Introduction: Previous studies have evaluated metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) for pathogen detection in blood and body fluid samples. However, no study has assessed the diagnostic efficacy of mNGS using cellular DNA.
Objectives: This is the first study to systematically evaluate the efficacy of cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS for pathogen detection.
Methods: A panel of seven microorganisms was used to compare cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS assays concerning limits of detection (LoD), linearity, robustness to interference, and precision. In total, 248 specimens were collected between December 2020 and December 2021. The medical records of all the patients were reviewed. These specimens were analysed using cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS assays, and the mNGS results were confirmed using viral qPCR, 16S rRNA, and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) amplicon next-generation sequencing.
Results: The LoD of cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS was 9.3 to 149 genome equivalents (GE)/mL and 27 to 466 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL, respectively. The intra- and inter-assay reproducibility of cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS was 100%. Clinical evaluation revealed that cfDNA mNGS was good at detecting the virus in blood samples (receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC), 0.9814). In contrast, the performance of cellular DNA mNGS was better than that of cfDNA mNGS in high host background samples. Overall, the diagnostic efficacy of cfDNA combined with cellular DNA mNGS (ROC AUC, 0.8583) was higher than that of cfDNA (ROC AUC, 0.8041) or cellular DNA alone (ROC AUC, 0.7545).
Conclusion: Overall, cfDNA mNGS is good for detecting viruses, and cellular DNA mNGS is suitable for high host background samples. The diagnostic efficacy was higher when cfDNA and cellular DNA mNGS were combined.
Keywords: Body fluids; Cell-free DNA (cfDNA); Cellular DNA; Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS); Performance validation.
Copyright © 2023. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.