1887

Abstract

Pathogen monitoring is becoming more precise as sequencing technologies become more affordable and accessible worldwide. This transition is especially apparent in the field of food safety, which has demonstrated how whole-genome sequencing (WGS) can be used on a global scale to protect public health. GenomeTrakr coordinates the WGS performed by public-health agencies and other partners by providing a public database with real-time cluster analysis for foodborne pathogen surveillance. Because WGS is being used to support enforcement decisions, it is essential to have confidence in the quality of the data being used and the downstream data analyses that guide these decisions. Routine proficiency tests, such as the one described here, have an important role in ensuring the validity of both data and procedures. In 2015, the GenomeTrakr proficiency test distributed eight isolates of common foodborne pathogens to participating laboratories, who were required to follow a specific protocol for performing WGS. Resulting sequence data were evaluated for several metrics, including proper labelling, sequence quality and new single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Illumina MiSeq sequence data collected for the same set of strains across 21 different laboratories exhibited high reproducibility, while revealing a narrow range of technical and biological variance. The numbers of SNPs reported for sequencing runs of the same isolates across multiple laboratories support the robustness of our cluster analysis pipeline in that each individual isolate cultured and resequenced multiple times in multiple places are all easily identifiable as originating from the same source.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000185
2018-06-15
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/4/7/mgen000185.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000185&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Allard MW, Strain E, Melka D, Bunning K, Musser SM et al. Practical value of food pathogen traceability through building a whole-genome sequencing network and database. J Clin Microbiol 2016;54:1975–1983 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Hoffmann M, Luo Y, Monday SR, Gonzalez-Escalona N, Ottesen AR et al. Tracing origins of the Salmonella bareilly strain causing a food-borne outbreak in the United States. J Infect Dis 2016;213:502–508 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Davis S, Pettengill JB, Luo Y, Payne J, Shpuntoff A et al. CFSAN SNP Pipeline: an automated method for constructing SNP matrices from next-generation sequence data. PeerJ Comput Sci 2015;1:e20 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Katz LS, Griswold T, Williams-Newkirk AJ, Wagner D, Petkau A et al. A comparative analysis of the Lyve-SET phylogenomics pipeline for genomic epidemiology of foodborne pathogens. Front Microbiol 2017;8:1–13 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Pightling AW, Petronella N, Pagotto F. The Listeria monocytogenes core-genome sequence typer (LmCGST): a bioinformatic pipeline for molecular characterization with next-generation sequence data. BMC Microbiol 2015;15:224 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Moura A, Criscuolo A, Pouseele H, Maury MM, Leclercq A et al. Whole genome-based population biology and epidemiological surveillance of Listeria monocytogenes. Nat Microbiol 2016;2:16185 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Swaminathan B, Barrett TJ, Hunter SB, Tauxe RV. PulseNet: the molecular subtyping network for foodborne bacterial disease surveillance, United States. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:382–389 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Wyres KL, Conway TC, Garg S, Queiroz C, Reumann M et al. WGS analysis and interpretation in clinical and public health microbiology laboratories: what are the requirements and how do existing tools compare?. Pathogens 2014;3:437–458 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. APHL Next Generation Sequencing in Public Health Laboratories, 2014 Survey Results Silver Spring, MD: Association of Public Health Laboratories; 2015
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldberg B, Sichtig H, Geyer C, Ledeboer N, Weinstock GM. Making the leap from research laboratory to clinic: challenges and opportunities for next-generation sequencing in infectious disease diagnostics. MBio 2015;6:e01888-15 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Lesho E, Clifford R, Onmus-Leone F, Appalla L, Snesrud E et al. The challenges of implementing next generation sequencing across a large healthcare system, and the molecular epidemiology and antibiotic susceptibilities of carbapenemase-producing bacteria in the healthcare system of the U.S. Department of Defense. PLoS One 2016;11:e0155770 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gargis AS, Kalman L, Lubin IM. Assuring the quality of next-generation sequencing in clinical microbiology and public health laboratories. J Clin Microbiol 2016;54:2857–2865 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Weck KE, Zehnbauer B, Datto M, Schrijver I. for the CAP/ACMG Biochemical and Molecular Genetics Resource Committee Molecular genetic testing for fragile X syndrome: laboratory performance on the College of American Pathologists proficiency surveys (2001–2009). Genet Med 2012;14:306–312 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Feldman GL, Schrijver I, Lyon