Fig. 4: Performance of abritAMR pipeline to detect AMR mechanisms compared to PCR. | Nature Communications

Fig. 4: Performance of abritAMR pipeline to detect AMR mechanisms compared to PCR.

From: An ISO-certified genomics workflow for identification and surveillance of antimicrobial resistance

Fig. 4

Each panel details the identification of AMR mechanisms by abritAMR compared to the ‘gold standard’ multiplex PCR assays used in our laboratory. True positive, detected by both PCR and abritAMR; true negative, not detected by either PCR or abritAMR; false positive, detected by abritAMR but not multiplex PCR, and within the known range of the PCR assay; false negative, detected by multiplex PCR but not by abritAMR. Panel A, mec genes compared to multiplex PCR (mecA/mecC, no mecC detected by either method). Panel B, van genes compared to multiplex PCR (vanA/B/C). Panel C1, detection of genes within carbapenemase and ESBL gene families compared to multiplex PCR panel (AusDiagnostics CRE panel); asterisks represent groups where discrepancies were identified, and expanded out in Panel C2 to show the specific gene discrepancies between the two methods. Abbreviations: AMR antimicrobial resistance, PCR polymerase chain reaction, CP carbapenemase, ESBL extended-spectrum beta-lactamase. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

Back to article page