首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Public Health >Evaluation of Rapid Library Preparation Protocols for Whole Genome Sequencing Based Outbreak Investigation
【24h】

Evaluation of Rapid Library Preparation Protocols for Whole Genome Sequencing Based Outbreak Investigation

机译:基于基于基因组测序的爆发调查的快速文库制备方案评价

获取原文
       

摘要

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) has become the new gold standard for bacterial outbreak investigation, due to the high resolution available for typing. While sequencing is currently predominantly performed on Illumina devices, the preceding library preparation can be performed using various protocols. Enzymatic fragmentation library preparation protocols are fast, have minimal hands-on time, and work with small quantities of DNA. The aim of our study was to compare three library preparation protocols for molecular typing: Nextera XT (Illumina); Nextera Flex (Illumina); and QIAseq FX (Qiagen). We selected 12 ATCC strains from human Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens with %G+C-content ranging from 27 % (Fusobacterium nucleatum) to 73 % (Micrococcus luteus), each having a high quality complete genome assembly available, to allow in-depth analysis of the resulting Illumina sequence data quality. Additionally, we selected isolates from previously analyzed cases of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) (n=7) and a local outbreak of Klebsiella aerogenes (n=5). The number of protocol steps, time required and list prices were compared, in order to test the suitability for routine laboratory work. Data analyses were performed with standard tools commonly used in outbreak situations: Ridom SeqSphere+ for cgMLST; CLC genomics workbench for SNP analysis; and open source programs. Nextera Flex and QIAseq FX were found to be less sensitive than Nextera XT to variable %G+C-content, resulting in an almost uniform distribution of read-depth. Therefore, low coverage regions are reduced to a minimum resulting in a more complete representation of the genome. Thus, with these two protocols, more alleles were detected in the cgMLST analysis, producing a higher resolution of closely related isolates. Furthermore, they result in a more complete representation of accessory genes. In particular, the high data quality and relative simplicity of the workflow of Nextera Flex stood out in this comparison. This thorough comparison within an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited environment will be of interest to those aiming to optimize their clinical microbiological genome sequencing.
机译:由于可用于打字的高分辨率,全基因组测序(WGS)已成为细菌疫情调查的新标准。在Illumina器件上目前主要进行测序时,可以使用各种协议进行前述文库制备。酶促碎片文库制备方案快速,具有最小的动手时间,并使用少量DNA工作。我们研究的目的是比较三种图书馆制剂用于分子打字的方案:Nextera XT(Illumina); Nextera Flex(Illumina);和QiaSeq FX(Qiagen)。我们选择了来自人类革兰氏阳性和革兰氏阴性病原体的12个ATCC菌株,其%G + C含量范围为27%(Fusobacterium核心)至73%(Micrococcus Luteus),每种都具有高质量的完整基因组组件,以允许深入分析由此产生的Illumina序列数据质量。此外,我们选择了来自先前分析的万古霉素抗肠内肠球菌(VRE)(N = 7)的病例和局部爆发的分离物(n = 5)。比较协议步骤,所需时间和清单价格的数量,以测试常规实验室工作的适用性。通过爆发情况常用的标准工具进行数据分析:CGMLST的Ridom Seqsphere +; CLC基因组学工作台用于SNP分析;和开源程序。发现Nextera Flex和QiaSeq FX比Nextera XT敏感,以变量%G + C含量,导致读取深度的几乎均匀分布。因此,低覆盖区域减少到最小导致基因组的更完整的表示。因此,通过这两种方案,在CGMLST分析中检测到更多等位基因,产生更高的密切相关分离物的分辨率。此外,它们导致辅助基因的更完整的表示。特别是,在这种比较中,Nextera Flex的工作流程的高数据质量和相对简单性。在ISO / IEC 17025认可的环境中的这种彻底的比较将有兴趣的是,这些环境将有利于旨在优化其临床微生物基因组测序的人。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号