1887

Microbial Genomics logo

Volume 10, Issue 8

Capturing clinically relevant attributes through direct whole genome sequencing of stool Open Access

Abstract

is the leading bacterial cause of infectious intestinal disease, but the pathogen typically accounts for a very small proportion of the overall stool microbiome in each patient. Diagnosis is even more difficult due to the fastidious nature of in the laboratory setting. This has, in part, driven a change in recent years, from culture-based to rapid PCR-based diagnostic assays which have improved diagnostic detection, whilst creating a knowledge gap in our clinical and epidemiological understanding of genotypes – no isolates to sequence. In this study, direct metagenomic sequencing approaches were used to assess the possibility of replacing genome sequences with metagenome sequences; metagenomic sequencing outputs were used to describe clinically relevant attributes of genotypes. A total of 37 diarrhoeal stool samples with and five samples with an unknown pathogen result were collected and processed with and without filtration, DNA was extracted, and metagenomes were sequenced by short-read sequencing. Culture-based methods were used to validate metagenome-derived genome (MDG) results. Sequence output metrics were assessed for genome quality and accuracy of characterization. Of the 42 samples passing quality checks for analysis, identification of to the genus and species level was dependent on genome read count, coverage and genome completeness. A total of 65% (24/37) of samples were reliably identified to the genus level through MDG, 73% (27/37) by culture and 97% (36/37) by qPCR. The genomes with a genome completeness of over 60% (=21) were all accurately identified at the species level (100%). Of those, 72% (15/21) were identified to sequence types (STs), and 95% (20/21) accurately identified antimicrobial resistance (AMR) gene determinants. Filtration of stool samples enhanced MDG recovery and genome quality metrics compared to the corresponding unfiltered samples, which improved the identification of STs and AMR profiles. The phylogenetic analysis in this study demonstrated the clustering of the metagenome-derived with culture-derived genomes and revealed the reliability of genomes from direct stool sequencing. Furthermore, genome spiking percentages ranging from 0 to 2% total metagenome abundance in the ONT MinION sequencer, configured to adaptive sequencing, exhibited better assembly quality and accurate identification of STs, particularly in the analysis of metagenomes containing 2 and 1% of genomes. Direct sequencing of from stool samples provides clinically relevant and epidemiologically important genomic information without the reliance on cultured genomes.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): Campylobacter , clinical samples and metagenome-derived genomes
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • BBSRC (Award BB/X011011/1)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NicolJanecko
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Award BB/R012504/1)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NicolJanecko
© 2024 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001284
2024-08-30
2024-10-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/10/8/mgen001284.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001284&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Kaakoush NO, Castaño-Rodríguez N, Mitchell HM, Man SM. Global epidemiology of Campylobacter infection. Clin Microbiol Rev 2015; 28:687–720 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ruiz-Palacios GM. The health burden of Campylobacter infection and the impact of antimicrobial resistance: playing chicken. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:701–703 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Rouhani S, Griffin NW, Yori PP, Olortegui MP, Siguas Salas M et al. Gut microbiota features associated with Campylobacter burden and postnatal linear growth deficits in a Peruvian birth cohort. Clin Infect Dis 2020; 71:1000–1007 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Janssen R, Krogfelt KA, Cawthraw SA, van Pelt W, Wagenaar JA et al. Host-pathogen interactions in Campylobacter infections: the host perspective. Clin Microbiol Rev 2008; 21:505–518 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Epps SVR, Harvey RB, Hume ME, Phillips TD, Anderson RC et al. Foodborne Campylobacter: infections, metabolism, pathogenesis and reservoirs. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013; 10:6292–6304 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Acheson D, Allos BM. Campylobacter jejuni infections: update on emerging issues and trends. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32:1201–1206 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Fitzgerald C, Patrick M, Gonzalez A, Akin J, Polage CR et al. Multicenter evaluation of clinical diagnostic methods for detection and isolation of Campylobacter spp. from stool. J Clin Microbiol 2016; 54:1209–1215 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Buss JE, Cresse M, Doyle S, Buchan BW, Craft DW et al. Campylobacter culture fails to correctly detect Campylobacter in 30% of positive patient stool specimens compared to non-cultural methods. