Graphical abstract
Airway metagenomics in the EMBARC-BRIDGE study reveals pan-European variation in microbiome and resistome profiles in bronchiectasis. MLS: macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin; RT: resistotype; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 s.
Abstract
Background
The European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) registry shows considerable variation in culturable microbes in sputum between different European countries. The additive role of next-generation metagenomic sequencing remains unexplored and the association with antimicrobial resistomes unknown.
Methods
We used next-generation shotgun metagenomic sequencing to prospectively assess sputum from 349 individuals recruited into the EMBARC Bronchiectasis Research Involving Databases, Genomics and Endotyping (BRIDGE) study from three European regions: Northern and Western Europe, Southern Europe and the UK. Samples were included from eight European countries. Microbiome and resistome profiles were assessed in relation to clinical outcomes.
Results
Next-generation metagenomic sequencing reproduced differences between countries in microbial profiles that were previously shown by culture in the EMBARC study. Metagenomics provided enhanced detection for some bronchiectasis pathogens, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Three metagenomic microbial clusters dominated by the genera Pseudomonas, Streptococcus and Haemophilus demonstrated pan-European but variable distribution. Diverse resistomes, linked to underlying microbiomes, were identified across Europe, with significantly higher diversity of resistance gene determinants in Southern Europe. Resistome composition significantly differed between regions, characterised by regionally contrasting multidrug-resistant profiles. The EMBARC-BRIDGE cohort validated established bronchiectasis resistotypes RT1 and RT2, which occur at varying frequency across regions. Despite geographic variation in microbiome and resistome profiles in bronchiectasis across Europe, analogous antimicrobial resistance gene profiles associated with the key bronchiectasis genera Pseudomonas, Streptococcus and Haemophilus, independent of country or region.
Conclusion
Sputum metagenomics confirms and extends prior observations of regional variation in bronchiectasis microbiology. Important variation in the distribution of pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes has implications for antimicrobial practices across Europe.
Shareable abstract
Sputum metagenomics reveals striking variation between different European countries in microbiome composition and resistome https://bit.ly/4daVUiW
Introduction
Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by progressive and irreversible airway dilatation. This is underpinned by a pathogenesis referred to as a “vicious vortex”, in which infection, inflammation and epithelial and mucociliary dysfunction intersect concurrently rather than sequentially with structural airway damage. Patients with bronchiectasis often experience progressive symptomatic disease with a clinical course of recurrent airway infection and exacerbations [1, 2]. The prevalence and recognition of bronchiectasis is increasing globally and carries a significant socioeconomic burden on individuals and healthcare systems [2–5]. While there are currently no available licensed therapies, largely owing to disease heterogeneity, emerging approaches focusing on precision medicine and targeting inflammation are showing promise [6–13].
Because infection remains a key aspect of the vicious vortex model of pathogenesis, a number of studies employing next-generation sequencing (NGS) have been performed to study the microbiome and better understand resident microbial communities [10, 14–18]. The microbiome in bronchiectasis reveals reduced diversity, and Pseudomonas-dominance is characterised by greater disease severity, more frequent exacerbations and higher mortality in contrast to other organisms [19, 20]. Critically, the established geographic variation in microbiology and microbiomes in bronchiectasis further underscores disease heterogeneity, significantly influencing endophenotypes, treatment responses and exacerbation-related differences [4, 21–24]. While microbial composition does not change during exacerbations, alterations in microbial interactions are observed that associate with exacerbation risk [22, 25–29]. The use of NGS has revolutionised our understanding of the microbiome, demonstrating high concordance with and greater sensitivity than conventional culture for pathogen detection across diagnostic settings [30, 31].
Use of long-term and inhaled antibiotics is linked to clinical and symptomatic benefit in bronchiectasis; however, long-term and/or repeated antibiotic use predisposes to the development of drug resistance [32–34]. A complex relationship therefore exists between dominant and residential microbial communities, particularly when placed under selective antibiotic pressure, which is further influenced by disease severity and clinical status. With the increasing use of shotgun metagenomics, a core macrolide resistome has been linked to underlying microbiomes across respiratory disease, including bronchiectasis [35]. Bronchiectasis-specific and therapeutically modifiable “resistotypes” (RTs) are described and associated with clinical outcomes [35, 36].
