Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 204

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Unbiased Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Use of RNA Sequencing-Based Metagenomics: a Systematic Comparison to a Commercial PCR Panel

Open access
Graf, Erin H., Simmon, Keith E., Tardif, Keith D., Hymas, Weston, Flygare, Steven, Eilbeck, Karen, Yandell, Mark, Schlaberg, Robert·2016·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Current infectious disease molecular tests are largely pathogen specific, requiring test selection based on the patient's symptoms. For many syndromes caused by a large number of viral, bacterial, or fungal pathogens, such as respiratory tract infections, this necessitates large panels of tests and has limited yield. In contrast, next-generation sequencing-based metagenomics can be used for unbiased detection of any expected or unexpected pathogen. However, barriers for its diagnostic implementation include incomplete understanding of analytical performance and complexity of sequence data analysis. We compared detection of known respiratory virus-positive ( n = 42) and unselected ( n = 67) pediatric nasopharyngeal swabs using an RNA sequencing (RNA-seq)-based metagenomics approach and Taxonomer, an ultrarapid, interactive, web-based metagenomics data analysis tool, with an FDA-cleared respiratory virus panel (RVP; GenMark eSensor). Untargeted metagenomics detected 86% of known respiratory virus infections, and additional PCR testing confirmed RVP results for only 2 (33%) of the discordant samples. In unselected samples, untargeted metagenomics had excellent agreement with the RVP (93%). In addition, untargeted metagenomics detected an additional 12 viruses that were either not targeted by the RVP or missed due to highly divergent genome sequences. Normalized viral read counts for untargeted metagenomics correlated with viral burden determined by quantitative PCR and showed high intrarun and interrun reproducibility. Partial or full-length viral genome sequences were generated in 86% of RNA-seq-positive samples, allowing assessment of antiviral resistance, strain-level typing, and phylogenetic relatedness. Overall, untargeted metagenomics had high agreement with a sensitive RVP, detected viruses not targeted by the RVP, and yielded epidemiologically and clinically valuable sequence information.

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.03060-15

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 204

Metadata

Authors
Graf, E. H., Simmon, K. E., Tardif, K. D., Hymas, W., Flygare, S., Eilbeck, K., Yandell, M., & Schlaberg, R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2016-04
Volume
54
Issue
4
Pages
1000-1007
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2332382218
Cited by
204
References
6
FWCI
20.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Unbiased Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Use of RNA Sequencing-Based Metagenomics: a Systematic Comparison to a Commercial PCR Panel. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.03060-15
The paper
Graf, E. H., Simmon, K. E., Tardif, K. D., Hymas, W., Flygare, S., Eilbeck, K., Yandell, M., & Schlaberg, R. (2016). Unbiased Detection of Respiratory Viruses by Use of RNA Sequencing-Based Metagenomics: a Systematic Comparison to a Commercial PCR Panel. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.03060-15

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.