Human host response analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [67] Ahn, S. et al. Gene expression-based classifiers identify Staphylococcus aureus infection in mice and humans. PLOS ONE 8, e48979 (2013). source
- Not checked yetcites [68] Bouquet, J. et al. Longitudinal transcriptome analysis reveals a sustained differential gene expression signature in patients treated for acute Lyme disease. mBio 7, e00100–00116 (2016). source
- Not checked yetcites [69] Zaas, A., Aziz, H., Lucas, J., Perfect, J. & Ginsburg, G. Blood gene expression signatures predict invasive candidiasis. Sci. Transl Med. 2, 21ra17 (2010). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“mNGS of RNA libraries used for the detection of pathogens such as RNA viruses in clinical samples incidentally produces host gene expression data for transcriptome (RNA-seq) analyses66.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Human host response analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [66] Wang, Z., Gerstein, M. & Snyder, M. RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 57–63 (2009). This Review provides an overview of RNA-seq for transcriptomics and its applications. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Panels containing a limited number of host biomarkers are being developed as diagnostic assays for influenza77, tuberculosis70 and bacterial sepsis78.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Human host response analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [77] McClain, M. et al. A Genomic signature of influenza infection shows potential for presymptomatic detection, guiding early therapy, and monitoring clinical responses. Open Forum Infect. Dis 3, ofw007 (2016). source
- Not checked yetcites [70] Anderson, S. et al. Diagnosis of childhood tuberculosis and host RNA expression in Africa. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 1712–1723 (2014). source
- Not checked yetcites [78] Sweeney, T., Wong, H. & Khatri, P. Robust classification of bacterial and viral infections via integrated host gene expression diagnostics. Sci. Transl Med. 8, 346ra391 (2016). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 60
- Probably not a substantial claim. 41
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“this case was the first to demonstrate the utility of metagenomic NGS (mNGS) in providing clinically actionable information, as successful diagnosis prompted appropriate targeted antibiotic treatment and eventual recovery of the patient.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [19] Wilson, M. R. et al. Actionable diagnosis of neuroleptospirosis by next-generation sequencing. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 2408–2417 (2014). This case report describes the first use of clinical metagenomics for actionable diagnosis and treatment in a critically ill patient with a mysterious neurological infection. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Case Report says the sequencing result prompted a switch to targeted penicillin G, and the Abstract reports discharge near the patient’s premorbid condition. The Discussion calls the diagnosis clinically actionable, but the paper does not establish that this was the first demonstration of mNGS providing such information (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.87)
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, several groups have successfully validated mNGS in Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified clinical laboratories for the diagnosis of infections, including meningitis or encephalitis36,37, sepsis33,57 and pneumonia58, and these assays are now available for clinical reference testing of patients.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [36] Miller, S. et al. Laboratory validation of a clinical metagenomic sequencing assay for pathogen detection in cerebrospinal fluid. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/330381 (2019). This paper describes the clinical validation of an mNGS assay for diagnosis of meningitis and encephalitis from cerebrospinal fluid. source
The Abstract describes validation of an mNGS assay for meningitis and encephalitis in a licensed clinical laboratory. The Discussion says mNGS results are submitted to patients’ electronic medical records as interpretive reports, supporting clinical use. This citation is attached to meningitis or encephalitis; the sepsis and pneumonia examples have separate citations. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked yetcites [37] Schlaberg, R. et al. Validation of metagenomic next-generation sequencing tests for universal pathogen detection. Arch. Pathol. Lab Med. 141, 776–786 (2017). This paper summarizes the clinical validation of two mNGS assays for neurological infections and pneumonia. source
- Not checked yetcites [33] Blauwkamp, T. A. et al. Analytical and clinical validation of a microbial cell-free DNA sequencing test for infectious disease. Nat. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-018-0349-6 (2019). This paper describes the analytical and clinical validation of an mNGS assay for sepsis. source
- Partly supportedcites [57] Hong, D. et al. Liquid biopsy for infectious diseases: sequencing of cell-free plasma to detect pathogen DNA in patients with invasive fungal disease. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 92, 210–213 (2018). sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that plasma NGS detected the fungus found in biopsy tissue in seven of nine patients with proven invasive fungal infection; the patient table includes one patient with septic shock. The paper does not establish that the assay was validated in a CLIA-certified laboratory for diagnosing sepsis or was available for clinical reference testing (Results and patient table; page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked yetcites [58] Schlaberg, R. et al. Viral pathogen detection by metagenomics and pan-viral group polymerase chain reaction in children with pneumonia lacking identifiable etiology. J. Infect. Dis. 215, 1407–1415 (2017). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
In the paper
“When spiked at the reverse transcription step, a panel of ZIKV-specific primers was found to increase the number of ZIKV reads by more than tenfold without appreciably decreasing broad metagenomic sensitivity for other pathogens, enabling whole-genome viral sequencing to characterize ZIKV spread from Brazil into Central America and Mexico46.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Sensitivity and enrichment or depletion methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Thézé, J. et al. Genomic epidemiology reconstructs the introduction and spread of Zika virus in central America and Mexico. Cell Host Microbe 23, 855–864 (2018). This study introduces the use of the metagenomic sequencing with spiked primer enrichment technique for simultaneous targeted and untargeted pathogen detection and genome assembly. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, nearly all conventional microbiological tests in current use detect only one or a limited panel of pathogens at a time or require that a microorganism be successfully cultured from a clinical sample.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, mNGS can be a key driver for precision diagnosis of infectious diseases, advancing precision medicine efforts to personalize patient care in this field.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is often unclear whether a detected microorganism is a contaminant, colonizer or bona fide pathogen.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another key advantage of NGS approaches is that the sequencing data can potentially be leveraged for additional analyses beyond the mere identification of a causative pathogen, such as microbiome characterization and parallel analyses of human host responses through transcriptome profiling by RNA sequencing (RNA-seq).”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while NGS assays in current use cannot compare with conventional tests with respect to speed — the sequencing run alone on a standard Illumina instrument takes >18 hours”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, the breadth and potential clinical utility of these applications are likely to transform the field of diagnostic microbiology in the near future.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Most mNGS applications have not yet entered routine clinical practice.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While most molecular assays target only a limited number of pathogens using specific primers or probes, metagenomic approaches characterize all DNA or RNA present in a sample, enabling analysis of the entire microbiome as well as the human host genome or transcriptome in patient samples.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Considerations of cost, reimbursement, turnaround time, regulatory considerations and, perhaps most importantly, clinical utility also remain major hurdles for the routine implementation of clinical mNGS in patient care settings27.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Greninger, A. The challenge of diagnostic metagenomics. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 18, 605–615 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To date, applications of clinical metagenomics have included infectious disease diagnostics for a variety of syndromes and sample types, microbiome analyses in both diseased and healthy states, characterization of the human host response to infection by transcriptomics and the identification of tumour-associated viruses and their genomic integration sites (Fig. 1; Table 1).”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fig. 1
