Antibiotic resistance prediction for Mycobacterium tuberculosis from genome sequence data with Mykrobe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two billion people are infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis , leading to 10 million new cases of active tuberculosis and 1.5 million deaths annually. Universal access to drug susceptibility testing (DST) has become a World Health Organization priority. We previously developed a software tool, Mykrobe predictor , which provided offline species identification and drug resistance predictions for M. tuberculosis from whole genome sequencing (WGS) data. Performance was insufficient to support the use of WGS as an alternative to conventional phenotype-based DST, due to mutation catalogue limitations. Here we present a new tool, Mykrobe , which provides the same functionality based on a new software implementation. Improvements include i) an updated mutation catalogue giving greater sensitivity to detect pyrazinamide resistance, ii) support for user-defined resistance catalogues, iii) improved identification of non-tuberculous mycobacterial species, and iv) an updated statistical model for Oxford Nanopore Technologies sequencing data. Mykrobe is released under MIT license at https://github.com/mykrobe-tools/mykrobe. We incorporate mutation catalogues from the CRyPTIC consortium et al. (2018) and from Walker et al. (2015), and make improvements based on performance on an initial set of 3206 and an independent set of 5845 M. tuberculosis Illumina sequences. To give estimates of error rates, we use a prospectively collected dataset of 4362 M. tuberculosis isolates . Using culture based DST as the reference, we estimate Mykrobe to be 100%, 95%, 82%, 99% sensitive and 99%, 100%, 99%, 99% specific for rifampicin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide and ethambutol resistance prediction respectively. We benchmark against four other tools on 10207 (=5845+4362) samples, and also show that Mykrobe gives concordant results with nanopore data. We measure the ability of Mykrobe -based DST to guide personalized therapeutic regimen design in the context of complex drug susceptibility profiles, showing 94% concordance of implied regimen with that driven by phenotypic DST, higher than all other benchmarked tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.015 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".