In 2023, the European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) published registry findings in 16 963 individuals across Europe and reported geographic variation in sputum microbiology by traditional culture [4, 37]. Pseudomonas and Haemophilus were identified as the two most common pathogens, with Pseudomonas being most common in Southern Europe and Haemophilus being more common by culture in Northern Europe and the UK. These may be true differences, but the low sensitivity of culture combined with differences in laboratory practices mean that it remains uncertain whether there are clinically relevant differences in the pathogen profiles between European countries. Leveraging individuals from the EMBARC registry and enrolled into the Bronchiectasis Research Involving Databases, Genomics and Endotyping (BRIDGE) sub-study, we investigated the additive value of next-generation metagenomic sequencing to that provided by traditional culture, and explored geographic variation in microbiomes and resistomes across Europe and their implications on clinical outcomes [38, 39]. The failure of large-scale international clinical trials in bronchiectasis to replicate results underscores the inherent significant heterogeneity in bronchiectasis, even across Europe, where several countries have been participating sites [40–44]. While several studies by our group and others have previously assessed geographic variation of the microbiome on a broader (continental) scale, a distinct lack of comparative studies across regions such as Europe exists. This study addresses this gap, investigating within-Europe variation across multiple regions and countries, and providing fresh insights into the regional microbiome variation previously unexplored [29, 36, 45].
Materials and methods
Study population
We prospectively recruited a cohort of individuals (n=349) with stable bronchiectasis as part of the EMBARC-BRIDGE study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03791086; supplementary methods). A total of 566 patients were initially enrolled up to December 2021. Of these, 424 patients provided a sputum sample suitable for analysis. DNA was successfully extracted from 417 of these samples, and after sequencing and quality control filtering, data from 349 patients were retained for the final analysis. A detailed overview of the sample selection process, including exclusion at each stage, is provided in supplementary figure E1. Briefly, patients with a primary diagnosis of bronchiectasis, defined as the presence of radiological findings on high-resolution computed tomography consistent with bronchiectasis (i.e. bronchial dilatation with broncho-arterial ratio >1, lack of airway tapering and/or airway visibility within 1 cm of the pleura space [46, 47]) affecting one or more lobes, with clinical symptoms of cough, sputum production and/or recurrent respiratory infections were recruited [47]. Patients were clinically stable at recruitment, defined as the absence of antibiotic treatment for a pulmonary exacerbation in the preceding 4 weeks [37, 48]. Patients were excluded if they were unable to provide informed consent; were <18 years of age; or had active tuberculosis, bronchiectasis due to cystic fibrosis, solely traction bronchiectasis due to an alternate predominant respiratory disease or prior heart or lung transplantation [49]. Individuals were recruited from three European regions that included eight separate countries as follows: Northern and Western Europe (Belgium, n=21; Germany, n=13; Netherlands, n=5), Southern Europe (Greece, n=34; Italy n=34; Spain, n=106) and the UK (England, n=25; Scotland, n=111). Countries were grouped according to the modified EU EuroVoc classification [37]. All clinical data were collated for analysis in line with EMBARC-BRIDGE protocols and sample collection was performed as described. The study was approved by the research ethics committee in each participating country (18/LO/1935) and all patients gave written informed consent to participate. Details on clinical data and specimen collection are provided in the supplementary methods.
DNA extraction and metagenomic sequencing
DNA extraction was performed at the University of Dundee, Scotland. Extracted DNA was transported to Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, for metagenomic sequencing. Sputum DNA was extracted using the DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen, cat. no. 47016) as previously described [50]. Briefly, 100 mg sputum was homogenised by bead-beating for 15 min on the Vortex-Genie 2 (Scientific Industries), followed by centrifugation at 15 000 g for 1 min before loading onto the QIAcube connect (Qiagen) for processing according to manufacturers’ instructions. Samples were processed in batches alongside 100 µL of molecular grade water (Sigma-Aldrich) as DNA extraction blanks. To ensure quality control during transport to Singapore, DNA samples were shipped on dry ice in temperature-controlled containers. The integrity and quantity of extracted sputum DNA was determined using a Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) on arrival in Singapore. DNA was subjected to shotgun metagenomic sequencing using a HiSeq 2500 platform (Illumina) at the NTU core sequencing facility according to standard library preparation and DNA sequencing protocols, as previously described [29, 35, 51, 52]. Both DNA extraction blanks (n=3) and sequencing library blanks (n=3) were included to assess for experimental background contamination associated with DNA extraction and metagenomic sequencing, respectively (supplementary figure E2). All raw short-read metagenomics sequencing data used in this study have been submitted to the National Center for Biotechnology Information Sequence Read Archive under project accession number PRJNA1186390.
