Evaluation of methods for whole genome sequencing of Enterococcus faecium in a diagnostic laboratory

Introduction

Enterococcus faecium is a common gut commensal and a leading cause of nosocomial infection, particularly in the immunocompromised (1). Infection caused by vancomycin-resistant E. faecium (VRE) is of particular concern since there are limited treatment options (2,3), as recognized by its inclusion in the WHO priority pathogens list for the research and development of new antibiotics (4). The majority of nosocomial infection is associated with hospital-adapted E. faecium, which are genetically distinct from commensal isolates (5). Based on multilocus sequence typing (MLST), hospital-adapted strains cluster within Clonal Complex (CC) 17, which has more recently been designated based on genome sequencing as clade A1 (5). Isolates belonging to this clade are globally disseminated and have been linked to numerous healthcare-associated outbreaks (6-8). Their enhanced biological fitness in healthcare settings has been associated with genetic adaptations that alter survival, virulence and antibiotic resistance (3).

The increasing application of whole genome sequencing to E. faecium has begun to elucidate patterns of spread at national and individual hospital levels (6-8). This includes transmission networks spanning multiple years and involving patient movement through numerous wards within the same hospital, which are difficult for infection control to detect based on the standard definition of same time and place (7). These studies have demonstrated that bacterial sequencing can bring greater resolution to healthcare-associated lineages and discriminate between isolates of the same lineage, overcoming this limitation of previous typing methods such as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and MLST. Due to recombination involving regions containing the housekeeping genes used by MLST, this method has been shown to be imperfect for determining genetic relatedness (8,9), and PFGE has also been shown to cluster genetically distinct isolates (6). Our objective was to describe the development and evaluation of laboratory methodology for low volume throughput clinical sequencing of E. faecium.

Materials and Methods

Repeatability and reproducibility

Repeatability was evaluated by sequencing six E. faecium isolates (EC0160 (positive control), EC0102, EC0181, EC0333, EC0397 and EC0503 (Table 1)) in triplicate in a single sequencing run. Reproducibility was evaluated by sequencing 21 E. faecium isolates from the test panel in three independent runs, and subsequently repeated with 12 E. faecium isolates in three independent runs (see results). For each isolate, the pure single-colony frozen stock was sub-cultured onto three separate CBA plates and incubated in air at 37°C overnight, two heaped 1μl loops (Supplementary Figure 1) from each of these plates were then taken forwards for individual DNA extraction, library preparation and sequencing. The entire process for the reproducibility experiments was performed by different laboratory staff on three different days. The resulting fastq files were analysed as above.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Supplementary figure 1:

Figure showing a heaped 1μl loop of E. faecium used as input to DNA extraction

Isolates were classified as part of the same cluster if they were ≤15 SNPs apart. This cut-off was selected based on a mutation rate of 7 SNPs/genome/year (7) and a within-host diversity of 6 SNPs (12,13), using the formula described previously (14) to capture transmission within 6 months. Isolates >15 SNPs different were classified as genetically unrelated. Sensitivity and specificity for allocation of isolates into outbreaks were calculated using the following definitions: true positives, the number of genetically related isolates based on the original data that cluster together based on the test data; false negatives, the number of genetically related isolates based on the original data that do not cluster together in the test data; true negatives, the number of genetically unrelated isolates based on the original data that do not cluster together in the test data; and false positives, the number of genetically distant isolates based on the original data that cluster together based on the test data (15).

Results

We sought to develop and describe methods for low-throughput E. faecium sequencing in a routine microbiology laboratory within a 24-hour turnaround time (from DNA extraction to availability of sequence data). This included an evaluation of quality controls, precision (reproducibility and repeatability), and contamination.

First, we determined whether it was possible to extract DNA from a colony picked from the primary clinical culture plate. Following the default DNA extraction protocol, we found that extraction from a single colony after either 24 hours or 48 hours of incubation did not provide enough DNA for input to the library preparation protocol, defined as being less than the 3.3ng/μl required (Supplementary Table 1). We concluded that using colonies from the primary plate was not feasible, and sub-cultured a single colony onto CBA and incubated for a further 24 hours to create purity plates. DNA extraction from these purity plates demonstrated that a single heaped 1μl loop input (Supplementary Figure 1) produced insufficient DNA in 10% of cases (Supplementary Table 1), whilst two heaped 1μl loops provided the required amount of DNA in all cases (Supplementary Table 1). We therefore proceeded with two 1μl heaped loops input to DNA extraction.

We next aimed to determine whether the DNA extraction protocol time could be reduced from the current time of 2 hours. Comparison of the DNA output using 30-minute incubations for proteinase K and buffer AL versus 15-minute incubations at these steps revealed that both methods resulted in sufficient DNA (Supplementary Table 1). We therefore proceeded with a final protocol of two heaped 1μl loops input and 15 minutes incubation for proteinase K and buffer AL, which reduced the time for DNA extraction from 2 to 1.5 hours. The final DNA extraction protocol was performed three times by three different people, which demonstrated 98% reproducibility (65/66) for acquiring sufficient DNA for input to library preparation (Supplementary Table 1).