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019; 38:1087–1093 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ricke SC, Feye KM, Chaney WE, Shi Z, Pavlidis H et al. Developments in rapid detection methods for the detection of foodborne Campylobacter in the United States. Front Microbiol 2019; 9:415314 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Yang JY, Brooks S, Meyer JA, Blakesley RR, Zelazny AM et al. Pan-PCR, a computational method for designing bacterium-typing assays based on whole-genome sequence data. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51:752–758 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Loderstädt U, Hagen RM, Hahn A, Frickmann H. New developments in PCR-based diagnostics for bacterial pathogens causing gastrointestinal infections-a narrative mini-review on challenges in the tropics. Trop Med Infect Dis 2021; 6:96 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Yang S, Rothman RE. PCR-based diagnostics for infectious diseases: uses, limitations, and future applications in acute-care settings. Lancet Infect Dis 2004; 4:337–348 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bloomfield SJ, Zomer AL, O’Grady J, Kay GL, Wain J et al. Determination and quantification of microbial communities and antimicrobial resistance on food through host DNA-depleted metagenomics. Food Microbiol 2023; 110:104162 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Golz JC, Epping L, Knüver M-T, Borowiak M, Hartkopf F et al. Whole genome sequencing reveals extended natural transformation in Campylobacter impacting diagnostics and the pathogens adaptive potential. Sci Rep 2020; 10:3686 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bai X, Narayanan A, Nowak P, Ray S, Neogi U et al. Whole-genome metagenomic analysis of the gut microbiome in HIV-1-infected individuals on antiretroviral therapy. Front Microbiol 2021; 12:667718 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ranjan R, Rani A, Metwally A, McGee HS, Perkins DL. Analysis of the microbiome: advantages of whole genome shotgun versus 16S amplicon sequencing. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2016; 469:967–977 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Loman NJ, Constantinidou C, Christner M, Rohde H, Chan JZ-M et al. A culture-independent sequence-based metagenomics approach to the investigation of an outbreak of Shiga-toxigenic Escherichia coli O104:H4. JAMA 2013; 309:1502–1510 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Meziti A, Rodriguez-R LM, Hatt JK, Peña-Gonzalez A, Levy K et al. The reliability of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) in representing natural populations: insights from comparing MAGs against isolate genomes derived from the same fecal sample. Appl Environ Microbiol 2021; 87:e02593-20 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Rhoades NS, Cinco IR, Hendrickson SM, Prongay K, Haertel AJ et al. Infant diarrheal disease in rhesus macaques impedes microbiome maturation and is linked to uncultured Campylobacter species. Commun Biol 2024; 7:37 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Peterson C-L, Alexander D, Chen JC-Y, Adam H, Walker M et al. Clinical metagenomics is increasingly accurate and affordable to detect enteric bacterial pathogens in stool. Microorganisms 2022; 10:441 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Santiago-Rodriguez TM, Garoutte A, Adams E, Nasser W, Ross MC et al. Metagenomic information recovery from human stool samples is influenced by sequencing depth and profiling method. Genes 2020; 11:1380 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Parks DH, Rinke C, Chuvochina M, Chaumeil P-A, Woodcroft BJ et al. Author correction: recovery of nearly 8,000 metagenome-assembled genomes substantially expands the tree of life. Nat Microbiol 2018; 3:253 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Eisenhofer R, Odriozola I, Alberdi A. Impact of microbial genome completeness on metagenomic functional inference. ISME Commun 2023; 3: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Li T, Yin YB. Critical assessment of pan-genomic analysis of metagenome-assembled genomes. Brief Bioinform 2022; 23:bbac413 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu S, Moon CD, Zheng N, Huws S, Zhao S et al. Opportunities and challenges of using metagenomic data to bring uncultured microbes into cultivation. Microbiome 2022; 10: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Schirmer M, Ijaz UZ, D’Amore R, Hall N, Sloan WT et al. Insight into biases and sequencing errors for amplicon sequencing with the Illumina MiSeq platform. Nucleic Acids Res 2015; 43:e37 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhang HW, Jain C, Aluru S. A comprehensive evaluation of long read error correction methods. BMC Genom 2020; 21:889 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Deamer D, Akeson M, Branton D. Three decades of nanopore sequencing. Nat Biotechnol 2016; 34:518–524 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang Y, Zhao Y, Bollas A, Wang Y, Au KF. Nanopore sequencing technology, bioinformatics and applications. Nat Biotechnol 2021; 39:1348–1365 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Cheng H, Sun Y, Yang Q, Deng M, Yu Z et al. A rapid bacterial pathogen and antimicrobial resistance diagnosis workflow using Oxford nanopore adaptive sequencing method. Brief Bioinform 2022; 23: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Nakamura