Statistical analysis
All categorical data were compared using the chi-squared or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Non-parametric Wilcoxon or Kruskal–Wallis testing was applied for group comparisons of continuous variables, as appropriate. In cases of more than two groups, Dunn's post hoc test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction was applied to control for a false discovery rate arising from multiple comparisons. As a preprocessing step, all microbiome datasets were filtered to include only microbes with ≥1% relative abundance in ≥5% of patients (i.e. n=18). The resistome dataset was filtered to include resistance genes with ≥0.1% relative abundance in ≥1% of patients (i.e. n=4). Metagenomics-based microbial presence was defined as >1% relative abundance. Microbiome α-diversity was calculated using the Shannon diversity index, and differences in microbiome β-diversity between groups was assessed by permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity using the R package “vegan” (version 2.6–4) [53]. Principle coordinate analysis based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity of microbiome and resistome profiles was carried out using the R package “phyloseq” (version 1.46.0) [54]. Differential abundance analysis of microbiome and resistome profiles was performed by linear discriminant analysis effect size implemented using the R package “microbiomeMarker” (version 1.0.2) with default parameters [55]. Spectral clustering was implemented using the R package “SNFtool” (version 2.3.1) to cluster microbiome and resistome profiles based on the affinity matrix computed using Bray–Curtis dissimilarity [56]. The optimal number of clusters for microbiome (k=3) and resistome (k=2) profiles was determined using the eigengap method and cluster quality assessed by silhouette scores. Silhouette scores were 0.65 and 0.89 for microbiome and resistome clusters, respectively, indicating good cluster quality [29, 36, 56]. Unsupervised resistome clusters were subsequently validated against the original RTs [36] using a supervised nearest-neighbour approach. For each patient in the EMBARC-BRIDGE cohort, a predictive RT label (RT1 or RT2) was assigned based on Bray–Curtis distance, by comparing their resistome profile to that of the closest match from the Cohort of Asian and Matched European Bronchiectasis 2 (CAMEB2) cohort, which served as the reference for the original RTs. All statistical analyses were performed using custom scripts written in R (version 4.1.3, www.r-project.org) and Python (version 3.10.6, www.python.org). Data visualisation was performed in R using “ggplot2” package (version 3.4.2). A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Further details on quality control, preprocessing, microbiome and antimicrobial gene assignment from metagenomics are provided in the supplementary methods.
Results
The lung microbiome in bronchiectasis demonstrates geographic variation across Europe
Sputum metagenomics of 349 individuals with bronchiectasis from the EMBARC-BRIDGE study were assessed. Patient demographics and clinical data are summarised in table 1. Geographic variation in sputum microbiology, by culture, was previously reported in the published EMBARC registry data [37]. Here, we illustrate that metagenomic sequencing broadly reproduces the regional variation in the prevalence of the most common isolated microorganisms by culture (figure 1a–d) [37]. While a higher prevalence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa was observed in Northern and Western Europe (NWE) (n=39) and Southern Europe (SE) (n=174) by metagenomics compared to culture, SE exhibits the highest relative abundance of this organism by metagenomics (figure 1a–d). Metagenomics revealed a higher prevalence and significantly greater relative abundance of Haemophilus influenzae in individuals from the UK (n=136) compared to SE (n=174). Median relative abundance was higher in the UK than in SE (0.4%, interquartile range (IQR) 0.1–17.0% versus 0.2%, IQR 0.1–8.7%; Kruskal–Wallis test p<0.05; Dunn's post hoc test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction) (figure 1a–d). Of note, Streptococcus pneumoniae demonstrated high detection by metagenomics (versus culture) across all regions, reinforcing established clinical challenges in isolating this Streptococcus species by culture-based methodologies (figure 1a) [57]. Metagenomic sequencing revealed significant differences in microbial diversity and composition between regions, with SE demonstrating the lowest α-diversity (figure 1d–f). Differential abundance analysis identified the microbes that were increased between regions as Gemella sanguinis, Actinomyces oris and Schaalia odontolytica (NWE); P. aeruginosa (SE); and H. influenzae, Streptococcus parasanguinis and Streptococcus salivarius (UK) (figure 1g). Importantly, the microbiome exhibited geographic variation across regions even within disease severity status groups, exacerbator status groups and among long-term antibiotic user groups (supplementary figures E3–E5).