- Not checked yetcites Table 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The capacity to detect all potential pathogens — bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites — in a sample and simultaneously interrogate host responses has great potential utility in the diagnosis of infectious disease.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, detection of nucleic acids, either by multiplex PCR panels or NGS, does not by itself prove that an identified microorganism is the cause of the illness, and findings have to be interpreted in the clinical context.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This step can increase the detection sensitivity for microorganisms being targeted, although it limits the breadth of potential pathogens that can be identified.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Targeted approaches have the benefit of increasing the number and proportion of pathogen reads in the sequence data.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, mNGS was critical in the discovery of Merkel cell polyomavirus (Fig. 1d), now believed to be the cause of Merkel cell carcinoma, a rare skin cancer seen most commonly in elderly patients86.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Applications in oncology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [86] Feng, H., Shuda, M., Chang, Y. & Moore, P. Clonal integration of a polyomavirus in human Merkel cell carcinoma. Science 319, 1096–1100 (2008). This paper describes the discovery of a novel polyomavirus associated with a rare skin cancer using NGS. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although RNA-seq analyses are commonly performed on whole blood or peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples, any body fluid or tissue type is potentially amenable to these analyses.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Human host response analyses
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Clinical mNGS typically focuses on microbial reads; however, there is a complementary role for the analysis of gene expression in studying human host responses to infection65 (Fig. 1c).”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Human host response analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [65] Kukurba, K. & Montgomery, S. RNA sequencing and analysis. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2015, 951–969 (2015). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, drawbacks of capture probe enrichment, compared with untargeted approaches for infectious disease diagnosis, include a bias towards targeted microorganisms, added steps, increased costs and long hybridization times (24–48 hours) as a result of the additional processing needed for maximal efficiency.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Machine-learning-based analyses of RNA-seq data have been used for cancer classification76, and translation of these approaches may be promising for infectious diseases.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Human host response analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [76] Zhang, Y. et al. Identifying and analyzing different cancer subtypes using RNA-seq data of blood platelets. Oncotarget 8, 87494–87511 (2017). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This study demonstrated for the first time the high-resolution mapping of likely transmission events in a hospital, some of which were unexpected on the basis of initial epidemiological data, and also identified putative resistance mutations in emerging resistant strains.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [55] Snitkin, E. et al. Tracking a hospital outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae with whole-genome sequencing. Sci. Transl Med. 4, 148ra116 (2012). This study is the first to demonstrate the potential of whole-genome bacterial sequencing using NGS to track transmission of a hospital outbreak of carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae. source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“mNGS is a needle-in-a-haystack endeavour, as only a small proportion (typically <1%) of reads are non-human, of which only a subset may correspond to potential pathogens.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this enrichment method has been shown to increase the sensitivity of metagenomic detection in research settings, especially for viruses, it has yet to be used routinely for clinical diagnosis.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These genome sequences are then used for subtyping and/or monitoring hospital outbreaks in support of infection control and/or public health surveillance efforts.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In oncology, whole-genome or directed NGS approaches to identify mutated genes can be used to simultaneously uncover viruses associated with cancer (that is, herpesviruses, papillomaviruses and polyomaviruses) and/or to gather data on virus–host interactions85.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Applications in oncology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [85] Nakagawa, H. & Fujita, M. Whole genome sequencing analysis for cancer genomics and precision medicine. Cancer Sci. 109, 513–522 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A limitation of mNGS is that the sensitivity of the approach is critically dependent on the level of background. Tissues, for example, have increased human host background relative to cell-free body fluids, resulting in a reduced number and proportion of microbial reads and hence a decrease in mNGS sensitivity33,36,37.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Blauwkamp, T. A. et al. Analytical and clinical validation of a microbial cell-free DNA sequencing test for infectious disease. Nat. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-018-0349-6 (2019). This paper describes the analytical and clinical validation of an mNGS assay for sepsis. source
- Not checked yetcites [36] Miller, S. et al. Laboratory validation of a clinical metagenomic sequencing assay for pathogen detection in cerebrospinal fluid. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/330381 (2019). This paper describes the clinical validation of an mNGS assay for diagnosis of meningitis and encephalitis from cerebrospinal fluid. source
- Not checked yetcites [37] Schlaberg, R. et al. Validation of metagenomic next-generation sequencing tests for universal pathogen detection. Arch. Pathol. Lab Med. 141, 776–786 (2017). This paper summarizes the clinical validation of two mNGS assays for neurological infections and pneumonia. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Alterations of the microbiome, known as dysbiosis, have also been shown to be related to obesity, diabetes mellitus and inflammatory bowel disease64, and manipulation of the microbiome may be a pathway to treating these pathological conditions.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Clinical microbiome analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Boulangé, C., Neves, A., Chilloux, J., Nicholson, J. & Dumas, M. Impact of the gut microbiota on inflammation, obesity, and metabolic disease. Genome Med. 8, 42 (2016). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This method has been used to track the evolution and spread of Zika virus (ZIKV) in the Americas44–46 and of Ebola virus in West Africa47, with some demonstrations of real-time monitoring having an impact on public health interventions.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Infectious disease diagnosis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Faria, N. R. et al. Establishment and cryptic transmission of Zika virus in Brazil and the Americas. Nature 546, 406–410 (2017). source
- Not checked yetcites [45] Grubaugh, N. et al. Genomic epidemiology reveals multiple introductions of Zika virus into the United States. Nature 546, 401–405 (2017). source
- Not checked yetcites [46] Thézé, J. et al. Genomic epidemiology reconstructs the introduction and spread of Zika virus in central America and Mexico. Cell Host Microbe 23, 855–864 (2018). This study introduces the use of the metagenomic sequencing with spiked primer enrichment technique for simultaneous targeted and untargeted pathogen detection and genome assembly. source
- Not checked yetcites [47] Quick, J. et al. Real-time, portable genome sequencing for Ebola surveillance. Nature 530, 228–232 (2016). This study describes deployment of a portable nanopore sequencer for real-time actionable sequencing of clinical samples during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. source
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To date, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the clinical use of two NGS panels testing for actionable genomic aberrations in tumour samples87.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Applications in oncology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [87] Allegretti, M. et al. Tearing down the walls: FDA approves next generation sequencing (NGS) assays for actionable cancer genomic aberrations. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 37, 47 (2018). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These limitations include potential decreased sensitivity for microorganisms without cell walls, such as Mycoplasma spp. or parasites; a possible paradoxical increase in exogenous background contamination by use of additional reagents101; and the inability to detect free nucleic acid from dead organisms that are lysed in vivo by human host immune cells or antibiotic treatment.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Sensitivity and enrichment or depletion methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [101] Salter, S. et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol. 12, 87 (2014). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microorganisms on this list are either not reported or will require higher thresholds for reporting if they are clinically significant organisms.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Laboratory workflow considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, an astrovirus was detected in a child with encephalitis by ultradeep sequencing of brain tissue, yielding only 1,612 reads out of ~134 million (0.0012%) sequences103.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Sensitivity and enrichment or depletion methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [103] Naccache, S. et al. Diagnosis of neuroinvasive astrovirus infection in an immunocompromised adult with encephalitis by unbiased next-generation sequencing. Clin. Infect. Dis. 60, 919–923 (2015). source
plainconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clinical laboratory operations are characterized by a defined workflow with scheduled staffing levels and are less amenable to on-demand testing than those of research laboratories.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Laboratory workflow considerations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, both the differential lysis and propidium monoazide approaches would also be cumbersome to implement in a highly reproducible fashion, which is needed for clinical laboratory validation.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Sensitivity and enrichment or depletion methods
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Maintaining high quality during complex mNGS procedures can be stressful to staff, as slight deviations in sample handling can lead to major changes in the results generated.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Laboratory workflow considerations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, cfDNA analysis has been useful for non-invasive prenatal testing applications, such as for the identification of trisomy 21 (ref.124).”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Applications in oncology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [124] Norton, M. E. et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 1589–1597 (2015). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, limitations of cfDNA analysis may include decreased sensitivity for detection of predominantly intracellular pathogens, such as human T cell lymphotropic virus, Rickettsia spp. and Pneumocystis jirovecii, and loss of the ability to interrogate cellular human host responses with RNA sequencing.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Applications in oncology
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The complete set or a portion of the ERCC RNA standards (or their DNA equivalents) can be used as spike-in internal controls to control for assay inhibition and to quantify titres of detected pathogens by standard curve analysis108.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Reference standards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [108] Avraham, R. et al. A highly multiplexed and sensitive RNA-seq protocol for simultaneous analysis of host and pathogen transcriptomes. Nat. Protoc. 11, 1477–1491 (2016). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, laboratory surfaces, consumables and reagents are not DNA free.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Laboratory workflow considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Detection of reads corresponding to both integrated and exogenous viruses in these samples would be possible with the addition of specific viral probes to the panel or accomplished incidentally while sequencing the whole tumour genome or exome.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Applications in oncology
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unless fully automated sample-handling systems are readily available, wet lab manipulations for mNGS require considerable hands-on time to perform, as well as clinical staff who are highly trained in molecular biology procedures.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Laboratory workflow considerations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Implementation of mNGS in the clinical laboratory is a complex endeavour that requires customization of research protocols using a quality management approach consistent with regulatory standards90.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [90] Burd, E. Validation of laboratory-developed molecular assays for infectious diseases. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 23, 550–576 (2010). This paper summarizes the essential requirements for validation of infectious disease assays in a clinical laboratory. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a critical need for standardized reference organisms and genomic materials to facilitate such comparisons and to define optimal analysis methods.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Reference standards
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Well-characterized reference standards and controls are needed to ensure mNGS assay quality and stability over time.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Reference standards
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are ergonomic concerns with repetitive tasks such as pipetting, as well as potential for inadvertent sample mix-up or omission of critical steps in the workflow.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Laboratory workflow considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Internal spike-in control standards are available for other NGS applications such as transcriptome analysis by RNA-seq, with External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) RNA standards composed of synthetic RNA oligonucleotides spanning a range of nucleotide lengths and concentrations107.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Reference standards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [107] Pine, P. et al. Evaluation of the External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) reference material using a modified Latin square design. BMC Biotechnol. 16, 54 (2016). source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additional knowledge of integrated or active viral infections in cancers and their involvement in signalling pathways may inform preventive and therapeutic interventions with targeted antiviral and/or chemotherapeutic drugs88, as evidenced by the decreased risk of hepatitis C virus-associated hepatocellular carcinoma after treatment with direct-acting antiviral agents89.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Applications of clinical metagenomics > Applications in oncology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [88] Saha, A., Kaul, R., Murakami, M. & Robertson, E. S. Tumor viruses and cancer biology: modulating signaling pathways for therapeutic intervention. Cancer Biol. Ther. 10, 961–978 (2010). source
- Not checked yetcites [89] Kanwal, F. et al. Risk of hepatocellular cancer in HCV patients treated with direct-acting antiviral agents. Gastroenterology 153, 996–1005 (2017). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As samples are typically handled in batches, the frequency of batch analysis is a major determinant of overall turnaround time.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Laboratory workflow considerations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although the FDA has provided general guidelines for clinical validation of NGS infectious disease testing91, there are no definitive recommendations for the clinical implementation of mNGS testing, nor is there mention of specific requirements.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [91] Food and Drug Administration. Infectious disease next generation sequencing based diagnostic devices: microbial identification and detection of antimicrobial resistance and virulence markers (FDA, 2016). This draft guidance from the FDA covers considerations for validation and approval of sequencing-based diagnostic devices for infectious diseases.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“User-friendly bioinformatics software for analysis of mNGS data is not currently available.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Bioinformatics challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the majority of library preparation methods for mNGS are performed manually and hence incur considerable staff time.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Cost considerations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Establishing thresholds enables separation of true-positive matches from the background, and these thresholds can incorporate metrics such as the number of sequence reads aligning to the detected microorganism, normalized to reads per million, external no-template control samples or internal spike-in material; the number of nonoverlapping genomic regions covered; and the read abundance in clinical”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Bioinformatics challenges
