Comparison of targeted next-generation sequencing and the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical isolates and sputum specimens
Hongtai Zhang, Xiaowei Dai, Peilei Hu, Lili Tian, Chuanyou Li, Beichuan Ding, Xinyu Yang, Xiaoxin He

TL;DR
Targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) outperforms Xpert MTB/RIF in detecting tuberculosis and identifying drug resistance mutations, despite taking longer.
Contribution
This study provides a direct comparison of tNGS and Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis detection and drug resistance profiling in clinical settings.
Findings
tNGS detected Mycobacterium tuberculosis at a lower concentration (102 CFU/mL) than Xpert MTB/RIF (103 CFU/mL).
tNGS detected the rpoB S450L mutation at 102 CFU/mL, while Xpert MTB/RIF required 106 CFU/mL.
tNGS showed higher sensitivity (48.6%) than culture, Xpert MTB/RIF, and smear microscopy in sputum samples.
Abstract
Targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) can be used to perform Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) complex-specific amplification or target capture directly from sputum samples, yielding simultaneous coverage of many genes and DNA regions associated with antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Performance comparisons of tNGS and another molecular testing tool, Xpert MTB/rifampicin (RIF), have been empirical. Here, using a dilution series of a RIF-resistant clinical isolate of MTB, we found that tNGS had a slightly lower limit of bacterial detection (102 CFU/mL) compared with Xpert MTB/RIF (103 CFU/mL) in culture medium. However, the minimum detection limit of the rpoB S450L mutation in this isolate was significantly lower with tNGS (102 CFU/mL) than with Xpert MTB/RIF (106 CFU/mL). Sputum samples collected from 129 suspected pulmonary tuberculosis patients were also prospectively studied with…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAncient and Medieval Archaeology Studies · Historical and Archaeological Studies · Linguistics and language evolution