TABLE 1.
Summary of the EMBARC-BRIDGE bronchiectasis cohort including demographic and clinical variables
| EMBARC-BRIDGE | European region | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northern and Western Europe | Southern Europe | UK | p-value (across regions) | ||
| Subjects, n | 349 | 39 | 174 | 136 | |
| Age, years | 68 (59–77) | 54 (37–70) | 69 (61–77) | 70 (61–76) | <0.001*** |
| Sex | ns | ||||
| Male | 177 (50.7) | 15 (38.5) | 83 (47.7) | 79 (58.1) | |
| Female | 172 (49.3) | 24 (61.5) | 91 (52.3) | 57 (41.9) | |
| Aetiology | <0.001*** | ||||
| Idiopathic | 199 (57.0) | 19 (48.7) | 88 (50.6) | 92 (67.7) | |
| Post-infective | 67 (19.2) | 6 (15.4) | 52 (29.9) | 9 (6.6) | |
| Other | 83 (23.8) | 14 (35.9) | 34 (19.5) | 35 (25.7) | |
| Smoking status | <0.001*** | ||||
| Never | 191 (54.7) | 28 (71.8) | 108 (62.1) | 55 (40.4) | |
| Current | 24 (6.9) | 0 (0.0) | 10 (5.7) | 14 (10.3) | |
| Ex-smoker | 134 (38.4) | 11 (28.2) | 56 (32.2) | 67 (49.3) | |
| BSI status | 0.023* | ||||
| Mild | 91 (26.1) | 15 (38.5) | 40 (23.0) | 36 (26.5) | |
| Moderate | 126 (36.1) | 8 (20.5) | 59 (33.9) | 59 (43.4) | |
| Severe | 132 (37.8) | 16 (41.0) | 75 (43.1) | 41 (30.1) | |
| BMI, kg·m−2 | 25 (22–29) | 23 (21–27) | 24 (22–27) | 27 (24–31) | <0.001*** |
| MRC dyspnoea score | 0.013* | ||||
| 1–3 | 276 (79.1) | 34 (87.2) | 146 (83.9) | 96 (70.6) | |
| 4 | 44 (12.6) | 5 (12.8) | 17 (9.8) | 22 (16.2) | |
| 5 | 29 (8.3) | 0 (0.0) | 11 (6.3) | 18 (13.2) | |
| FEV1, % predicted | 71 (53–92) | 75 (56–92) | 67 (49–84) | 79 (55–97) | 0.010* |
| Radiological severity | ns | ||||
| 1–2 lobes involved | 131 (37.5) | 14 (35.9) | 66 (37.9) | 51 (37.5) | |
| ≥3 lobes involved | 218 (62.5) | 25 (64.1) | 108 (62.1) | 85 (62.5) | |
| Exacerbator status | <0.001*** | ||||
| 0 | 104 (29.8) | 20 (51.3) | 32 (18.4) | 52 (38.3) | |
| 1 to 2 | 121 (34.7) | 10 (25.6) | 73 (42.0) | 38 (27.9) | |
| 3 or more | 124 (35.5) | 9 (23.1) | 69 (39.6) | 46 (33.8) | |
| Hospital admissions in the year preceding recruitment | <0.001*** | ||||
| Yes | 117 (33.5) | 29 (74.4) | 45 (25.9) | 43 (31.6) | |
| No | 232 (66.5) | 10 (25.6) | 129 (74.1) | 93 (68.4) | |
| Pseudomonas colonisation | <0.001*** | ||||
| Yes | 77 (22.1) | 16 (41.0) | 50 (28.7) | 11 (8.1) | |
| No | 272 (77.9) | 23 (59.0) | 124 (71.3) | 125 (91.9) | |
| Colonisation with other organisms | <0.001*** | ||||
| Yes | 77 (22.1) | 22 (56.4) | 31 (17.8) | 24 (17.6) | |
| No | 272 (77.9) | 17 (43.6) | 143 (82.2) | 112 (82.4) | |
| Bronchodilators | ns | ||||
| Yes | 214 (61.3) | 26 (66.7) | 108 (62.1) | 80 (58.8) | |
| No | 135 (38.7) | 13 (33.3) | 66 (37.9) | 56 (41.2) | |
| Inhaled corticosteroids | ns | ||||
| Yes | 197 (56.4) | 20 (51.3) | 97 (55.7) | 80 (58.8) | |
| No | 152 (43.6) | 19 (48.7) | 77 (44.3) | 56 (41.2) | |
| Mucolytics | <0.001*** | ||||
| Yes | 80 (22.9) | 27 (69.2) | 4 (2.3) | 49 (36.0) | |
| No | 269 (77.1) | 12 (30.8) | 170 (97.7) | 87 (64.0) | |
| Long-term antibiotics | ns | ||||
| Yes | 113 (32.4) | 16 (41.0) | 49 (28.2) | 48 (35.3) | |
| No | 236 (67.6) | 23 (59.0) | 125 (71.8) | 88 (64.7) | |
Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or n (%), unless otherwise indicated. BSI: Bronchiectasis Severity Index; BMI: body mass index; MRC: Medical Research Council; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; ns: nonsignificant. *: p<0.05; **: p<0.01; ***: p<0.001.
