↓ Skip to main content

Detection of bacterial pathogens from clinical specimens using conventional microbial culture and 16S metagenomics: a comparative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Detection of bacterial pathogens from clinical specimens using conventional microbial culture and 16S metagenomics: a comparative study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2727-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lalanika M. Abayasekara, Jennifer Perera, Vishvanath Chandrasekharan, Vaz S. Gnanam, Nisala A. Udunuwara, Dileepa S. Liyanage, Nuwani E. Bulathsinhala, Subhashanie Adikary, Janith V. S. Aluthmuhandiram, Chrishanthi S. Thanaseelan, D. Portia Tharmakulasingam, Tharaga Karunakaran, Janahan Ilango

Abstract

Infectious disease is the leading cause of death worldwide, and diagnosis of polymicrobial and fungal infections is increasingly challenging in the clinical setting. Conventionally, molecular detection is still the best method of species identification in clinical samples. However, the limitations of Sanger sequencing make diagnosis of polymicrobial infections one of the biggest hurdles in treatment. The development of massively parallel sequencing or next generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized the field of metagenomics, with wide application of the technology in identification of microbial communities in environmental sources, human gut and others. However, to date there has been no commercial application of this technology in infectious disease diagnostic settings. Credence Genomics Rapid Infection Detection™ test, is a molecular based diagnostic test that uses next generation sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA gene and fungal ITS1 gene region to provide accurate identification of species within a clinical sample. Here we present a study comparing 16S and ITS1 metagenomic identification against conventional culture for clinical samples. Using culture results as gold standard, a comparison was conducted using patient specimens from a clinical microbiology lab. Metagenomics based results show a 91.8% concordance rate for culture positive specimens and 52.8% concordance rate with culture negative samples. 10.3% of specimens were also positive for fungal species which was not investigated by culture. Specificity and sensitivity for metagenomics analysis is 91.8 and 52.7% respectively. 16S based metagenomic identification of bacterial species within a clinical specimen is on par with conventional culture based techniques and when coupled with clinical information can lead to an accurate diagnostic tool for infectious disease diagnosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 193 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 13%
Student > Master 19 10%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 65 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 21 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 8%
Engineering 8 4%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 69 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,401,086
of 24,878,531 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,014
of 8,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,611
of 323,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#37
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,878,531 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,416 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.