Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 542

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Rapid Whole-Genome Sequencing for Detection and Characterization of Microorganisms Directly from Clinical Samples

Open access
Hasman, Henrik, Saputra, Dhany, Sicheritz-Ponten, Thomas, Lund, Ole, Svendsen, Christina Aaby, Frimodt-Møller, Niels, Aarestrup, Frank M.·2014·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is becoming available as a routine tool for clinical microbiology. If applied directly on clinical samples, this could further reduce diagnostic times and thereby improve control and treatment. A major bottleneck is the availability of fast and reliable bioinformatic tools. This study was conducted to evaluate the applicability of WGS directly on clinical samples and to develop easy-to-use bioinformatic tools for the analysis of sequencing data. Thirty-five random urine samples from patients with suspected urinary tract infections were examined using conventional microbiology, WGS of isolated bacteria, and direct sequencing on pellets from the urine samples. A rapid method for analyzing the sequence data was developed. Bacteria were cultivated from 19 samples but in pure cultures from only 17 samples. WGS improved the identification of the cultivated bacteria, and almost complete agreement was observed between phenotypic and predicted antimicrobial susceptibilities. Complete agreement was observed between species identification, multilocus sequence typing, and phylogenetic relationships for Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis isolates when the results of WGS of cultured isolates and urine samples were directly compared. Sequencing directly from the urine enabled bacterial identification in polymicrobial samples. Additional putative pathogenic strains were observed in some culture-negative samples. WGS directly on clinical samples can provide clinically relevant information and drastically reduce diagnostic times. This may prove very useful, but the need for data analysis is still a hurdle to clinical implementation. To overcome this problem, a publicly available bioinformatic tool was developed in this study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.02452-13

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 542

Metadata

Authors
Hasman, H., Saputra, D., Sicheritz-Ponten, T., Lund, O., Svendsen, C. A., Frimodt-Møller, N., & Aarestrup, F. M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2014-01
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
139-146
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2141041418
Cited by
542
References
0
FWCI
14.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rapid Whole-Genome Sequencing for Detection and Characterization of Microorganisms Directly from Clinical Samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.02452-13
The paper
Hasman, H., Saputra, D., Sicheritz-Ponten, T., Lund, O., Svendsen, C. A., Frimodt-Møller, N., & Aarestrup, F. M. (2014). Rapid Whole-Genome Sequencing for Detection and Characterization of Microorganisms Directly from Clinical Samples. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.02452-13

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.