FIGURE 1.
The lung microbiome in bronchiectasis exhibits geographic variation across Europe. a) Prevalence of microorganisms by sputum culture, defined as the isolation of a microorganism from sputum over the preceding year [37], in comparison to prevalence by shotgun metagenomic sequencing, where the microorganism is detected at >1% relative abundance. b) Relative abundance of the top six microorganisms detected in bronchiectasis from Northern and Western Europe (NWE), Southern Europe (SE) and the UK. c) Pie charts and d) stacked bar plots illustrating lung microbiome profiles in bronchiectasis from NWE, SE and the UK. p-value determined by PERMANOVA. e) Differences in α-diversity (Shannon diversity index) of the lung microbiome across Europe. Data presented as median and interquartile ranges, with whiskers indicating range. f) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plot, based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity, illustrating differences in β-diversity of the lung microbiome across Europe. PCoA centroids of the individual regions are indicated with circles intersected by a cross. p-value determined by PERMANOVA. g) Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size analysis illustrating differentially abundant microbial species across Europe. ns: nonsignificant; PC: principal coordinate. *: p<0.05.
Unsupervised clustering of sputum metagenomes in bronchiectasis identified three patient clusters with Pan-European distribution
We next performed unsupervised spectral clustering of sputum metagenomes and identified three clusters, discriminated by commonly identified bacterial species from the bronchiectasis airway: P. aeruginosa (n=71), Streptococcus spp. (n=224) and H. influenzae (n=54) (figures 2a–c). The highest α-diversity was observed in the Streptococcus-dominant cluster in comparison to the two other clusters (both p<0.001 versus the Streptococcus-dominant cluster) (figure 2d). A pan-European distribution was observed in all three clusters, differing significantly by regional frequency of occurrence (p<0.001) (figure 2e). The highest proportion of Pseudomonas-dominance occurred in SE, making up to one third of individuals (33%), while Haemophilus-dominance predominated in the UK, occurring in over one fifth of individuals (21%) (figure 2e).
FIGURE 2.
Unsupervised spectral clustering of the sputum metagenome in bronchiectasis reveals three clusters with pan-European distribution. a) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plot, based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity, illustrating three microbiome clusters: Pseudomonas-dominant (n=71; green), Streptococcus-dominant (n=224; orange) and Haemophilus-dominant (n=54; purple). Circles intersected by a cross indicate PCoA centroids of the identified clusters. p-value determined by PERMANOVA.
b) Stacked bar plots illustrating microbiome composition of the three clusters. c) Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size analysis illustrating the top 20 differentially abundant microbial species across the identified clusters. d) Differences in α-diversity (Shannon diversity index) of the lung microbiome across the identified clusters. Data presented as median and interquartile ranges, with whiskers indicating range. e) Distribution of the identified clusters across the respective regions in Northern and Western Europe (NWE) (n=39), Southern Europe (SE) (n=174) and the UK (n=136). ns: nonsignificant; PC: principal coordinate. ***: p<0.001.
