Role of Legionella pneumophila outer membrane vesicles in host-pathogen interaction

Legionella pneumophila is an opportunistic intracellular pathogen that inhabits artificial water systems and can be transmitted to human hosts by contaminated aerosols. Upon inhalation, it colonizes and grows inside the alveolar macrophages and causes Legionnaires’ disease. To effectively control and manage Legionnaires’ disease, a deep understanding of the host-pathogen interaction is crucial. Bacterial extracellular vesicles, particularly outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) have emerged as mediators of intercellular communication between bacteria and host cells. These OMVs carry a diverse cargo, including proteins, toxins, virulence factors, and nucleic acids. OMVs play a pivotal role in disease pathogenesis by helping bacteria in colonization, delivering virulence factors into host cells, and modulating host immune responses. This review highlights the role of OMVs in the context of host-pathogen interaction shedding light on the pathogenesis of L. pneumophila. Understanding the functions of OMVs and their cargo provides valuable insights into potential therapeutic targets and interventions for combating Legionnaires’ disease

Genomics: Infectious Disease and Host–Pathogen Interaction

Infectious diseases, which are caused by pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites, pose a serious threat to humans, animals, and plants [...

Table_2_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.xlsx

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_6_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.XLSX

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_4_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.xlsx

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_3_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.xlsx

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_7_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.XLSX

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p

Table_5_The clinical utility of Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing for direct bacterial identification in normally sterile body fluids.XLSX

The prolonged incubation period of traditional culture methods leads to a delay in diagnosing invasive infections. Nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Nanopore 16S) offers a potential rapid diagnostic approach for directly identifying bacteria in infected body fluids. To evaluate the clinical utility of Nanopore 16S, we conducted a study involving the collection and sequencing of 128 monomicrobial samples, 65 polymicrobial samples, and 20 culture-negative body fluids. To minimize classification bias, taxonomic classification was performed using 3 analysis pipelines: Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST. The result was compared to the culture references. The limit of detection of Nanopore 16S was also determined using simulated bacteremic blood samples. Among the three classifiers, Emu demonstrated the highest concordance with the culture results. It correctly identified the taxon of 125 (97.7%) of the 128 monomicrobial samples, compared to 109 (85.2%) for Epi2me and 102 (79.7%) for NanoCLUST. For the 230 cultured species in the 65 polymicrobial samples, Emu correctly identified 188 (81.7%) cultured species, compared to 174 (75.7%) for Epi2me and 125 (54.3%) for NanoCLUST. Through ROC analysis on the monomicrobial samples, we determined a threshold of relative abundance at 0.058 for distinguishing potential pathogens from background in Nanopore 16S. Applying this threshold resulted in the identification of 107 (83.6%), 117 (91.4%), and 114 (91.2%) correctly detected samples for Epi2me, Emu, and NanoCLUST, respectively, in the monomicrobial samples. Nanopore 16S coupled with Epi2me could provide preliminary results within 6 h. However, the ROC analysis of polymicrobial samples exhibited a random-like performance, making it difficult to establish a threshold. The overall limit of detection for Nanopore 16S was found to be about 90 CFU/ml.</p