Samuel A Shelburne1,2,3, Jiwoong Kim4,5, Jose M Munita3,6,7, Pranoti Sahasrabhojane1, Ryan K Shields8, Ellen G Press8, Xiqi Li9, Cesar A Arias3,6,10,11, Brandi Cantarel4, Ying Jiang1, Min S Kim4,5, Samuel L Aitken3,12, David E Greenberg3,13,14. 1. Department of Infectious Diseases, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America 2. Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America. 3. Center for Antimicrobial Resistance and Microbial Genomics, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston. 4. Department of Bioinformatics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 5. Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 6. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston. 7. Genomics and Resistant Microbes Group, Clinica Alemana, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile. 8. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 9. Graduate Program in Diagnostic Genetics, School of Health Professions, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. 10. Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston. 11. Molecular Genetics and Antimicrobial Resistance Unit, International Center for Microbial Genomics, Universidad El Bosque, Bogota, Colombia. 12. Division of Pharmacy, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 13. Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 14. Microbiology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas.
Abstract
Background: There is marked interest in using DNA-based methods to detect antimicrobial resistance (AMR), with targeted polymerase chain reaction (PCR) approaches increasingly being incorporated into clinical care. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) could offer significant advantages over targeted PCR for AMR detection, particularly for species where mutations are major drivers of AMR. Methods: Illumina MiSeq WGS and broth microdilution (BMD) assays were performed on 90 bloodstream isolates of the 4 most common gram-negative bacteria causing bloodstream infections in neutropenic patients. The WGS data, including both gene presence/absence and detection of mutations in an array of AMR-relevant genes, were used to predict resistance to 4 β-lactams commonly used in the empiric treatment of neutropenic fever. The genotypic predictions were then compared to phenotypic resistance as determined by BMD and by commercial methods during routine patient care. Results: Of 133 putative instances of resistance to the β-lactams of interest identified by WGS, only 87 (65%) would have been detected by a typical PCR-based approach. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for WGS in predicting AMR were 0.87, 0.98, 0.97, and 0.91, respectively. Using BMD as the gold standard, our genotypic resistance prediction approach had a significantly higher positive predictive value compared to minimum inhibitory concentrations generated by commercial methods (0.97 vs 0.92; P = .025). Conclusions: These data demonstrate the potential feasibility of using WGS to guide antibiotic treatment decisions for patients with life-threatening infections for an array of medically important pathogens.
Background: There is marked interest in using DNA-based methods to detect antimicrobial resistance (AMR), with targeted polymerase chain reaction (PCR) approaches increasingly being incorporated into clinical care. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) could offer significant advantages over targeted PCR for AMR detection, particularly for species where mutations are major drivers of AMR. Methods: Illumina MiSeq WGS and broth microdilution (BMD) assays were performed on 90 bloodstream isolates of the 4 most common gram-negative bacteria causing bloodstream infections in neutropenicpatients. The WGS data, including both gene presence/absence and detection of mutations in an array of AMR-relevant genes, were used to predict resistance to 4 β-lactams commonly used in the empiric treatment of neutropenic fever. The genotypic predictions were then compared to phenotypic resistance as determined by BMD and by commercial methods during routine patient care. Results: Of 133 putative instances of resistance to the β-lactams of interest identified by WGS, only 87 (65%) would have been detected by a typical PCR-based approach. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for WGS in predicting AMR were 0.87, 0.98, 0.97, and 0.91, respectively. Using BMD as the gold standard, our genotypic resistance prediction approach had a significantly higher positive predictive value compared to minimum inhibitory concentrations generated by commercial methods (0.97 vs 0.92; P = .025). Conclusions: These data demonstrate the potential feasibility of using WGS to guide antibiotic treatment decisions for patients with life-threatening infections for an array of medically important pathogens.
Authors: Nathaniel J Rhodes; Chad L Richardson; Ryan Heraty; Jiajun Liu; Michael Malczynski; Chao Qi; Marc H Scheetz Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: S Zhao; G H Tyson; Y Chen; C Li; S Mukherjee; S Young; C Lam; J P Folster; J M Whichard; P F McDermott Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Alison G Freifeld; Eric J Bow; Kent A Sepkowitz; Michael J Boeckh; James I Ito; Craig A Mullen; Issam I Raad; Kenneth V Rolston; Jo-Anne H Young; John R Wingard Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Patrick F McDermott; Gregory H Tyson; Claudine Kabera; Yuansha Chen; Cong Li; Jason P Folster; Sherry L Ayers; Claudia Lam; Heather P Tate; Shaohua Zhao Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Grace E Benanti; Anne Rain T Brown; Terri Lynn Shigle; Jeffrey J Tarrand; Micah M Bhatti; Patrick M McDaneld; Samuel A Shelburne; Samuel L Aitken Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: William C Shropshire; Samuel L Aitken; Reed Pifer; Jiwoong Kim; Micah M Bhatti; Xiqi Li; Awdhesh Kalia; Jessica Galloway-Peña; Pranoti Sahasrabhojane; Cesar A Arias; David E Greenberg; Blake M Hanson; Samuel A Shelburne Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Amee R Manges; Hyun Min Geum; Alice Guo; Thaddeus J Edens; Chad D Fibke; Johann D D Pitout Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Ana Rita Rebelo; Valeria Bortolaia; Pimlapas Leekitcharoenphon; Dennis Schrøder Hansen; Hans Linde Nielsen; Svend Ellermann-Eriksen; Michael Kemp; Bent Løwe Røder; Niels Frimodt-Møller; Turid Snekloth Søndergaard; John Eugenio Coia; Claus Østergaard; Henrik Westh; Frank M Aarestrup Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 6.064