The Pseudomonas-dominant cluster associates with the poorest clinical outcomes
In line with the established literature in bronchiectasis [58–61], the Pseudomonas-dominant cluster exhibited the greatest clinical severity, evidenced by a higher exacerbation frequency (median 2 events, IQR 1–4 events; p<0.01), increased disease severity (median Bronchiectasis Severity Index 10 points, IQR 8–13 points; p<0.001), poorest lung function (median forced expiratory volume in 1 s 55.5% predicted, IQR 41.0–69.9% predicted; p<0.001) and increased symptoms (median Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale 3, IQR 2–4; p<0.01) when compared to the other clusters (figure 3a–d). Clinical parameters were comparable between the Streptococcus-dominant and Haemophilus-dominant clusters.
FIGURE 3.
The Pseudomonas-dominant microbiome cluster is associated with increased exacerbations, greater disease severity and the poorest lung function in comparison to the Haemophilus-dominant or Streptococcus-dominant clusters. Box plots illustrating significant differences in a) exacerbation frequency, b) disease severity (recorded using the Bronchiectasis Severity Index (BSI)), c) lung function (as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) % predicted) and d) dyspnoea score (using Medical Research Council (MRC) scale) across the three clusters. Data presented as median and interquartile ranges, with whiskers indicating range. ns: nonsignificant. **: p<0.01; ***: p<0.001.
The bronchiectasis resistome and associated resistotypes demonstrate geographic variation across Europe
The bronchiectasis resistome, encompassing the distinct repertoire of known antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes detectable in the airway metagenomic analysis, is described in association with its underlying lung microbiome; however, geographic variation has not been examined [35, 36]. Having determined that geographic variation to lung microbiomes in bronchiectasis exists across Europe, we next assessed for variation in underlying resistomes and for the existence of previously established RTs [36]. Sputum metagenomics revealed a diverse AMR gene profile in bronchiectasis across Europe (figure 4a, b), with significantly higher diversity in SE compared to NWE (p<0.05) and the UK (p<0.001) (figure 4c). Resistome composition significantly differed across regions (figure 4d) and discriminant analysis identified a range of differentially abundant AMR genes between regions, most notably belonging to drug classes of therapeutic antibiotics including aminoglycosides, β-lactams, fluoroquinolones, macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin (MLS) and tetracyclines (figure 4e). NWE and SE were importantly discriminated by profiles of AMR genes conferring multidrug resistance (which further varied between these regions), and aminoglycoside and MLS resistance. In contrast, the UK exhibited less discriminant AMR genes, largely conferring tetracycline resistance (figure 4e).
FIGURE 4.
The resistome in bronchiectasis demonstrates geographic variation across Europe. a) Resistome profiles in bronchiectasis across Northern and Western Europe (NWE) (n=39), Southern Europe (SE) (n=174) and the UK (n=136) with resistance genes grouped and coloured according to drug class. b) Resistome profiles in NWE, SE and the UK. Resistance genes are grouped and coloured according to drug class. p-value determined by PERMANOVA. c) Differences in α-diversity (Shannon diversity index) of the resistome profiles across the respective European regions, presented as median and interquartile ranges, with whiskers indicating range. d) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plot, based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity, illustrating differences in β-diversity of the resistome across the respective European regions. PCoA centroids of the individual regions are indicated with circles intersected by a cross. p-value determined by PERMANOVA.
e) Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size analysis illustrating differentially abundant resistance gene determinants across the respective European regions. MLS: macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin; ns: nonsignificant; PC: principal coordinate. *: p<0.05; **: p<0.01.
Prior work by our group used the CAMEB2 to define two therapeutically modifiable RTs, RT1 and RT2, with the latter RT associated with poor clinical outcomes [36]. We next sought to validate these RTs in the EMBARC-BRIDGE cohort and assess their geographic distribution across regions. Unsupervised spectral clustering of the lung resistome re-capitulated the two RTs, RT1 and RT2 (figure 5a, left), demonstrating a high degree of concordance with that previously established with the CAMEB2 cohort (figure 5a, right). Resistotype concordance was further confirmed by cross-assigning individuals from the EMBARC-BRIDGE cohort with the nearest RT centroid established in the published CAMEB2 cohort, again demonstrating strong concordance: 100% in RT1 (n=235) and 93% in RT2 (n=83) (figure 5b). In the EMBARC-BRIDGE cohort, fluoroquinolone, MLS and tetracycline resistance genes discriminated RT1, while RT2 was characterised by multidrug, aminoglycoside, phenicol and bicyclomycin resistance genes (figure 5c) [36], re-capitulating 85% (17 out of 20 AMR genes) for RT1 and 89% (47 out of 53 AMR genes) for RT2 from the previously published CAMEB2 cohort [36]. Clinical correlates of the RTs were reproduced with RT2 (relative to RT1), demonstrating increased exacerbation frequency, greater disease severity, poorer lung function and increased symptoms (figure 5d). Importantly, RT occurrence exhibited significant geographic variation across Europe, with the highest prevalence of RT2 in SE (42%; n=67) followed by NWE (27%; n=10) (figure 5e).