E, Palomaki GE. on behalf of the CAP/ACMG Biochemical and Molecular Genetics Resource Committee Results of the College of American Pathology/American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics external proficiency testing from 2006 to 2013 for three conditions prevalent in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Genet Med 2014;16:695–702 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Lyon E, Schrijver I, Weck KE, Ferreira-Gonzalez A, Richards CS et al. Molecular genetic testing for cystic fibrosis: laboratory performance on the College of American Pathologists external proficiency surveys. Genet Med 2015;17:219–225 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lienau EK, Strain E, Wang C, Zheng J, Ottesen AR et al. Identification of a salmonellosis outbreak by means of molecular sequencing. N Engl J Med 2011;364:981–982 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Allard MW, Luo Y, Strain E, Li C, Keys CE et al. High resolution clustering of Salmonella enterica serovar Montevideo strains using a next-generation sequencing approach. BMC Genomics 2012;13:32 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Yachison CA, Yoshida C, Robertson J, Nash JHE, Kruczkiewicz P et al. The validation and implications of using whole genome sequencing as a replacement for traditional serotyping for a national Salmonella reference laboratory. Front Microbiol 2017;8:1044 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kozyreva VK, Truong CL, Greninger AL, Crandall J, Mukhopadhyay R et al. Validation and implementation of clinical laboratory improvements act-compliant whole-genome sequencing in the public health microbiology laboratory. J Clin Microbiol 2017;55:2502–2520 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Moran-Gilad J, Sintchenko V, Pedersen SK, Wolfgang WJ, Pettengill J et al. Proficiency testing for bacterial whole genome sequencing: an end-user survey of current capabilities, requirements and priorities. BMC Infect Dis 2015;15:174 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Nadon C, Van Walle I, Gerner-Smidt P, Campos J, Chinen I et al. PulseNet International: vision for the implementation of whole genome sequencing (WGS) for global food-borne disease surveillance. Euro Surveill 2017;22:30544 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Stevens EL, Musser SM. 2017; Making the Case for Using Whole Genome Sequencing to Fight Foodborne Illness Globally. https://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/2017/09/making-the-case-for-using-whole-genome-sequencing-to-fight-foodborne-illness-globally/ [accessed 30 November 2017]
  23. Yao K, Muruvanda T, Roberts RJ, Payne J, Allard MW et al. Complete genome and methylome sequences of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Panama (ATCC 7378) and Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Sloterdijk (ATCC 15791). Genome Announc 2016;4:e00133-16 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Krumsiek J, Arnold R, Rattei T. Gepard: a rapid and sensitive tool for creating dotplots on genome scale. Bioinformatics 2007;23:1026–1028 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Pirone-Davies C, Hoffmann M, Roberts RJ, Muruvanda T, Timme RE et al. Genome-wide methylation patterns in Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovars. PLoS One 2015;10:e0123639 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Walker BJ, Abeel T, Shea T, Priest M, Abouelliel A et al. Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLoS One 2014;9:e112963 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 2012;9:357–359 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Andrews S. 2010; FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc
  29. Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol 2012;19:455–477 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2013;29:1072–1075 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Harrell FE, Dupont C. 2012; Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. R package. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
  32. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B 1995;57:289–300
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Toker L, Feng M, Pavlidis P. Whose sample is it anyway? Widespread misannotation of samples in transcriptomics studies. F1000Res 2016;5:2103 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Illumina 2016; Optimizing Cluster Density on Illumina Sequencing Systems. www.illumina.com/content/dam/illumina-marketing/documents/products/other/miseq-overclustering-primer-770-2014-038.pdf [accessed 16 April 2018]
  35. Oyola SO, Otto TD, Gu Y, Maslen G, Manske M et al. Optimizing Illumina next-generation sequencing library preparation for extremely AT-biased genomes. BMC Genomics 2012;13:1 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ross MG, Russ C, Costello M, Hollinger A, Lennon NJ et al. Characterizing and measuring bias in sequence data. Genome Biol 2013;14:R51 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Tyler AD, Christianson S, Knox NC, Mabon P, Wolfe J et al. Comparison of sample preparation methods used for the next-generation sequencing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0148676 [CrossRef][PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000185
Loading
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000185
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary File 1

PDF

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error