Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Longitudinal Monitoring of DNA Viral Loads in Transplant Patients Using Quantitative Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Longitudinal Monitoring of DNA Viral Loads in Transplant Patients Using Quantitative Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing
Do you wish to request the book?
Longitudinal Monitoring of DNA Viral Loads in Transplant Patients Using Quantitative Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Longitudinal Monitoring of DNA Viral Loads in Transplant Patients Using Quantitative Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing
2022
Overview
Introduction: Immunocompromised patients are prone to reactivations and (re-)infections of multiple DNA viruses. Viral load monitoring by single-target quantitative PCRs (qPCR) is the current cornerstone for virus quantification. In this study, a metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) approach was used for the identification and load monitoring of transplantation-related DNA viruses. Methods: Longitudinal plasma samples from six patients that were qPCR-positive for cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), BK polyomavirus (BKV), adenovirus (ADV), parvovirus B19 (B19V), and torque teno-virus (TTV) were sequenced using the quantitative metagenomic Galileo Viral Panel Solution (Arc Bio, LLC, Cambridge, MA, USA) reagents and bioinformatics pipeline combination. Qualitative and quantitative performance was analysed with a focus on viral load ranges relevant for clinical decision making. Results: All pathogens identified by qPCR were also identified by mNGS. BKV, CMV, and HHV6B were additionally detected by mNGS, and could be confirmed by qPCR or auxiliary bioinformatic analysis. Viral loads determined by mNGS correlated with the qPCR results, with inter-method differences in viral load per virus ranging from 0.19 log10 IU/mL for EBV to 0.90 log10 copies/mL for ADV. TTV, analysed by mNGS in a semi-quantitative way, demonstrated a mean difference of 3.0 log10 copies/mL. Trends over time in viral load determined by mNGS and qPCR were comparable, and clinical thresholds for initiation of treatment were equally identified by mNGS. Conclusions: The Galileo Viral Panel for quantitative mNGS performed comparably to qPCR concerning detection and viral load determination, within clinically relevant ranges of patient management algorithms.
