Usefulness of decentralized sequencing networks on antimicrobial resistance surveillance
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
The rise of bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a significant challenge to modern medicine, with predictions suggesting it could become the leading cause of death by 2050. The interconnected nature of our world, exemplified by recent pandemics, highlights the potential for the rapid spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, including carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE). In complex healthcare systems, the introduction of a clonal CPE can lead to multihospital outbreaks, necessitating the characterization of these pathogens to identify regional outbreaks. Traditionally, hierarchical networks with central laboratories have been responsible for molecular characterization and whole genome sequencing (WGS) of CPE. However, the emergence of new sequencing technologies, such as Oxford Nanopore sequencers with flongle flow cells, provides an opportunity to develop decentralized nodal networks. In this study, two carbapenem-resistant Citrobacter freundii isolates were simultaneously identified in different hospitals within a close proximity, raising concerns about potential cross-hospital transmission. The isolates were subjected to WGS and analysed using various databases. The results revealed distinct genetic profiles, ruling out a single interhospital outbreak. The collaboration between nearby centres and incorporation of WGS as a diagnostic tool in clinical microbiology laboratories enable the establishment of decentralized sequencing networks, facilitating swift responses to emerging AMR threats.
Article activity feed
-
Thank you for your submission. I've decided to perform and early major revision decision on the manuscript for two primary reasons. The manuscript is currently underdeveloped and the formatting/layout is relatively unorthodox. I would recommend viewing examples from the journal for formatting as well as this link: https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/information-for-authors. Clear defined aims and hypothesis are not stated (at the end of the introduction) and as a result, its unclear what the manuscript is aiming to achieve. Also, it is not clear what is results and what is methods as the sections are very short (indicating a lack of content) and suggest results included (relatively, in the methods). I would consider rewriting the manuscript using similar manuscripts as examples and be clear both in what the authors are attempting …
Thank you for your submission. I've decided to perform and early major revision decision on the manuscript for two primary reasons. The manuscript is currently underdeveloped and the formatting/layout is relatively unorthodox. I would recommend viewing examples from the journal for formatting as well as this link: https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/information-for-authors. Clear defined aims and hypothesis are not stated (at the end of the introduction) and as a result, its unclear what the manuscript is aiming to achieve. Also, it is not clear what is results and what is methods as the sections are very short (indicating a lack of content) and suggest results included (relatively, in the methods). I would consider rewriting the manuscript using similar manuscripts as examples and be clear both in what the authors are attempting to report, how they have done this and expand on the results section both in how and what was discovered and how this clearly benefits the field. I would suggest revisiting the title as well. It currently suggests quite a substantial endevour.
-