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The use of standardized reference materials and NGS data sets is also helpful in comparative evaluation of different bioinformatics pipelines105.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Bioinformatics challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [105] McIntyre, A. et al. Comprehensive benchmarking and ensemble approaches for metagenomic classifiers. Genome Biol. 18, 182 (2017). source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Ongoing monitoring is particularly important for mNGS assays to verify acceptable performance over time and to investigate atypical findings36.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Regulatory considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Miller, S. et al. Laboratory validation of a clinical metagenomic sequencing assay for pathogen detection in cerebrospinal fluid. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/330381 (2019). This paper describes the clinical validation of an mNGS assay for diagnosis of meningitis and encephalitis from cerebrospinal fluid. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As NGS procedures become more standardized, there has been a drive towards increasing automation with the use of liquid-handling biorobots115.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Cost considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [115] May, M. Automated sample preparation. NIST Special Publication 1222, 1–17 (2016). source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, while current limitations suggest that mNGS is unlikely to replace conventional diagnostics in the short term, it can be a complementary, and perhaps essential, test in certain clinical situations.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This leads to an overall cost of several hundreds to thousands of dollars per sample analysed, which is higher than that for many other clinical tests.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Cost considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research studies have also demonstrated the clinical potential of nanopore sequencing in targeted universal 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) bacterial detection127, microbiome analyses128, whole-genome sequencing of bacteria129 and outbreak viruses44,45,47, RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) using standardized controls130 and diagnosis of prosthetic joint131 and lower respiratory infections99.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [127] Mitsuhashi, S. et al. A portable system for rapid bacterial composition analysis using a nanopore-based sequencer and laptop computer. Sci. Rep. 7, 5657 (2017). source
- Not checked yetcites [128] Kerkhof, L., Dillon, K., Häggblom, M. & McGuinness, L. Profiling bacterial communities by MinION sequencing of ribosomal operons. Microbiome 5, 116 (2017). source
- Not checked yetcites [129] Tyler, A. et al. Evaluation of Oxford Nanopore’s MinION sequencing device for microbial whole genome sequencing applications. Sci. Rep. 8, 10931 (2018). source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Clinical laboratories are highly regulated, and general laboratory and testing requirements apply to all molecular diagnostic assays reported for patient care90.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Regulatory considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [90] Burd, E. Validation of laboratory-developed molecular assays for infectious diseases. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 23, 550–576 (2010). This paper summarizes the essential requirements for validation of infectious disease assays in a clinical laboratory. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Real-time sequencing in particular may be a game-changing technology for point-of-care applications in clinical medicine and public health, as laboratories have begun to apply these tools to diagnose atypical infections and track pathogen outbreaks, as demonstrated by the recent deployment of real-time nanopore sequencing for remote epidemiological surveillance of Ebola44 and ZIKV44,45, and even”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Faria, N. R. et al. Establishment and cryptic transmission of Zika virus in Brazil and the Americas. Nature 546, 406–410 (2017). source
- Not checked yetcites [45] Grubaugh, N. et al. Genomic epidemiology reveals multiple introductions of Zika virus into the United States. Nature 546, 401–405 (2017). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although the use of mNGS for informing clinical care has been demonstrated in multiple case reports and small case series118, nearly all studies have been retrospective, and clinical utility has yet to be established in a large-scale prospective clinical trial.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [118] Simner, P. J., Miller, S. & Carroll, K. C. Understanding the promises and hurdles of metagenomic next-generation sequencing as a diagnostic tool for infectious diseases. Clin. Infect. Dis. 66, 778–788 (2018). This is a concise yet comprehensive review of some of the clinical applications of mNGS for diagnosis of infectious diseases. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased multiplexing is also possible with the greatly enhanced output from the latest generation of sequencers, such as the Illumina NovaSeq instruments.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Cost considerations
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Receiver–operator curve (ROC) analysis is a useful tool to determine optimal threshold values for a training set of clinical samples with known results, with verification of pre-established thresholds using an independent validation set36.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Bioinformatics challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Miller, S. et al. Laboratory validation of a clinical metagenomic sequencing assay for pathogen detection in cerebrospinal fluid. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/330381 (2019). This paper describes the clinical validation of an mNGS assay for diagnosis of meningitis and encephalitis from cerebrospinal fluid. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bioinformatics pipelines for mNGS analysis use a number of different algorithms, usually developed for the research setting and constantly updated by software developers.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Bioinformatics challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the mNGS transcriptomic approach might enable effective treatment triage, whereby antimicrobials are only needed for patients showing an ‘infectious profile’ of gene expression and those with a ‘non-infectious profile’ can be treated for other causes.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Larger and more complete databases containing publicly deposited sequences such as the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Nucleotide database are more comprehensive but also contain more errors than curated, more limited databases such as FDA-ARGOS91,113 or the FDA Reference Viral Database (RVDB)114.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Bioinformatics challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [91] Food and Drug Administration. Infectious disease next generation sequencing based diagnostic devices: microbial identification and detection of antimicrobial resistance and virulence markers (FDA, 2016). This draft guidance from the FDA covers considerations for validation and approval of sequencing-based diagnostic devices for infectious diseases.
- Not checked yetcites [113] Goldberg, B., Sichtig, H., Geyer, C., Ledeboer, N. & Weinstock, G. Making the leap from research laboratory to clinic: challenges and opportunities for next-generation sequencing in infectious disease diagnostics. mBio 6, e01888-15 (2015). source
- Not checked yetcites [114] Goodacre, N., Aljanahi, A., Nandakumar, S., Mikailov, M. & Khan, A. S. A reference viral database (RVDB) to enhance bioinformatics analysis of high-throughput sequencing for novel virus detection. mSphere 3, e00069-18 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a potential limitation with running larger numbers of samples per run is longer overall turnaround times for clinical use owing to the requirement for batch processing as well as sample workflow and computational analysis considerations.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Cost considerations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many laboratories maintain both production and up-to-date development versions of the clinical reference database (for example, the NCBI nucleotide database is updated every 2 weeks), with the production database being updated at regular, prespecified intervals.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Bioinformatics challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“High-quality evidence that clinical metagenomic assays are effective in guiding patient management will require protocols that minimize potential assay and patient selection bias and compare relevant health outcomes using data sets generated from large patient cohorts119,120.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] Afshinnekoo, E., Ahsanuddin, S. & Mason, C. E. Globalizing and crowdsourcing biomedical research. Br. Med. Bull. 120, 27–33 (2016). source
- Not checked yetcites [120] Brooks, J. P. et al. The truth about metagenomics: quantifying and counteracting bias in 16S rRNA studies. BMC Microbiol. 15, 66 (2015). source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although attractive for purposes of protecting patient privacy and confidentiality, as human reads are depleted as part of the sequencing run, this approach is not currently scalable owing to the limited throughput of the nanopore sequencer to date (up to 10 million mNGS reads per run on the MinION nanopore sequencer as of 2019) and the need to computationally match reads to reference sequences in”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The MinION nanopore sequencer can produce as many as ten million mNGS reads in a single run as of 2019.
