ArticleBMC medical genomics2025
Limited value of Nanopore adaptive sampling in a long-read metagenomic profiling workflow of clinical sputum samples.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- DNA sequencing for microbial surveillance in cystic fibrosis airways: advances, challenges, and clinical translation.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2026Review
- Oxford Nanopore Sequencing, a Promising Technology for Precision Diagnostics in Intensive Care Units: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOxford Nanopore adaptive sampling (NAS) is a method by which the long-read sequencing flowcell accepts or rejects DNA molecules that are actively being sequenced based on their initial ~ 500 bp sequences, selectively increasing target data output. NAS promises up to 5-10 × enrichment of target sequencing yield without additional sample preparation, but this optimal performance is dependent on ideal sample parameters which may be difficult to achieve under many real-world use-cases. We evaluated the use of NAS for profiling clinical sputum metagenomes.
methodsWe sequenced DNA extracted from clinical sputa and spike-in controls of a mock community of bacterial respiratory pathogens, using the current R10.4.1 MinION flowcell chemistry.
resultsWe achieved at best 3.1 × enrichment of bacterial sequence output with NAS due to the shorter read lengths (~ 2.5 kb) from the PCR amplification necessary to compensate for low DNA extraction yields. More critically, we encountered rapid pore loss during our runs that reduced total sequencing yield by an estimated 80%. We were unable to mitigate the pore loss despite extensive attempts to reduce contaminant carry-over, and we could not determine its cause but ruled out NAS and pore underloading as contributing factors.
conclusionsWe conclude that the utility of NAS is often limited by the characteristics of the metagenomic sample studied, and that the factors contributing to pore loss need to be resolved before ONT sequencing can be reliably applied to long-read metagenomics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.