W, Hirata M, Oda S, Chiba K, Okada A et al. Assessing the efficacy of target adaptive sampling long-read sequencing through hereditary cancer patient genomes. NPJ Genom Med 2024; 9:11 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Eisenhofer R, Odriozola I, Alberdi A. Impact of microbial genome completeness on metagenomic functional inference. ISME Commun 2023; 3:12 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Waterhouse RM, Seppey M, Simão FA, Manni M, Ioannidis P et al. BUSCO applications from quality assessments to gene prediction and phylogenomics. Mol Biol Evol 2018; 35:543–548 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Foster-Nyarko E, Cottingham H, Wick RR, Judd LM, Lam MMC et al. Nanopore-only assemblies for genomic surveillance of the global priority drug-resistant pathogen, Klebsiella pneumoniae. Microb Genom 2023; 9: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Lerminiaux N, Fakharuddin K, Mulvey MR, Mataseje L. Do we still need Illumina sequencing data? Evaluating Oxford Nanopore Technologies R10.4.1 flow cells and the Rapid v14 library prep kit for Gram negative bacteria whole genome assemblies. Can J Microbiol 2024; 70:178–189 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jauhal AA, Newcomb RD. Assessing genome assembly quality prior to downstream analysis: N50 versus BUSCO. Mol Ecol Resour 2021; 21:1416–1421 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Charalampous T, Kay GL, Richardson H, Aydin A, Baldan R et al. Nanopore metagenomics enables rapid clinical diagnosis of bacterial lower respiratory infection. Nat Biotechnol 2019; 37:783–792 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Platts-Mills JA, Liu J, Gratz J, Mduma E, Amour C et al. Detection of Campylobacter in stool and determination of significance by culture, enzyme immunoassay, and PCR in developing countries. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52:1074–1080 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Cunningham SA, Sloan LM, Nyre LM, Vetter EA, Mandrekar J et al. Three-hour molecular detection of Campylobacter, Salmonella, Yersinia, and Shigella species in feces with accuracy as high as that of culture. J Clin Microbiol 2010; 48:2929–2933 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Matthews TC, Bristow FR, Griffiths EJ, Petkau A, Adam J et al. The integrated rapid infectious disease analysis (IRIDA) platform. Bioinformatics 2018381830 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Wood DE, Salzberg SL. Kraken: ultrafast metagenomic sequence classification using exact alignments. Genome Biol 2014; 15:R46 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 2018; 34:i884-i90 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol 2019; 20:257 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Seppey M, Manni M, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness. In Gene Prediction Springer; 2019 pp 227–245 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genom Res 2015; 25:1043–1055 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2013; 29:1072–1075 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Jolley KA, Maiden MCJ. BIGSdb: scalable analysis of bacterial genome variation at the population level. BMC Bioinform 2010; 11:1–11 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Feldgarden M, Brover V, Gonzalez-Escalona N, Frye JG, Haendiges J et al. AMRFinderPlus and the reference gene catalog facilitate examination of the genomic links among antimicrobial resistance, stress response, and virulence. Sci Rep 2021; 11:1–9 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Jacobs-Reitsma WF, Jongenburger I, de Boer E, Biesta-Peters EG. Validation by interlaboratory trials of EN ISO 10272 - microbiology of the food chain - horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. - part 2: colony-count technique. Int J Food Microbiol 2019; 288:32–38 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Pearson BM, Gaskin DJH, Segers RPAM, Wells JM, Nuijten PJM et al. The complete genome sequence of Campylobacter jejuni strain 81116 (NCTC11828). J Bacteriol 2007; 189:8402–8403 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Djeghout B, Bloomfield SJ, Rudder S, Elumogo N, Mather AE et al. Comparative genomics of Campylobacter jejuni from clinical campylobacteriosis stool specimens. Gut Pathog 2022; 14:45 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Parker A, Romano S, Ansorge R, Aboelnoer A, Le Gall G et al. 2022; Heterochronic fecal microbiota transfer reverses hallmarks of the aging murine gut, eye and brain. Microbiome [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 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 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. RStudio Team RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC. Boston, MA; 2020 http://www.rstudio.com/
