Three Distinct Annotation Platforms Differ in Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Long-Read, Short-Read, and Hybrid Sequences Derived from Total Genomic DNA or from Purified Plasmid DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances and lower costs in rapid high-throughput sequencing have engendered hope that whole genome sequencing (WGS) might afford complete resistome characterization in bacterial isolates. WGS is particularly useful for the clinical characterization of fastidious and slow-growing bacteria. Despite its potential, several challenges should be addressed before adopting WGS to detect antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes in the clinical laboratory. Here, with three distinct ESKAPE bacteria (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter spp.), different approaches were compared to identify best practices for detecting AMR genes, including: total genomic DNA and plasmid DNA extractions, the solo assembly of Illumina short-reads and of Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) long-reads, two hybrid assembly pipelines, and three in silico AMR databases. We also determined the susceptibility of each strain to 21 antimicrobials. We found that all AMR genes detected in pure plasmid DNA were also detectable in total genomic DNA, indicating that, at least in these three enterobacterial genera, the purification of plasmid DNA was not necessary to detect plasmid-borne AMR genes. Illumina short-reads used with ONT long-reads in either hybrid or polished assemblies of total genomic DNA enhanced the sensitivity and accuracy of AMR gene detection. Phenotypic susceptibility closely corresponded with genotypes identified by sequencing; however, the three AMR databases differed significantly in distinguishing mobile dedicated AMR genes from non-mobile chromosomal housekeeping genes in which rare spontaneous resistance mutations might occur. This study indicates that each method employed in a WGS workflow has an impact on the detection of AMR genes. A combination of short- and long-reads, followed by at least three different AMR databases, should be used for the consistent detection of such genes. Further, an additional step for plasmid DNA purification and sequencing may not be necessary. This study reveals the need for standardized biochemical and informatic procedures and database resources for consistent, reliable AMR genotyping to take full advantage of WGS in order to expedite patient treatment and track AMR genes within the hospital and community.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".