- Rests on an assumption: The selective sequencing approach requires that reads be matched computationally to reference sequences in real time.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Untargeted approaches such as mNGS or whole-transcriptome RNA-seq, however, may be limited by the lower throughput of nanopore sequencing relative to short-read sequencing such as with an Illumina instrument.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, the only commercially available instruments for nanopore sequencing are from Oxford Nanopore Technologies and include the MinION (1 flow cell), GridION (5 flow cell capacity) and PromethION (48 flow cell capacity).”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, public databases for microbial reference genomes are being continuously updated, and laboratories need to keep track of the exact versions used in addition to dealing with potential misannotations and other database errors.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Bioinformatics challenges
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, high-throughput processing of clinical samples for NGS may only be possible in reference laboratories.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Cost considerations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A combined approach that incorporates annotated sequences from multiple databases may enable greater confidence in the sensitivity and specificity of microorganism identification.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Bioinformatics challenges
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As for wet lab procedures, it is usually necessary to make custom modifications to the pipeline software and then lock down both the software and reference databases for the purposes of clinical validation112.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Bioinformatics challenges
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [112] Roy, S. et al. Standards and guidelines for validating next-generation sequencing bioinformatics pipelines: a joint recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology and the College of American Pathologists. J. Mol. Diagn. 20, 4–27 (2018). This draft guidance from the Association for Molecular Pathology and College of American Pathologists reviews standards and guidelines for validation of NGS bioinformatics pipelines. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Technological advancements in library preparation methods, sequence generation and computational bioinformatics are enabling quicker and more comprehensive metagenomic analyses at lower cost.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The additional resources needed to run and maintain a bioinformatics analysis pipeline are also considerable, and steps taken to ensure regulatory oversight can add notably to costs as well.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Cost considerations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The development of microfluidic devices for NGS sample library preparation, such as VolTRAX116, could eventually enable clinicians to use mNGS more widely in hospital laboratories or point-of-care settings.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Cost considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [116] Levy, S. E. & Myers, R. M. Advancements in next-generation sequencing. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 17, 95–115 (2016). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As a comprehensive direct detection method, mNGS may eventually replace culture, antigen detection and PCR methods in clinical microbiology, but indirect approaches such as viral serological testing will continue to play a key part in the diagnostic work-up for infections27, and functional assays such as culture and phenotypic susceptibility testing will likely always be useful for research”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Greninger, A. The challenge of diagnostic metagenomics. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 18, 605–615 (2018). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, sensitivity for pathogen detection is decreased in clinical samples with a high nucleic acid background or with exceedingly low pathogen titres; this concern is only partially mitigated by increasing sequencing depth per sample as costs continue to drop.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Nanopore sequencing is an emerging next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology that enables real-time analysis of sequencing data125.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Conclusions and future perspectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [125] Jain, M., Olsen, H., Paten, B. & Akeson, M. The Oxford Nanopore MinION: delivery of nanopore sequencing to the genomics community. Genome Biol. 17, 239 (2016). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most laboratories lack the robotic equipment and established automated protocols to multiplex large numbers of patient samples in a single run.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Cost considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Typically, two biorobots are needed for clinical mNGS for both the pre-amplification and post-amplification steps to avoid PCR amplicon cross-contamination.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Cost considerations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“By sequencing all genetic material, both DNA and RNA after conversion into cDNA, in a sample, it is theoretically able to detect all potential pathogens in one assay (43).”
From Molecular diagnostics in cerebrospinal fluid for the diagnosis of central nervous system infections (2024) · cites this paper as [43]
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Clinical metagenomics > Clinical implementation of metagenomic NGS > Sensitivity and enrichment or depletion methods
“an astrovirus was detected in a child with encephalitis by ultradeep sequencing of brain tissue, yielding only 1,612 reads out of ~134 million (0.0012%) sequences103.”
§ Clinical metagenomics > References
“103. Naccache S Diagnosis of neuroinvasive astrovirus infection in an immunocompromised adult with encephalitis by unbiased next-generation sequencing”
Citations
Cites
RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics
Wang, Z., Gerstein, M., & Snyder, M. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2484 · Cited by 13,174
Kraken: ultrafast metagenomic sequence classification using exact alignments
Wood, D. E., & Salzberg, S. L. (2014) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r46 · Cited by 4,521
Duodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for Recurrent Clostridium difficile
van Nood, E., Vrieze, A., Nieuwdorp, M., Fuentes, S., Zoetendal, E. G., de Vos, W. M., Visser, C. E., Kuijper, E. J., Bartelsman, J. F. W. M., Tijssen, J. G. P., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1205037 · Cited by 3,708
Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses
Salter, S. J., Cox, M. J., Turek, E. M., Calus, S. T., Cookson, W. O., Moffatt, M. F., Turner, P., Parkhill, J., Loman, N. J., & Walker, A. W. (2014) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z · Cited by 3,463
Clonal Integration of a Polyomavirus in Human Merkel Cell Carcinoma
Feng, H., Shuda, M., Chang, Y., & Moore, P. S. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1152586 · Cited by 3,208
Characterization of a Novel Coronavirus Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
Rota, P. A., Oberste, M. S., Monroe, S. S., Nix, W. A., Campagnoli, R. P., Icenogle, J. P., Peñaranda, S., Bankamp, B., Maher, K., Chen, M., et al. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1085952 · Cited by 2,477
Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis
Quince, C., Walker, A. W., Simpson, J. T., Loman, N. J., & Segata, N. (2017) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3935 · Cited by 2,202
Lloyd-Price, J., Abu-Ali, G., & Huttenhower, C. (2016) · Genome Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13073-016-0307-y · Cited by 1,891
The Oxford Nanopore MinION: delivery of nanopore sequencing to the genomics community
Jain, M., Olsen, H. E., Paten, B., & Akeson, M. (2016) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-016-1103-0 · Cited by 1,588
Gene-Expression Signatures in Breast Cancer
Sotiriou, C. P., & Pusztai, L. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra0801289 · Cited by 1,506
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–600 of 999
Park, D.-G., Ha, E., Kang, B., Choi, I., Kwak, J.-E., Choi, J., Park, J., Lee, W., Kim, S. H., Kim, S. H., et al. (2022) · Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.4014/jmb.2211.11009 · Cited by 13
Aydın, A., Sudağıdan, M., MAMATOVA, Z., Yurt, M. N. Z., Özalp, V. C., Zornu, J., Tavornpanich, S., & Brun, E. (2023) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods12101956 · Cited by 13
Zhu, R., Hong, X., Zhang, D., Xiao, Y., Xu, Q., Wu, B. Y., Guo, J., Han, X., Yang, Q., Zhao, Y., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1097/js9.0000000000000500 · Cited by 14
Fan, G., Li, S., Tian, F., Yang, L., Yi, S., Chen, S., Li, C., Zhang, R., He, X., & Ma, X. (2023) · Microbial Genomics · doi:10.1099/mgen.0.001079 · Cited by 13
Jiang, X., Liu, J., Yuan, X., Zhang, Q., Wang, Y., Zhao, M., Lü, X., Wu, H., Shan, T., Ni, B., et al. (2023) · mSphere · doi:10.1128/msphere.00345-23 · Cited by 13
The Gut Microbiome: A Primer for the Clinician
Aroniadis, O. C., & Grinspan, A. M. (2023) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000002583 · Cited by 16
Hong, D., Wang, P., Xu, Y., Xu, S., Yu, L., Tong, Z., Li, W., Qin, K., & Ke, L. (2024) · Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ctg.0000000000000726 · Cited by 13
Kannan, E. P., Gopal, J., & Muthu, M. (2024) · TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.trac.2024.117843 · Cited by 12
Metagenomic profiling of nasopharyngeal samples from adults with acute respiratory infection
Sandybayev, N. T., Beloussov, V., Strochkov, V. M., Solomadin, M., Granica, J., & Yegorov, S. (2024) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.240108 · Cited by 13
Regueira‐Iglesias, A., Suárez‐Rodríguez, B., Blanco‐Pintos, T., Relvas, M., Alonso‐Sampedro, M., Balsa‐Castro, C., & Tomás, I. (2024) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2024.1405699 · Cited by 16
Hu, H., Ding, H., Lyu, J., Chen, Y., Huang, C., Zhang, C., Li, W., Fang, X., & Zhang, W. (2024) · Bone and Joint Research · doi:10.1302/2046-3758.138.bjr-2023-0420.r1 · Cited by 13
He, S., Liu, H., Hu, X., Zhao, J., Liang, J., Zhang, X., Chen, J., Zeng, H., & Sun, G. (2024) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-024-09914-9 · Cited by 18
Weai, J. Q. J., Wong, J. L., Tan, J. L., Yeo, C. C., & Saw, S. H. (2025) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods14030352 · Cited by 13
Li, Y., Jiang, Y., Liu, H., Fu, Y., Lu, J., Li, H., Sheng, L., Gu, D., & Zhang, D. H. (2025) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2025.1526087 · Cited by 13
Marra, P. S., Marra, A. R., Chen, E., Kobayashi, T., Celeghini, P. D., Gutfreund, M. C., Pardo, I., Lopes, G. O. V., Hsieh, M. K., Boodhoo, N. A., et al. (2025) · Open Forum Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaf274 · Cited by 17
Gu, J., Chen, L., Zeng, C., Yang, X., Pan, D., Cao, H., & Qian, Q. (2022) · Journal of Healthcare Engineering · doi:10.1155/2022/5641609 · Cited by 13
Li, Z., Tang, J., Zhu, J., Xie, M., Huang, S., Li, S., Zhan, Y., Zeng, W., Xu, T., & Ye, F. (2022) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-022-07399-y · Cited by 13
Matsuo, Y. (2023) · Methods in molecular biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2996-3_14 · Cited by 12
Mwakibete, L. L., Takahashi, S., Ahyong, V., Black, A., Rek, J. C., Ssewanyana, I., Kamya, M. R., Dorsey, G., Jagannathan, P., Rodríguez-Barraquer, I., et al. (2023) · PLOS Global Public Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0001675 · Cited by 13
Rickettsia typhi central nervous system infection
Talhelm, C. F., Helms, J. L., Tran, L. T., Contreras, B. X., Stevens, M. L., Sierra‐Hoffman, M., Castro-Lainez, M. T., & Deliz, R. J. (2020) · IDCases · doi:10.1016/j.idcr.2020.e00852 · Cited by 13
Rahman, M. A., & Rangwala, H. (2020) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa477 · Cited by 15
Pathogen determination from clinical abscess fluids using metagenomic next-generation sequencing
Zhao, Y., Chen, J., Bai, B., Wang, Y., Zheng, J., Yu, Z., Deng, Q., & Li, P. (2020) · Folia Microbiologica · doi:10.1007/s12223-020-00829-x · Cited by 13
No evidence for a pathogen associated with pulmonary MALT lymphoma: a metagenomics investigation
Borie, R., Caro, V., Nunès, H., Kambouchner, M., Cazes, A., Antoine, M., Crestani, B., Leroy, K., Copie‐Bergman, C., Kwasiborski, A., et al. (2021) · Infectious Agents and Cancer · doi:10.1186/s13027-021-00351-w · Cited by 13
Pardo, I., Finamor, L. P., Marra, P. S., Ferreira, J. M. G., Gutfreund, M. C., Hsieh, M. K., Li, Y., Pinho, J. R. R., Rizzo, L. V., Kobayashi, T., et al. (2025) · Viruses · doi:10.3390/v17060757 · Cited by 12
Agrawal, K., Hong, A. S. Y., Cifuentes‐González, C., Kumar, V. S., Rojas-Carabali, W. A., Zhang, S., Wang, Q., de‐la‐Torre, A., Gijs, M., Gill, T., et al. (2025) · Progress in Retinal and Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2025.101409 · Cited by 13
A Rare Bird: Diagnosis of Psittacosis Meningitis by Clinical Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing
Davar, K., Wilson, M. R., Miller, S. A., Chiu, C. Y., & Vijayan, T. (2021) · Open Forum Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofab555 · Cited by 11
Self-citationA Review of Next Generation Sequencing Methods and its Applications in Laboratory Diagnosis
Bhaskaran, S., & Saikumar, C. (2022) · Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology · doi:10.22207/jpam.16.2.45 · Cited by 12
Using Environmental Sampling to Enable Zoonotic Pandemic Preparedness
Sanyal, A., Agarwal, S., Ramakrishnan, U., Garg, K. M., & Chattopadhyay, B. (2022) · Journal of the Indian Institute of Science · doi:10.1007/s41745-022-00322-z · Cited by 12
