Prediction of Staphylococcus aureus antimicrobial resistance by whole-genome sequencing

Abstract

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) could potentially provide a single platform for extracting all the information required to predict an organism's phenotype. However, its ability to provide accurate predictions has not yet been demonstrated in large independent studies of specific organisms. In this study, we aimed to develop a genotypic prediction method for antimicrobial susceptibilities. The whole genomes of 501 unrelated Staphylococcus aureus isolates were sequenced, and the assembled genomes were interrogated using BLASTn for a panel of known resistance determinants (chromosomal mutations and genes carried on plasmids). Results were compared with phenotypic susceptibility testing for 12 commonly used antimicrobial agents (penicillin, methicillin, erythromycin, clindamycin, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, vancomycin, trimethoprim, gentamicin, fusidic acid, rifampin, and mupirocin) performed by the routine clinical laboratory. We investigated discrepancies by repeat susceptibility testing and manual inspection of the sequences and used this information to optimize the resistance determinant panel and BLASTn algorithm. We then tested performance of the optimized tool in an independent validation set of 491 unrelated isolates, with phenotypic results obtained in duplicate by automated broth dilution (BD Phoenix) and disc diffusion. In the validation set, the overall sensitivity and specificity of the genomic prediction method were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.95 to 0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1), respectively, compared to standard susceptibility testing methods. The very major error rate was 0.5%, and the major error rate was 0.7%. WGS was as sensitive and specific as routine antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods. WGS is a promising alternative to culture methods for resistance prediction in S. aureus and ultimately other major bacterial pathogens.

FIG 1

Comparison of percentages of errors for the derivation and validation sets, illustrating the change in error rate with repeat phenotyping and with optimized algorithm versions. Error rates for resistant and susceptible isolates are shown for each step of algorithm development: in the derivation set, the error rate was decreased by repeat susceptibility testing (discordant rpt). The VME rate was reduced by adjusting the algorthm parameters (v2.0), although this resulted in a slight increase in the ME rate. In the validation set, error rates were relatively low to start with and were improved further by repeat testing of the discordants (v2.0 discordant rpt) and by incorporating the novel blaZ mutations (v2.1).