Magiorkinis Gkikas, Matthews Philippa C, Wallace Susan E, Jeffery Katie, Dunbar Kevin, Tedder Richard, Mbisa Jean L, Hannigan Bernadette, Vayena Effy, Simmonds Peter, Brewer Daniel S, Gihawi Abraham, Rallapalli Ghanasyam, Lahnstein Lea, Fowler Tom, Patch Christine, Maleady-Crowe Fiona, Lucassen Anneke, Cooper Colin
Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, 11527, Greece.
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Wellcome Open Res. 2019 Oct 14;4:155. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15499.1. eCollection 2019.
The identification of microbiological infection is usually a diagnostic investigation, a complex process that is firstly initiated by clinical suspicion. With the emergence of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies, metagenomic analysis has unveiled the power to identify microbial DNA/RNA from a diverse range of clinical samples (1). Metagenomic analysis of whole human genomes at the clinical/research interface bypasses the steps of clinical scrutiny and targeted testing and has the potential to generate unexpected findings relating to infectious and sometimes transmissible disease. There is no doubt that microbial findings that may have a significant impact on a patient's treatment and their close contacts should be reported to those with clinical responsibility for the sample-donating patient. There are no clear recommendations on how such findings that are incidental, or outside the original investigation, should be handled. Here we aim to provide an informed protocol for the management of incidental microbial findings as part of the 100,000 Genomes Project which may have broader application in this emerging field. As with any other clinical information, we aim to prioritise the reporting of data that are most likely to be of benefit to the patient and their close contacts. We also set out to minimize risks, costs and potential anxiety associated with the reporting of results that are unlikely to be of clinical significance. Our recommendations aim to support the practice of microbial metagenomics by providing a simplified pathway that can be applied to reporting the identification of potential pathogens from metagenomic datasets. Given that the ambition for UK sequenced human genomes over the next 5 years has been set to reach 5 million and the field of metagenomics is rapidly evolving, the guidance will be regularly reviewed and will likely adapt over time as experience develops.
微生物感染的识别通常是一项诊断性调查,这是一个复杂的过程,首先由临床怀疑引发。随着高通量测序(HTS)技术的出现,宏基因组分析已展现出从各种临床样本中识别微生物DNA/RNA的能力(1)。在临床/研究界面进行的全人类基因组宏基因组分析绕过了临床检查和靶向检测步骤,有可能产生与感染性疾病(有时是传染性疾病)相关的意外发现。毫无疑问,可能对患者治疗及其密切接触者产生重大影响的微生物检测结果应报告给对提供样本的患者负有临床责任的人员。对于如何处理这些偶然发现或超出原始调查范围的发现,目前尚无明确建议。在此,我们旨在提供一个明智的方案,用于管理作为“十万基因组计划”一部分的偶然微生物发现,该方案可能在这一新兴领域有更广泛的应用。与任何其他临床信息一样,我们旨在优先报告最有可能对患者及其密切接触者有益的数据。我们还着手尽量减少与报告不太可能具有临床意义的结果相关的风险、成本和潜在焦虑。我们的建议旨在通过提供一条简化途径来支持微生物宏基因组学的实践,该途径可用于报告从宏基因组数据集中识别潜在病原体的情况。鉴于英国未来5年对人类基因组测序的目标已设定为达到500万,且宏基因组学领域正在迅速发展,该指南将定期审查,并可能随着经验的积累而不断调整。