4.7 Article

Nanopore 16S Amplicon Sequencing Enhances the Understanding of Pathogens in Medically Intractable Diabetic Foot Infections

期刊

DIABETES
卷 70, 期 6, 页码 1357-1371

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db20-0907

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea [NRF-2019R1A2C4070284]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of diabetic foot infections were found to be polymicrobial, with 16S rDNA sequencing capable of accurately identifying the infecting bacteria. In comparison to conventional culture studies, 16S sequencing provides a more comprehensive understanding of the bacterial population involved in DFIs.
Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) cause substantial morbidity and mortality. The mainstay of the treatment is empiric antibiotics and surgical debridement in severe cases. In this study, we performed nanopore 16S rDNA sequencing from the debridement specimens of DFIs. Fifty-four surgical debridement specimens obtained from 45 patients with medically intractable DFI were included. The 16S rDNA PCR was performed on each specimen, and Nanopore sequencing was performed for up to 3 h. The reads were aligned to the BLAST database, and the results were compared with conventional culture studies. The 16S sequencing results revealed that the majority of the DFIs (44 of 54, 81.5%) were polymicrobial infections. All bacteria isolated by conventional culture studies were detected by 16S sequencing. Several anaerobes (Prevotella, Finegoldia, Anaerococcus, Bacteroides) were commonly identified by 16S sequencing but were frequently missed by culture studies. In many cases, certain bacteria only revealed by the 16S sequencing were more abundant than the bacteria isolated by the culture studies. In conclusion, nanopore 16S sequencing was capable of pathogen identification in DFIs and has many advantages over conventional culture studies. Nanopore 16S sequencing enables a comprehensive understanding of the bacteria involved in DFIs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据