FIGURE 5.
Resistotypes in bronchiectasis demonstrate geographic variation across Europe. a) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plots of resistance gene profiles, based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity, illustrating resistotype (RT) clusters in the EMBARC-BRIDGE cohort (left); the CAMEB2 cohort [36] (centre) and both cohorts combined (right), demonstrating high concordance. Circles intersected by a cross indicate PCoA centroids of the identified clusters. p-value determined by PERMANOVA. b) Concordance table illustrating the high degree of consensus in RT classifications between the EMBARC-BRIDGE cohort and CAMEB2 cohort: 100% in RT1 (n=235) and 93% in RT2 (n=83). c) Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size analysis of resistance gene determinants in the RT1 and RT2 resistotype clusters in the EMBARC-BRIDGE cohort. d) Differences in exacerbation frequency (far left), disease severity (recorded using the Bronchiectasis Severity Index (BSI)) (middle left), lung function (as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) % predicted) (middle right) and dyspnoea score (using Medical Research Council (MRC) scale) (far right) between RT1 (turquoise) and RT2 (red) in the EMBARC-BRIDGE cohort. e) Distribution of RTs across the respective regions in Europe. MLS: macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin; ns: nonsignificant; PC: principal coordinate. *: p<0.05; **: p<0.01; ***: p<0.001.
Microbiome–resistome correlation networks across Europe identify analogous antimicrobial resistance gene profiles associated with key microbial genera
Because we established that bronchiectasis microbiomes and resistomes vary by region across Europe, we next sought to determine whether such variation is driven by variability in the key microbial genera: Pseudomonas, Streptococcus and Haemophilus spp (c.f. figure 2). Microbiome–resistome co-occurrence analyses identified the greatest association in SE among all regions (figure 6a), driven by the greater diversity of the resistance gene profile harboured by the microbiome in this region (figure 4c). Pseudomonas spp. associated with RT2 discriminant genes, while Streptococcus and Haemophilus spp. associated with RT1 discriminant genes, independent of geographic origin (figure 6b–d, supplementary tables E1 and E2). Importantly, the top discriminating RT2 resistance genes, including multidrug (OprM, mexI, mexH, mexK, mexV, MexE), MLS (PA_CpxR), aminoglycoside (APH(3')-IIb), phenicol (PA_catB7) and bicyclomycin (bcr-1), associated with Pseudomonas spp. comparably across all regions (figure 6b). Similarly, highly discriminating RT1 resistance genes, including fluoroquinolone (patA, patB, pmrA), MLS (RlmA(II), ErmB, ErmF) and tetracycline (tetB(46)) associated with Streptococcus spp. comparably across all regions (figure 6c). Meanwhile. Haemophilus spp. associated, across all regions, with hmrM, a multidrug-resistance gene linked to RT1 (figure 6d). We additionally assessed resistance profiles of other most abundant microbes not recognised as traditional pathogens, i.e. Rothia, Gemella and Prevotella spp. (supplementary figure E6a–c, supplementary tables E3–E5). Notably, the associated profiles of resistance genes comprised RT1-discriminant genes, with apparent geographic variability in antibiotic classes.
FIGURE 6.
Microbiome–resistome correlation networks identify analogous antimicrobial resistance (AMR) gene profiles associated with key microbial genera (Pseudomonas, Streptococcus and Haemophilus) across Europe. a) Overall microbiome–resistome correlation networks classified by respective European region with the EMBARC-BRIDGE cohort. Nodes representing microbial genera are placed centrally, with nodes indicating AMR genes surrounding and grouped by drug class. The size of a microbial node reflects the number of AMR genes associated, with a bigger node indicating a higher gene number. Nodes representing Pseudomonas, Streptococcus and Haemophilus are coloured green, orange and purple, respectively, and represent key microbes. Nodes representing AMR gene determinants that discriminate resistotypes (RT) are coloured turquoise for RT1 and red for RT2. Grey lines indicate associations between microbes and respective AMR genes, with line transparency reflecting the strength of the association. AMR genes associated with b) Pseudomonas, c) Streptococcus and d) Haemophilus across the respective European regions are further detailed. Nodes representing the top 10 most discriminant AMR genes associated with RT1 (turquoise) and RT2 (red) are indicated. MLS: macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin.