Zhang, C., Cheng, H., Zhao, Y., Chen, J., Li, M., Yu, Z., Sun, X., Li, P., Shang, Y., Ma, J., et al. (2022) · Polish Journal of Microbiology · doi:10.33073/pjm-2022-043 · Cited by 12
Next-Generation Diagnostics for Pathogens
Wilkes, R. P. (2023) · Veterinary Clinics of North America Food Animal Practice · doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2022.09.003 · Cited by 12
Campos-Madueno, E. I., Aldeia, C., & Endimiani, A. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51929-y · Cited by 13
Zheng, Y., Liu, W., Xiao, T., Chen, H., & Liu, Y. (2024) · BMC Pulmonary Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12890-024-03237-w · Cited by 12
He, S., Zhao, J., Chen, J., Liang, J., Hu, X., Zhang, X., Zeng, H., & Sun, G. (2025) · Infection and Drug Resistance · doi:10.2147/idr.s504280 · Cited by 12
Jiang, Z.-J., Hong, J.-C., Lin, B.-W., Zhang, W.-Q., Fan, Q.-C., Yang, B., & Yao, X.-P. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-86481-2 · Cited by 12
Yiminniyaze, R., Zhang, Y., Zhu, N., Zhang, X., Wang, J., Li, C., Wumaier, G., Zhou, D., Xia, J., Li, S., et al. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-98424-y · Cited by 13
Shinge, S. A. U., Zhang, B., Zheng, B., Qiang, Y., Ali, H. M., Melchiade, Y. T. V., Zhang, L., Gao, M., Feng, G., Zeng, K., et al. (2025) · Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health · doi:10.1007/s44197-025-00455-1 · Cited by 14
Metagenomics-Based Proficiency Test of Smoked Salmon Spiked with a Mock Community
Sala, C., Mordhorst, H., Grützke, J., Brinkmann, A., Petersen, T. N., Poulsen, C. S., Cotter, P. D., Crispie, F., Ellis, R. J., Castellani, G., et al. (2020) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms8121861 · Cited by 13
Wu, W., Jiang, H., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y., Bai, G., Shen, L., Zhou, H., Chen, X., & Hu, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.940818 · Cited by 12
Haegeman, A., Foucart, Y., Jonghe, K. D., Goedefroit, T., Rwahnih, M. A., Boonham, N., Candresse, T., Gaafar, Y. Z. A., Hurtado‐Gonzales, O. P., Zwitter, Z. K., et al. (2023) · Plants · doi:10.3390/plants12112139 · Cited by 12
Yuan, X., Xie, L., Shi, Z., & Zhou, M. (2023) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1200157 · Cited by 12
A hybridization target enrichment approach for pathogen genomics
Sundararaman, B., Sylvester, M. D., Kozyreva, V. K., Berrada, Z. L., Corbett-Detig, R. B., & Green, R. E. (2023) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.01889-23 · Cited by 12
Yan, L., Wang, B.-X., Zhang, N.-N., Zhang, L., Gao, Z.-B., Tian, J., & Jiang, X. (2019) · Frontiers in Pediatrics · doi:10.3389/fped.2019.00380 · Cited by 12
Xie, D., Xian, Y., You, J., Xu, W., Fan, M., Bi, X., & Zhang, K. (2021) · Infection and Drug Resistance · doi:10.2147/idr.s292768 · Cited by 12
Diagnosing sepsis: where we’re at and where we’re going
Zimmermann, T., Brealey, D. A., & Singer, M. (2024) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-024-07428-1 · Cited by 12
Barrera-Suarez, M. A., Zhao, C., Karnatovskaia, L. V., & Sung, J. (2026) · Gut Microbes Reports · doi:10.1080/29933935.2026.2650247 · Cited by 16
Shen, M., Li, Q., Zeng, Z., Han, D., & Luo, X. (2023) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2023.1089196 · Cited by 11
Li, H., Niu, E., Fu, J., Huang, Y., Gao, Y., Chai, W., & Chen, J. (2023) · Infection and Drug Resistance · doi:10.2147/idr.s420325 · Cited by 12
Liu, M., Zhang, H., Li, L., Mao, J., Li, R., Yin, J. B., & Wu, X. (2024) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-024-09507-6 · Cited by 12
Hu, W., Li, X., Guo, W., Shangguan, Y., Xia, J., Feng, X., Sheng, C., Ji, Z., Ding, C., & Xu, K. (2024) · Journal of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2024.06.003 · Cited by 11
Yuan, J., Wang, L., Zhang, W., Deng, C., Li, Q., Meng, Y., & Chen, Y. (2024) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2024.1423541 · Cited by 11
Zheng, Y.-R., Chen, X., Chen, Q., & Cao, H. (2024) · The Italian Journal of Pediatrics/Italian journal of pediatrics · doi:10.1186/s13052-024-01749-z · Cited by 11
Challenges for pathologists in implementing clinical microbiome diagnostic testing
Gerasimova, Y., Ali, H., & Nadeem, U. (2024) · The Journal of Pathology Clinical Research · doi:10.1002/2056-4538.70002 · Cited by 13
Chiu, C. Y., Godasi, R. R., Hughes, H. R., Servellita, V., Foresythe, K., Tubati, A., Zorn, K. C., Sidhu, S. S., Wilson, M. R., Bethina, S. V., et al. (2025) · Emerging infectious diseases · doi:10.3201/eid3102.240831 · Cited by 12
Self-citationLian, D., Lin, C., Zhang, Z., Wei, J., Wang, D., & Tang, Q. (2025) · BMC Pediatrics · doi:10.1186/s12887-024-05380-z · Cited by 11
Sun, N., Zhang, J., Guo, W., Jin, C., Chen, Y., Gao, D., & Xia, X. (2025) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-025-03887-8 · Cited by 11
Lin, L., Li, J., Zhang, C., Li, J., Wu, B., Huang, Z., Lv, J., Liu, M., Li, W., Zhang, W., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2025.1564488 · Cited by 11
From Culture-Negative to DNA-Positive: The Molecular Revolution in Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis
Kim, M., Fida, M., Saleh, O. A., & Ranganath, N. (2025) · Pathogens · doi:10.3390/pathogens14060518 · Cited by 11
Advances in Single‐Cell Sequencing for Infectious Diseases: Progress and Perspectives
Lyu, M., Liu, Y., Zhou, J. F., Lai, H., Ruan, H., Wu, D., Shun, Z., Zhou, X., Ma, W., Huang, Y., et al. (2025) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202415678 · Cited by 12
Horiba, K., Suzuki, M., Tetsuka, N., Kawano, Y., Yamaguchi, M., Okumura, T., Suzuki, T., Torii, Y., Kawada, J., Morita, M., et al. (2021) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-021-06231-3 · Cited by 11
Integrated mass spectrometry-based multi-omics for elucidating mechanisms of bacterial virulence
Man, L., Klare, W. P., Dale, A. L., Cain, J. A., & Cordwell, S. J. (2021) · Biochemical Society Transactions · doi:10.1042/bst20191088 · Cited by 11
Tong, Y., Zhang, J., Fu, Y., He, X., & Feng, Q. (2022) · Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1155/2022/2549413 · Cited by 11
Mastriani, E., Bienes, K. M., Wong, G., & Berthet, N. (2022) · Viruses · doi:10.3390/v14061260 · Cited by 12
Clinical features of psittacosis in 46 Chinese patients
Jin, W., Liang, R., Tian, X., Cheng, Y., Kong, X., He, F., Zhang, C., Wang, G., Li, S., Lu, H., et al. (2022) · Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica · doi:10.1016/j.eimc.2022.05.012 · Cited by 11
Severe community-acquired pneumonia caused by Chlamydia pecorum
Cao, L., He, L., Wang, S., Xu, L., & Zhuang, S. (2022) · International Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2022.09.037 · Cited by 11
Large‐scale investigation of zoonotic viruses in the era of high‐throughput sequencing
Kawasaki, J., Tomonaga, K., & Horie, M. (2022) · Microbiology and Immunology · doi:10.1111/1348-0421.13033 · Cited by 13
Li, R., Wang, Q., Yang, J., Zhu, J., Liu, J., Wu, R., & Sun, H. (2023) · International Journal of Legal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00414-023-03035-9 · Cited by 11