Using the shortened DNA extraction protocol and previously described reduced library preparation protocol (10), we aimed to determine the repeatability and reproducibility of the full sequencing protocol. Repeatability was based on concordance of assay results and quality metrics for six E. faecium isolates sequenced in triplicate in a single sequencing run. There was 100% concordance in assigning species, ST and detecting vanA and vanB (Supplementary Table 2). Analysis of the pairwise SNP differences between the within-run replicates found that four of the six isolates were genetically identical across all three replicates, whilst the remaining two isolates (EC0397 and EC0503) had 0-2 and 0-5 SNPs, respectively, different between the three replicates. In the case of EC0397, replicates 1 and 3 were identical, but replicate 2 differed by 1-2 SNPs, whilst for EC0503 replicates 1 and 2 were identical but replicate 3 differed by 4-5 SNPs. This provided a repeatability per replicate of 78% (14/18) based on a requirement for isolates to be identical, increasing to a repeatability per replicate of 89% (16/18) if small variations in SNPs (≤2 SNPs) were allowed. Analysis of the sequence files of EC0397 revealed that there were three positions where the base calls varied between replicates. At two of these positions, both bases were detected but in different proportions, while the third variable position could be explained by misalignment around an indel. By contrast, EC0503 was identical in run 1 and run 2, but 5 SNPs different in run 3. Four of the five SNPs were located in a single 5bp region and were likely caused by misalignment around an indel. Using the original published sequence mapped to the Aus0004 reference with MGEs removed as the ‘expected’ number of SNPs, the 6 isolates in triplicate had between 0-6 base calls different to the original sequence (excluding positions denoted as ‘N’ because of failure to call a base), which is within the expected within-patient diversity of 6 SNPs (Supplementary Table 2).

We initially evaluated reproducibility by sequencing 21 test panel E. faecium isolates in three independent sequence runs (Supplementary Table 2). However, the average depth of coverage across the three runs was lower than expected (43x, range 16.4-72.1x) despite a higher data output than expected (4-5.2Gb compared to an expected 3.3-3.8Gb). Calculation of the estimated genome size based on the data output and average depth of coverage across the three sequence runs indicated a genome size of ∼4.8Mb (Supplementary Table 3). Investigation of the mapping files revealed that this could be caused by high depth of coverage of plasmid elements, possibly due to multiple plasmid copies. Based on an expected data requirement of ∼4.8Mb, we estimated that 12 isolates plus three controls per sequencing run would produce sufficient data to obtain 50x coverage. Repeats of the reproducibility experiments with 12 isolates and 3 controls revealed an average depth of coverage of 88.6x, with a range of 43.2-113.6x (Supplementary Table 2) based on 5.4-6.5Gb data output, compared to an expected 89.9x coverage based on the observed data output.

Across the reproducibility runs with 12 isolates and 3 controls there was 100% accuracy in assigning species, ST and detecting vanA. There were 0-3 SNPs identified for between-run replicates, providing a reproducibility per replicate of 67% (26/39) based on replicates needing to be identical, and a reproducibility per replicate of 92% (37/39) if small variations (≤2 SNPs) were allowed between runs. Two isolates (EC0130 and EC0142) had 3 SNPs different between runs. Analysis of the genomes revealed that in EC0130 these SNPs were clustered in a 60bp region where a short section of reads had mapped in a region with poor or no mapping, and both bases were present in the read files in all three repeats. In EC0142 two SNPs were adjacent in the genome in a short intergenic region lacking mapped reads in the bam file, whilst the third was located in a short poorly mapped region in an otherwise absent gene where all three repeats had a mixture of base calls at the position. Using the original published sequence when mapped to the Aus0004 reference with MGEs removed as the ‘expected’ number of SNPs, the new sequences were 0-4 SNPs different, which is within the expected within-host diversity (6 SNPs).

We next sought to determine the sensitivity and specificity for outbreak detection in each of the three reproducibility runs, using the genetic relatedness established previously as the gold standard. The 12 isolates represented four distinct outbreaks encompassing four different STs (ST203, ST375, ST117 and ST132) identified during 6 years of genomic surveillance. All 12 isolates (36 isolate pairs) were classed in the same relatedness category (0-15 SNPs, >15 SNPs) in each of the three sequence runs. This provides a sensitivity and specificity for outbreak detection between runs of 100%. However, when the reproducibility data was compared to the original sequence data, there were 2/12 discrepancies in the classification of isolate pairs (one pair from Cluster A, one pair from Cluster D). Both pairs were called as related by the original data (7 SNPs) and unrelated by the new data (16-24 SNPs). Analysis of the SNP locations revealed that the majority of the discrepant SNPs (10/11 and 21/23 discrepant SNP locations in Cluster D and A, respectively) were due to a single poorly mapped region which contained bacteriocin and plasmid genes and was located between two ISEfm transposases, which had been called as unknown bases in the original sequence. It was also found that 4 of the 7 SNPs in the original sequence data between the isolate pair in Cluster A were clustered in a single 72bp region with poor mapping.

