Philip T L C Clausen1, Ea Zankari2, Frank M Aarestrup3, Ole Lund4. 1. Center for Biological Sequence Analysis, Department of Systems Biology, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark. 2. Center for Biological Sequence Analysis, Department of Systems Biology, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark Research Group for Genomic Epidemiology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark. 3. Research Group for Genomic Epidemiology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark. 4. Center for Biological Sequence Analysis, Department of Systems Biology, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark lund@cbs.dtu.dk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Next generation sequencing (NGS) may be an alternative to phenotypic susceptibility testing for surveillance and clinical diagnosis. However, current bioinformatics methods may be associated with false positives and negatives. In this study, a novel mapping method was developed and benchmarked to two different methods in current use for identification of antibiotic resistance genes in bacterial WGS data. METHODS: A novel method, KmerResistance, which examines the co-occurrence of k-mers between the WGS data and a database of resistance genes, was developed. The performance of this method was compared with two previously described methods; ResFinder and SRST2, which use an assembly/BLAST method and BWA, respectively, using two datasets with a total of 339 isolates, covering five species, originating from the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and Danish pig farms. The predicted resistance was compared with the observed phenotypes for all isolates. To challenge further the sensitivity of the in silico methods, the datasets were also down-sampled to 1% of the reads and reanalysed. RESULTS: The best results were obtained by identification of resistance genes by mapping directly against the raw reads. This indicates that information might be lost during assembly. KmerResistance performed significantly better than the other methods, when data were contaminated or only contained few sequence reads. CONCLUSIONS: Read mapping is superior to assembly-based methods and the new KmerResistance seemingly outperforms currently available methods particularly when including datasets with few reads.
OBJECTIVES: Next generation sequencing (NGS) may be an alternative to phenotypic susceptibility testing for surveillance and clinical diagnosis. However, current bioinformatics methods may be associated with false positives and negatives. In this study, a novel mapping method was developed and benchmarked to two different methods in current use for identification of antibiotic resistance genes in bacterial WGS data. METHODS: A novel method, KmerResistance, which examines the co-occurrence of k-mers between the WGS data and a database of resistance genes, was developed. The performance of this method was compared with two previously described methods; ResFinder and SRST2, which use an assembly/BLAST method and BWA, respectively, using two datasets with a total of 339 isolates, covering five species, originating from the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and Danish pig farms. The predicted resistance was compared with the observed phenotypes for all isolates. To challenge further the sensitivity of the in silico methods, the datasets were also down-sampled to 1% of the reads and reanalysed. RESULTS: The best results were obtained by identification of resistance genes by mapping directly against the raw reads. This indicates that information might be lost during assembly. KmerResistance performed significantly better than the other methods, when data were contaminated or only contained few sequence reads. CONCLUSIONS: Read mapping is superior to assembly-based methods and the new KmerResistance seemingly outperforms currently available methods particularly when including datasets with few reads.
Authors: Michael Feldgarden; Vyacheslav Brover; Daniel H Haft; Arjun B Prasad; Douglas J Slotta; Igor Tolstoy; Gregory H Tyson; Shaohua Zhao; Chih-Hao Hsu; Patrick F McDermott; Daniel A Tadesse; Cesar Morales; Mustafa Simmons; Glenn Tillman; Jamie Wasilenko; Jason P Folster; William Klimke Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Deirdre L Church; Lorenzo Cerutti; Antoine Gürtler; Thomas Griener; Adrian Zelazny; Stefan Emler Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Margo VanOeffelen; Marcus Nguyen; Derya Aytan-Aktug; Thomas Brettin; Emily M Dietrich; Ronald W Kenyon; Dustin Machi; Chunhong Mao; Robert Olson; Gordon D Pusch; Maulik Shukla; Rick Stevens; Veronika Vonstein; Andrew S Warren; Alice R Wattam; Hyunseung Yoo; James J Davis Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 13.994
Authors: Alex van Belkum; Carey-Ann D Burnham; John W A Rossen; Frederic Mallard; Olivier Rochas; William Michael Dunne Journal: Nat Rev Microbiol Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 60.633
Authors: Sang Mee Hwang; Hee Won Cho; Tae Yeul Kim; Jeong Su Park; Jongtak Jung; Kyoung-Ho Song; Hyunju Lee; Eu Suk Kim; Hong Bin Kim; Kyoung Un Park Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-01-29
Authors: Margaret M C Lam; Ryan R Wick; Stephen C Watts; Louise T Cerdeira; Kelly L Wyres; Kathryn E Holt Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 14.919