Morton, L. C., Creppage, K. E., Rahman, N., Early, J. M., Hartman, L., Hydrick, A., & Kasper, M. R. (2023) · Health Security · doi:10.1089/hs.2023.0068 · Cited by 11
Circovirus Hepatitis in Immunocompromised Patient, Switzerland
Hamelin, B., Pérot, P., Pichler, I., Haslbauer, J. D., Hardy, D., Hing, D., Loulizi, S., Regnault, B., Pieters, A., Heijnen, I., et al. (2024) · Emerging infectious diseases · doi:10.3201/eid3010.240678 · Cited by 11
Molecular sequencing technologies in the diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infections
Gamie, Z., Karthikappallil, D., Gamie, E., Stamiris, S., Kenanidis, E. I., & Tsiridis, E. E. (2021) · Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.1080/14737159.2021.1894929 · Cited by 11
Zeng, S., Yan, W., Wu, X., & Zhang, H. (2021) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.714916 · Cited by 11
Wang, D., Lai, M., Song, H., Zhang, J., Zhao, F., Liang, J., Xu, W., Tang, Y., & Xu, X. (2022) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.819467 · Cited by 11
Su, J., Han, X., Xu, X., Ding, W., Li, M., Wang, W., Mi, T., Chen, X., Xu, B., Chen, Z., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2022.892087 · Cited by 10
Yin, X., Zhou, J., Lin, Z., Liang, W., Yang, C., Liu, D., Xu, Y., Nong, L., Chen, S., Yu, Y., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2022.07.062 · Cited by 11
Kiselev, K. V., Nityagovsky, N. N., & Aleynova, O. A. (2023) · Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology · doi:10.1134/s0003683823030110 · Cited by 11
Chen, N. F. G., Chaguza, C., Gagne, L. A., Doucette, M., Smole, S., Buzby, E., Hall, J., Ash, S., Harrington, R., Cofsky, S., et al. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.10.14.22280783 · Cited by 11
Liang, W., Zhang, Q., Qian, Q., Wang, M., Ding, Y., Zhou, J., Zhu, Y., Jin, Y., Chen, X., Kong, H., et al. (2024) · Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials · doi:10.1186/s12941-024-00670-x · Cited by 11
Monkeypox virus: insights into pathogenesis and laboratory testing methods
Kumar, A., Singh, N. K., Anvikar, A. R., & Misra, G. (2024) · 3 Biotech · doi:10.1007/s13205-024-03920-z · Cited by 10
Zhang, D., Li, X., Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., & Zhang, H. (2024) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2024.1384166 · Cited by 10
Quarton, S., Livesey, A., Pittaway, H., Adiga, A., Grudzinska, F. S., McNally, A., Dosanjh, D. P. S., Sapey, E., & Parekh, D. (2024) · Journal of Hospital Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2024.02.029 · Cited by 10
Shi, P., Liu, J., Liang, A., Zhu, W., Fu, J., Wu, X., Peng, Y., Yuan, S., & Wu, X. (2024) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-024-09396-9 · Cited by 10
Quantitative and dynamic profiling of human gut core microbiota by real-time PCR
Yan, Z., Hao, T., Yan, Y., Zhao, Y.-T., Wu, Y., Tan, Y., Cui, Y., Cui, Y., Yang, R., & Zhao, Y. (2024) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-024-13204-4 · Cited by 11
Diagnostic Value of Targeted Next-generation Sequencing in Pulmonary Mycobacterial Infections
Yu, T., Zhou, Z.-W., Duan, Y., & Wang, J.-M. (2024) · Current Medical Science · doi:10.1007/s11596-024-2937-4 · Cited by 10
A sensitivity analysis of methodological variables associated with microbiome measurements
Forry, S. P., Servetas, S. L., Dootz, J. N., Hunter, M. E., Kralj, J. G., Filliben, J. J., & Jackson, S. A. (2025) · Microbiology Spectrum · doi:10.1128/spectrum.00696-24 · Cited by 10
Ye, L., Cao, Y., Fu, Y., Tian, C., & Cao, Q. (2025) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.18522 · Cited by 10
Ke, Y., Zhao, J., Wang, T., Wang, Z., Sun, R., Gu, D., Liu, H., Wang, W., Zhang, C., Zhao, C., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2025.1497198 · Cited by 10
Zheng, X., Zou, W., Zou, S., Ye, J., Bao, Z., & Song, Y. (2025) · Immunology · doi:10.1111/imm.13911 · Cited by 10
Langsiri, N., Meyer, W., Irinyi, L., Worasilchai, N., Pombubpa, N., Wongsurawat, T., Jenjaroenpun, P., Luangsa-ard, J. J., & Chindamporn, A. (2025) · mSystems · doi:10.1128/msystems.01166-24 · Cited by 10
Application of next-generation sequencing in the detection of antimicrobial resistance
Wang, H., Ye, C., Jiang, H., & Song, R. (2025) · Clinica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.cca.2025.120520 · Cited by 11
Liu, X., Jiao, X., Gong, X., Yu, J., Zhao, J., Lv, J., Feng, Q., Yuan, Y., & Pan, W. (2025) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2025.1602636 · Cited by 10
Role of the microbiome in systemic therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (Review)
Huang, X., Mao, L., Hou, S., & Tian, B. (2021) · International Journal of Oncology · doi:10.3892/ijo.2021.5281 · Cited by 10
Sun, Y., Li, H., Chen, J., Ma, Z., Pin, H., Liu, Y., Wen, J., Ren, F., & Ma, X. (2021) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.675030 · Cited by 10
Yang, Y., Shi, Q., Jin, Q., Yang, Z., Li, W., Han, J., Mao, J., & Zheng, B. (2022) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.846526 · Cited by 10
The Role of Gut Microbiota in Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Current State of the Art
Safarpour, A. R., Askari, H., Shojaei‐Zarghani, S., Raeis-Abdollahi, E., Jahromi, H. K., Raise‐Abdullahi, P., Daliri, K., Tajbakhsh, A., & Rahmati, L. (2022) · Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.2174/1389557522666220914093331 · Cited by 13
Zhang, Q., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Wang, H., Zhao, R., Lv, X., Wei, X., & Zhou, K. (2022) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2022.960766 · Cited by 10
Zhang, B., Gui, R., Wang, Q., Jiao, X., Li, Z., Wang, J., Han, L., Zhou, L., Wang, H., Wang, X., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2022.969126 · Cited by 10
Lüth, T., Graspeuntner, S., Neumann, K., Kirchhoff, L., Masuch, A., Schaake, S., Lupatsii, M., Tse, R., Griesinger, G., Trinh, J., et al. (2022) · Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10815-022-02628-4 · Cited by 10
Li, S., Qin, J., Zhou, P., Peng, M., Qian, J., Cai, Y., Shi, Q., Tung, T.-H., Shen, B., & Yu, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2022.961746 · Cited by 10
Clinical features of psittacosis in 46 Chinese patients
Jin, W., Liang, R., Tian, X., Cheng, Y., Kong, X., He, F., Zhang, C., Wang, G., Li, S., Lu, H., et al. (2023) · Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed ) · doi:10.1016/j.eimce.2022.05.016 · Cited by 10
Wang, Q., Song, Y., Han, D., Cai, H. N., Yan, Q., Liu, W. Y., Wang, H.-X., Zheng, X., Ding, L., & Yuan, X. (2023) · Emerging Microbes & Infections · doi:10.1080/22221751.2023.2220581 · Cited by 10
Mizusawa, M., & Carroll, K. C. (2023) · Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.1080/14737159.2023.2234823 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Chiu, C. Y., & Miller, S. A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chiu, Charles Y.
- ORCID
- 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
- PMC
- PMC6858796
- OpenAlex
- W4211037082
- Semantic Scholar
- 8fdae8707a6c5a5ec0e39a7bbf9ef2fba7b6790f
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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