World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026
Comparative analysis of next-generation versus third-generation sequencing for pathogen detection in clinical samples: a diagnostic accuracy study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yuan Chenyan, Zhang Ting, Huo Juan, Liang Wenxue, Wang Lei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The rapid and accurate identification of pathogens is crucial for clinical management of infectious diseases. While Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has transformed pathogen detection, Third-generation sequencing (TGS) offers advantages in real-time analysis and long-read capabilities. This study comprehensively compares the diagnostic performance of NGS and TGS across diverse clinical samples.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study involving 105 clinical samples (58 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, 28 whole blood, 19 other body fluids) from patients with suspected infections. All samples were analyzed using both NGS (BGI platform) and TGS (Nanopore platform). Diagnostic performance was evaluated against a composite reference standard incorporating clinical diagnosis, microbiological culture, and laboratory findings.
RESULTS: NGS demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to TGS (95.9% vs. 82.4%, p < 0.001), while TGS showed superior specificity (87.1% vs. 64.5%, p = 0.012). The overall agreement between platforms was 85.7% (Kappa = 0.702). NGS exhibited particular advantages in viral detection (32 vs. 8 detections, p < 0.001) and fungal identification (28 vs. 18 detections, p = 0.023), whereas both technologies showed comparable bacterial detection capabilities. The area under the ROC curve was 0.92 for NGS and 0.85 for TGS. Turnaround time was significantly shorter for TGS (median 8 h vs. 30 h, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: NGS and TGS demonstrate complementary strengths in clinical pathogen detection. NGS offers superior sensitivity and enhanced detection of viral and fungal pathogens, making it suitable for comprehensive diagnostic evaluation. TGS provides rapid results with higher specificity, advantageous for time-critical clinical decisions. A combined or scenario-specific approach may optimize pathogen detection in clinical practice.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study involving 105 clinical samples (58 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, 28 whole blood, 19 other body fluids) from patients with suspected infections. All samples were analyzed using both NGS (BGI platform) and TGS (Nanopore platform). Diagnostic performance was evaluated against a composite reference standard incorporating clinical diagnosis, microbiological culture, and laboratory findings.
RESULTS: NGS demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to TGS (95.9% vs. 82.4%, p < 0.001), while TGS showed superior specificity (87.1% vs. 64.5%, p = 0.012). The overall agreement between platforms was 85.7% (Kappa = 0.702). NGS exhibited particular advantages in viral detection (32 vs. 8 detections, p < 0.001) and fungal identification (28 vs. 18 detections, p = 0.023), whereas both technologies showed comparable bacterial detection capabilities. The area under the ROC curve was 0.92 for NGS and 0.85 for TGS. Turnaround time was significantly shorter for TGS (median 8 h vs. 30 h, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: NGS and TGS demonstrate complementary strengths in clinical pathogen detection. NGS offers superior sensitivity and enhanced detection of viral and fungal pathogens, making it suitable for comprehensive diagnostic evaluation. TGS provides rapid results with higher specificity, advantageous for time-critical clinical decisions. A combined or scenario-specific approach may optimize pathogen detection in clinical practice.