To determine the impact of DNA contamination (for example from cross-contamination during processing) we performed deliberate contamination experiments. Details of the donor and recipient DNA, the concentrations of spiked DNA and our findings are summarized in Table 2. Contamination of the no template control with increasing concentrations of E. faecium DNA did not lead to the control erroneously passing the QC metrics for E. faecium until the final spiked concentration reached >10%. This indicates that contamination of the no template control at 1% (which equated to 30,452 fragments matching E. faecium in Kraken) can be tolerated. Contaminating the positive E. faecium control with increasing concentrations of E. coli and E. faecalis DNA demonstrated that this could tolerate up to 10% contamination (which equated to 8.92 or 11.34% fragments, respectively, in Kraken) before the E. faecium QC metrics were not achieved. Contamination with up to 20% E. coli or E. faecalis did not appear to affect SNP calling (Supplementary Table 4).

We also evaluated unintentional contamination in the seven runs (excluding the deliberate contamination assay). The maximum proportion of fragments matching another species was 0.34% for the controls and 2.12% for the test isolates, with the highest matches being those of related species such as Enterococcus durans and Lactococcus lactis. Based on the number of fragments in Kraken for the no template controls and the proportion of fragments in Kraken for the remaining sequences, this demonstrates that all controls and test isolates had levels of contamination below 1% (Supplementary Table 2).

Discussion

We aimed to develop manual methods for low-throughput sequencing of clinical E. faecium. This would allow uptake of clinical sequencing in smaller local diagnostic laboratories that lack the capacity for high-throughput sequencing. At present, isolates suspected to be part of an outbreak are sent to the public health reference laboratory for further testing, with results taking approximately two weeks to be returned (16). However, as the cost of sequencing and sequencers reduces, the possibility of in-house sequencing at local clinical laboratories will become more viable. This will allow a more rapid turnaround time to detection of outbreaks, providing the opportunity for infection control to act earlier to prevent further transmission. This is important since previous studies have shown that there are multiple outbreaks in a hospital based on bloodstream infections alone, which represent only the tip of the iceberg for transmission (7). Here we have shown that sequencing can be performed within 24-48 hours of a sample flagging as positive, providing a rapid tool to aid infection control.

In the clinical laboratory, two important factors for consideration are turnaround time and cost. We aimed to identify the shortest turnaround-time from clinical plates to sequence data. We found that single colonies produced insufficient DNA for sequencing, likely due to the small colony size, meaning that purity plates are required. Purity plates may already be available in the clinical laboratory at the time the sample flags as positive (for example, purity plates used for disc testing), allowing a 24 hour turnaround time, whilst the remainder will require a 48 hour turnaround time. This still represents a faster turnaround time than testing at the reference laboratory. We were also able to reduce the hands-on processing time from 4 hours to 3.5 hours for DNA extraction and library preparation. Since library preparation does not require normalization (a tricky and potentially time-consuming step), this represents a rapid and simple method for sequencing. To reduce the cost of sequencing per sample we aimed to maximise the number of E. faecium isolates per sequence run. We found that 21 isolates and 3 controls passed the quality control metrics in 95% of cases and had a lower than expected coverage depth, potentially due to multiple copy number plasmids increasing the data requirements for each isolate. We therefore proceeded with 12 isolates and 3 controls.

Whilst the sequence data had 100% repeatability and reproducibility for assigning species, ST and van genes, SNP detection was more variable. The majority of variation within and between runs was minimal (0-1 SNPs) leading to a repeatability of 89% and reproducibility of 92% if small variations (≤2 SNPs) were allowed, and the sensitivity and specificity for outbreak detection between runs was 100%. However, some isolates had up to 5 SNPs different within and between runs, and the sensitivity for outbreak detection dropped to 67% when compared to the original sequence data. These discrepancies were explained by issues with mapping and variant calling such as misalignment around indels and mapping of short segments of the genome with high-density SNPs, including regions associated with mobile genetic elements. Options for reducing these SNP errors could be to include recombination detection, although this would be challenging to implement in rapid automated analysis tools; improve the MGE file; use a core genome scheme such as that suggested by Coll et al. (14), although this will need to be tailored to Clade A1 since community isolates are considered genetically distant enough to classify as a different species (17); or alter the mapping quality filters to reduce the impact of poorly mapped regions. The latter has been used previously to improve detection of heterozygous sites in MRSA, where sites are only considered if they are >50bp apart. Further work is needed to determine the optimum SNP analysis methodology for this species.

Finally, we determined the level of contamination that could be tolerated and evaluated the quality control metrics. All controls, test panel isolates and clinical isolates passed the required quality control metrics. We found through a deliberate contamination experiment that the data could be contaminated by up to 10% before quality control metrics were failed, whilst all test isolates and controls showed <1% contamination.

Our findings indicate that the methods evaluated here can provide high quality sequence data, and represents the first step towards being able to perform real-time clinical sequencing of E. faecium. However, further work is required to develop data interpretation software that can resolve issues relating to SNP calling in the E. faecium genome. This will be required before rapid automated analysis tools can be developed for easy interpretation by clinical staff.

Conflict of interest

SJP is a consultant to Next Gen Diagnostics and Specific Technologies. Other authors have no conflicts of interest.