Comparison of pathogen detection performance between metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional culture in organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids
BackgroundPrompt identification and management of donor-derived infections post-kidney transplantation are critical. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in detecting pathogens within donor organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2025-08-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1563962/full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849396004387815424 |
|---|---|
| author | Jiyuan Li Wenjia Yuan Chen Gao Lei Liu Lei Song Wei Cao Xuejing Zhu Yachun Han Ruobing Liang Gongbin Lan Shaojie Yu Yu Wang Liang Tan Helong Dai Xubiao Xie Longkai Peng Fenghua Peng |
| author_facet | Jiyuan Li Wenjia Yuan Chen Gao Lei Liu Lei Song Wei Cao Xuejing Zhu Yachun Han Ruobing Liang Gongbin Lan Shaojie Yu Yu Wang Liang Tan Helong Dai Xubiao Xie Longkai Peng Fenghua Peng |
| author_sort | Jiyuan Li |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | BackgroundPrompt identification and management of donor-derived infections post-kidney transplantation are critical. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in detecting pathogens within donor organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids, with a comparison made against conventional culture methods.MethodsThis study involved 141 kidney transplant patients (May 1st, 2020 to Jan 31st, 2024). Donor organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids were collected and analyzed by mNGS and conventional culture. Pathogen detection differences between mNGS and culture were evaluated. The antibiotic adjustment and infectious complications of the recipients were recorded.ResultsFor organ preservation fluids, the positive rate of convention culture were lower than that of mNGS (24.8% (35/141) vs 47.5% (67/141), p<0.05). For recipient wound drainage fluids, the positivity rate of convention culture were lower than that of mNGS (2.1% (3/141) vs 27.0% (38/141), p<0.05). Compared to traditional culture-based methods, mNGS demonstrated a significantly higher positive detection rate for the combination of ESKAPE pathogens and/or fungi (28.4% (40/141) vs 16.3% (23/141) p< 0.05). Of the pathogens detected through convention culture, mNGS was capable of detecting 79.2% (19/24) of combinations comprising Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenting bacteria, yet it detected only 22.2% (2/9) of Gram-positive bacteria, and 55.6% (5/9) of fungi. Certain clinically atypical pathogens, mainly Mycobacterium, Clostridium tetanus, and parasites, can solely be detected via mNGS. The rehospitalization rate due to infections was 13.5% (19/141), while the donor-derived infection rate amounted to 2.8% (4/141). Guided by mNGS and bacterial culture results, adjustments were made to antibiotic administration, with no severe vascular complications arising.ConclusionsBy employing mNGS to analyze drainage fluids and organ preservation fluids, highly pathogenic and atypical pathogenic microorganisms can be rapidly identified with high throughput. While limitations exist in detecting fungi and Gram-positive bacteria, mNGS are need to be jointly applied with conventional culture under current conditions. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7ab0c39dc7974057b73ca861bc7d41c0 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2235-2988 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-08-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology |
| spelling | doaj-art-7ab0c39dc7974057b73ca861bc7d41c02025-08-20T03:39:28ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology2235-29882025-08-011510.3389/fcimb.2025.15639621563962Comparison of pathogen detection performance between metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional culture in organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluidsJiyuan Li0Wenjia Yuan1Chen Gao2Lei Liu3Lei Song4Wei Cao5Xuejing Zhu6Yachun Han7Ruobing Liang8Gongbin Lan9Shaojie Yu10Yu Wang11Liang Tan12Helong Dai13Xubiao Xie14Longkai Peng15Fenghua Peng16Department of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Medical Laboratory, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Nephrology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Nephrology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Scientific Affairs, Hugobiotech Co., Ltd., Beijing, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaDepartment of Kidney Transplantation, Center of Organ Transplantation, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, ChinaBackgroundPrompt identification and management of donor-derived infections post-kidney transplantation are critical. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in detecting pathogens within donor organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids, with a comparison made against conventional culture methods.MethodsThis study involved 141 kidney transplant patients (May 1st, 2020 to Jan 31st, 2024). Donor organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids were collected and analyzed by mNGS and conventional culture. Pathogen detection differences between mNGS and culture were evaluated. The antibiotic adjustment and infectious complications of the recipients were recorded.ResultsFor organ preservation fluids, the positive rate of convention culture were lower than that of mNGS (24.8% (35/141) vs 47.5% (67/141), p<0.05). For recipient wound drainage fluids, the positivity rate of convention culture were lower than that of mNGS (2.1% (3/141) vs 27.0% (38/141), p<0.05). Compared to traditional culture-based methods, mNGS demonstrated a significantly higher positive detection rate for the combination of ESKAPE pathogens and/or fungi (28.4% (40/141) vs 16.3% (23/141) p< 0.05). Of the pathogens detected through convention culture, mNGS was capable of detecting 79.2% (19/24) of combinations comprising Enterobacteriaceae and non-fermenting bacteria, yet it detected only 22.2% (2/9) of Gram-positive bacteria, and 55.6% (5/9) of fungi. Certain clinically atypical pathogens, mainly Mycobacterium, Clostridium tetanus, and parasites, can solely be detected via mNGS. The rehospitalization rate due to infections was 13.5% (19/141), while the donor-derived infection rate amounted to 2.8% (4/141). Guided by mNGS and bacterial culture results, adjustments were made to antibiotic administration, with no severe vascular complications arising.ConclusionsBy employing mNGS to analyze drainage fluids and organ preservation fluids, highly pathogenic and atypical pathogenic microorganisms can be rapidly identified with high throughput. While limitations exist in detecting fungi and Gram-positive bacteria, mNGS are need to be jointly applied with conventional culture under current conditions.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1563962/fullkidney transplantationmetagenomic next-generation sequencingpreservation fluiddrainage fluiddonor-derived infectionmicrobial culture |
| spellingShingle | Jiyuan Li Wenjia Yuan Chen Gao Lei Liu Lei Song Wei Cao Xuejing Zhu Yachun Han Ruobing Liang Gongbin Lan Shaojie Yu Yu Wang Liang Tan Helong Dai Xubiao Xie Longkai Peng Fenghua Peng Comparison of pathogen detection performance between metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional culture in organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology kidney transplantation metagenomic next-generation sequencing preservation fluid drainage fluid donor-derived infection microbial culture |
| title | Comparison of pathogen detection performance between metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional culture in organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids |
| title_full | Comparison of pathogen detection performance between metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional culture in organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of pathogen detection performance between metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional culture in organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of pathogen detection performance between metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional culture in organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids |
| title_short | Comparison of pathogen detection performance between metagenomic next-generation sequencing and conventional culture in organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids |
| title_sort | comparison of pathogen detection performance between metagenomic next generation sequencing and conventional culture in organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids |
| topic | kidney transplantation metagenomic next-generation sequencing preservation fluid drainage fluid donor-derived infection microbial culture |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1563962/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jiyuanli comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT wenjiayuan comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT chengao comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT leiliu comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT leisong comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT weicao comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT xuejingzhu comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT yachunhan comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT ruobingliang comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT gongbinlan comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT shaojieyu comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT yuwang comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT liangtan comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT helongdai comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT xubiaoxie comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT longkaipeng comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids AT fenghuapeng comparisonofpathogendetectionperformancebetweenmetagenomicnextgenerationsequencingandconventionalcultureinorganpreservationfluidsandrecipientwounddrainagefluids |