Evaluation of long-read 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing for identification of bacterial isolates in a clinical diagnostic laboratory

Sanger sequencing of the first ~500 bp of the 16S rRNA gene is frequently used to identify bacterial pathogens that have ambiguous biochemical profiles or proteomic mass spectra. When diversity does not occur within that region, genus-level and/or species-level identification may not be possible, and a longer sequence or alternative target may be required to distinguish between genera/species. In this study, we evaluated a clinically relevant end-to-end solution for long-read (~1,500 nt) 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing by Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) compared to a ~500 nt Sanger sequencing approach for the identification of 153 bacterial clinical isolates. Sequencing data were analyzed using the IDNS software from SmartGene and its proprietary 16S Centroid reference database (Centroid database) SmartGene software and the Centroid database. The agreement of the two platforms on species- and genus-level identification was determined, and discrepancies were resolved by whole-genome sequencing. ONT had a higher taxonomic resolution at the genus level (<i>P</i> < 0.01). When genus-level identification was achieved by both methods, concordance to the best matching genus was 100%. When species-level identification was achieved by both methods, concordance to the best matching species was 91%. The costs per test were ~$25.30 (when multiplexing 24 samples/run) and $74 for ONT and Sanger sequencing, respectively. The hands-on time spent performing sequencing was similar for both methods, but the turnaround time of ONT was significantly shorter than that of Sanger sequencing.IMPORTANCEThis study adds to existing literature by describing a validated end-to-end solution of 16S rRNA gene Oxford Nanopore sequencing for bacterial isolate identification, including sequencing run time evaluation, automated analysis (SmartGene 16S Identification App) and interpretation of results, that can be incorporated into clinical and public health laboratories with a simple and cost-effective workflow.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2025-04-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01670-24
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.96
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of long-read 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing for identification of bacterial isolates in a clinical diagnostic laboratory

Dimitrios I. Bourdas, Brian I. Osborne, Karen C. Carroll, Jennifer Lu et al.
3 citations
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
3.96
article

Evaluation of long-read 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing for identification of bacterial isolates in a clinical diagnostic laboratory

Dimitrios I. Bourdas, Brian I. Osborne, Karen C. Carroll, Jennifer Lu, Yehudit Bergman, Patricia J. Simner, Anna Fitzgerald, Victoria L. Campodónico, Jean Ruelle
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Sanger sequencing of the first ~500 bp of the 16S rRNA gene is frequently used to identify bacterial pathogens that have ambiguous biochemical profiles or proteomic mass spectra. When diversity does not occur within that region, genus-level and/or species-level identification may not be possible, and a longer sequence or alternative target may be required to distinguish between genera/species. In this study, we evaluated a clinically relevant end-to-end solution for long-read (~1,500 nt) 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing by Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) compared to a ~500 nt Sanger sequencing approach for the identification of 153 bacterial clinical isolates. Sequencing data were analyzed using the IDNS software from SmartGene and its proprietary 16S Centroid reference database (Centroid database) SmartGene software and the Centroid database. The agreement of the two platforms on species- and genus-level identification was determined, and discrepancies were resolved by whole-genome sequencing. ONT had a higher taxonomic resolution at the genus level (<i>P</i> < 0.01). When genus-level identification was achieved by both methods, concordance to the best matching genus was 100%. When species-level identification was achieved by both methods, concordance to the best matching species was 91%. The costs per test were ~$25.30 (when multiplexing 24 samples/run) and $74 for ONT and Sanger sequencing, respectively. The hands-on time spent performing sequencing was similar for both methods, but the turnaround time of ONT was significantly shorter than that of Sanger sequencing.IMPORTANCEThis study adds to existing literature by describing a validated end-to-end solution of 16S rRNA gene Oxford Nanopore sequencing for bacterial isolate identification, including sequencing run time evaluation, automated analysis (SmartGene 16S Identification App) and interpretation of results, that can be incorporated into clinical and public health laboratories with a simple and cost-effective workflow.

Journal of Clinical MicrobiologyVol. 63(5)
Johns Hopkins University (US), Johns Hopkins Medicine (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
3.96
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.