  55. Uritskiy GV, DiRuggiero J, Taylor J. MetaWRAP-a flexible pipeline for genome-resolved metagenomic data analysis. Microbiome 2018; 6:158 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wu YW, Simmons BA, Singer SW. MaxBin 2.0: an automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 2016; 32:605–607 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Alneberg J, Bjarnason BS, de Bruijn I, Schirmer M, Quick J et al. Binning metagenomic contigs by coverage and composition. Nat Methods 2014; 11:1144–1146 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Klötzl F, Haubold B. Phylonium: fast estimation of evolutionary distances from large samples of similar genomes. Bioinformatics 2020; 36:2040–2046 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Simonsen M, Mailund T, Pedersen CNS. Rapid neighbour-joining. Lect N Bioinform 2008; 5251:113–122 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Chernomor O, Minh BQ, Forest F, Klaere S, Ingram T et al. Split diversity in constrained conservation prioritization using integer linear programming. Methods Ecol Evol 2015; 6:83–91 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Nguyen L-T, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol 2015; 32:268–274 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Schwengers O, Jelonek L, Dieckmann MA, Beyvers S, Blom J et al. Bakta: rapid and standardized annotation of bacterial genomes via alignment-free sequence identification. Microb Genom 2021; 7: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Tonkin-Hill G, MacAlasdair N, Ruis C, Weimann A, Horesh G et al. Producing polished prokaryotic pangenomes with the Panaroo pipeline. Genome Biol 2020; 21:180 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:1972–1973 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano TA. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J Mol Evol 1985; 22:160–174 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Yang ZH. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation from DNA sequences with variable rates over sites: approximate methods. J Mol Evol 1994; 39:306–314 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Kluyver T, Ragan-Kelley B, Perez F, Granger B, Bussonnier M et al. Jupyter notebooks-a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas vol 2016 pp 87–90 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Li H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 2018; 34:3094–3100 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Lin Y, Yuan J, Kolmogorov M, Shen MW, Chaisson M et al. Assembly of long error-prone reads using de Bruijn graphs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016; 113:E8396–E8405 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Kolmogorov M, Yuan J, Lin Y, Pevzner PA. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat Biotechnol 2019; 37:540–546 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Wick RR, Schultz MB, Zobel J, Holt KE. Bandage: interactive visualization ofde novogenome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2015; 31:3350–3352 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Hackl T, Trigodet F, Eren AM, Biller SJ, Eppley JM et al. proovframe: frameshift-correction for long-read (meta)genomics. Bioinformatics 2021 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Cuccuru G, Orsini M, Pinna A, Sbardellati A, Soranzo N et al. Orione, a web-based framework for NGS analysis in microbiology. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:1928–1929 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Caroff DA, Edelstein PH, Hamilton K, Pegues DA, Program CPE. The bristol stool scale and its relationship to Clostridium difficile infection. J Clin Microbiol 2014; 52:3437–3439 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Loman NJ, Constantinidou C, Christner M, Rohde H, Chan JZ-M et al. A culture-independent sequence-based metagenomics approach to the investigation of an outbreak of Shiga-Toxigenic Escherichia coli O104:H4. JAMA 2013; 309:1502 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Xie F, Jin W, Si HZ, Yuan Y, Tao Y et al. An integrated gene catalog and over 10,000 metagenome-assembled genomes from the gastrointestinal microbiome of ruminants. Microbiome 2021; 10:137 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Bowers RM, Kyrpides NC, Stepanauskas R, Harmon-Smith M, Doud D et al. Erratum: Corrigendum: Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat Biotechnol 2018; 36:660 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Lui LM, Nielsen TN, Arkin AP. A method for achieving complete microbial genomes and improving bins from metagenomics data. PLoS Comput Biol 2021; 17:e1008972 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Almeida A, Mitchell AL, Boland M, Forster SC, Gloor GB et al. A new genomic blueprint of the human gut microbiota. Nature 2019; 568:499–504 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Wieczorek K, Osek J. Antimicrobial resistance mechanisms among Campylobacter. Biomed Res Int 2013 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Manchanda N, Portwood JL, Woodhouse MR, Seetharam AS, Lawrence-Dill CJ et al. GenomeQC: a quality assessment tool for genome assemblies and gene structure annotations. BMC Genom 2020; 21:193 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Chen LX, Anantharaman K, Shaiber A, Eren AM, Banfield JF. Accurate and complete genomes from metagenomes. Genom Res 2020; 30:315–333 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Hoff KJ. The effect of sequencing errors on metagenomic gene prediction. BMC Genom 2009; 10:520 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Timme RE, Wolfgang WJ, Balkey M, Venkata SLG, Randolph R et al. Optimizing open data to support one health: best practices to ensure interoperability of genomic data from bacterial pathogens. One Health Outlook 2020; 2:20 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Richardson JF, Frost JA, Kramer JM, Thwaites RT, Bolton FJ et al. Coinfection with Campylobacter species: an epidemiological problem?. J Appl Microbiol 2001; 91:206–211 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Forbes KJ, Gormley FJ, Dallas JF, Labovitiadi O, MacRae M et al. Campylobacter immunity and coinfection following a large outbreak in a farming community. J Clin Microbiol 2009; 47:111–116 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Parker CT, Schiaffino F, Huynh S, Paredes Olortegui M, Peñataro Yori P et al. Shotgun metagenomics of fecal samples from children in Peru reveals frequent complex co-infections with multiple Campylobacter species. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2022; 16:e0010815 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  88. He Y, Kanrar S, Reed S, Lee J, Capobianco J. Whole genome sequences, de novo assembly, and annotation of antibiotic resistant Campylobacter jejuni strains S27, S33, and S36 newly isolated from chicken meat. Microorganisms 2024; 12:159 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Gemmell MR, Berry S, Mukhopadhya I, Hansen R, Nielsen HL et al. Comparative genomics of Campylobacter concisus: analysis of clinical strains reveals genome diversity and pathogenic potential. Emerg Microbes Infect 2018; 7:116 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Kong W, Wang Y, Zhang S, Yu J, Zhang X. Recent advances in assembly of complex plant genomes. Genom Proteom Bioinform 2023; 21:427–439 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Brown CL, Keenum IM, Dai D, Zhang L, Vikesland PJ et al. Critical evaluation of short, long, and hybrid assembly for contextual analysis of antibiotic resistance genes in complex environmental metagenomes. Sci Rep 2021; 11:3753 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Llarena AK, Taboada E, Rossi M. Whole-genome sequencing in epidemiology of Campylobacter jejuni infections. J Clin Microbiol 2017; 55:1269–1275 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Sheppard SK, McCarthy ND, Falush D, Maiden MCJ. Convergence of Campylobacter species: implications for bacterial evolution. Science 2008; 320:237–239 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Sheppard SK, Jolley KA, Maiden MCJ. A gene-by-gene approach to bacterial population genomics: whole genome MLST of Campylobacter. Genes 2012; 3:261–277 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Nnadozie CF, Lin J, Govinden R. Selective isolation of bacteria for metagenomic analysis: impact of membrane characteristics on bacterial filterability. Biotechnol Prog 2015; 31:853–866 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Thomas T, Gilbert J, Meyer F. Metagenomics - a guide from sampling to data analysis. Microb Inform Exp 2012; 2:3 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  97. López-Pérez M, Kimes NE, Haro-Moreno JM, Rodriguez-Valera F. Not all particles are equal: the selective enrichment of particle-associated bacteria from the Mediterranean Sea. Front Microbiol 2016; 7:996 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Li J, Hua Z-S, Liu T, Wang C, Li J et al. Selective enrichment and metagenomic analysis of three novel comammox Nitrospirain a urine-fed membrane bioreactor. ISME Commun 2021; 1: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Martin S, Heavens D, Lan YX, Horsfield S, Clark MD et al. Nanopore adaptive sampling: a tool for enrichment of low abundance species in metagenomic samples. Genome Biol 2022; 23: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Kipp EJ, Lindsey LL, Khoo B, Faulk C, Oliver JD et al. Metagenomic surveillance for bacterial tick-borne pathogens using nanopore adaptive sampling. Sci Rep 2023; 13:10991 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Su J, Lui WW, Lee Y, Zheng Z, Siu GK-H et al. Evaluation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis enrichment in metagenomic samples using ONT adaptive sequencing and amplicon sequencing for identification and variant calling. Sci Rep 2023; 13: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Chapman R, Jones L, D’Angelo A, Suliman A, Anwar M et al. Nanopore-based metagenomic sequencing in respiratory tract infection: a developing diagnostic platform. Lung 2023; 201:171–179 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Lin Y, Dai Y, Zhang S, Guo H, Yang L et al. Application of nanopore adaptive sequencing in pathogen detection of a patient with Chlamydia psittaci infection. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2023; 13: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Su J, Lui WW, Lee Y, Zheng Z, Siu GK-H et al. Evaluation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis enrichment in metagenomic samples using ONT adaptive sequencing and amplicon sequencing for identification and variant calling. Sci Rep 2023; 13:5237 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001284
Loading
Capturing clinically relevant Campylobacter attributes through direct whole genome sequencing of stool
M Gen 10, 001284 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.001284
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001284
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001284
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

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