Discussion
Here, we show that the lung microbiome in bronchiectasis demonstrates geographic variation in diversity and composition across Europe, broadly reproducing results from traditional culture for common bronchiectasis organisms including P. aeruginosa and H. influenzae; however, an improved detection of “difficult to culture” organisms such as S. pneumoniae is gained by metagenomics. Culture positivity relates to the metagenomic abundance, suggesting that culture reports the most prevalent bacteria. Three metagenomically derived patient clusters dominated by P. aeruginosa, H. influenzae and Streptococcus spp., respectively, illustrates a pan-European distribution, but they differed in their frequency and occurrence by region. Comparably, the bronchiectasis resistome also demonstrated geographic variation across Europe, validating established bronchiectasis RTs despite a varying frequency of occurrence for RT1 and RT2 across regions [36]. While SE and NWE have the highest frequency of RT2, each was discriminated by AMR gene profiles conferring multidrug resistance, with their specific multidrug AMR genes varying by individual region. Interestingly, the variation in resistomes across Europe was not driven by the inherent microbial differences, but rather a consistent microbiome–resistome correlation was observed between key bronchiectasis genera (independent of European region) and their associated AMR gene pattern. This suggests that a targeted approach to microbial eradication based on metagenomics may hold therapeutic value.
A key finding of this work was that shotgun metagenomic sequencing largely reproduces broad regional prevalence and variation by culture across Europe for the commonest bronchiectasis pathogens, including P. aeruginosa and H. influenzae [37]. Metagenomics demonstrated increased detection for a number of other important potential pathogens, e.g. S. pneumoniae was detected at significantly higher frequencies although recovery from culture is described as challenging and often negative [62–65]. Notably, there is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of S. pneumoniae lung infection [57] and sputum culture remains an imperfect measure of detection despite routine use in clinical diagnostics [66]. Despite intense efforts to develop molecular assays to detect S. pneumoniae from clinical specimens, their robustness and clinical utility remain uncertain, offering a potential role for metagenomics [67]. While the widespread implementation of metagenomics into routine clinical practice is at a very early stage, our findings support an important and potential role for respiratory pathogen surveillance in bronchiectasis and other respiratory diseases [68–70]. The association between culture and metagenomics, nonetheless, is not yet fully understood, exemplified by microbes such as nontuberculous mycobacteria [71, 72]. A limitation of most studies is that culturomics are not routinely performed, which may increase culture positivity rates. These approaches will have key roles in bridging the gap between microbiological culture-based work-up and airway metagenomic profiling, allowing greater insight into sensitivity and specificity and defining complex microbial culture conditions required for the growth of fastidious organisms. Upper airway microbes may outcompete and limit the growth of lower airway microbes in culture, potentially masking the presence of pathogens through bacterial persistence mechanisms, including “viable but non-culturable” states [73]. Notably, negative sputum culture is an interesting feature of bronchiectasis; the EMBARC registry reported 60–70% of patients having negative cultures [49]. This is possibly reflective of the respiratory “adaptive island model”, whereby active bacterial elimination limits the number of viable bacteria detected at the time of sputum sampling [74, 75]. This suggests a sampling limitation rather than true lack of culture sensitivity. Nevertheless, emerging evidence supports the clinical utility of metagenomics for infection control, guiding antimicrobial treatment decisions and informing public health strategies [68, 76].
The environment influences microbiome composition and geographic variation is documented beyond the lung [77–79]. Distinct geographic microbiome features in bronchiectasis include taxonomic and functional differences, which inform regional endophenotypes [21, 22, 36]. Our findings align with global observations and, for the first time, confirm geographic variation of the bronchiectasis microbiome across Europe. This has important clinical and research implications, especially for antibiotic-focused clinical trials, in which due consideration of the predominant microbiology is required to facilitate trial design, planning and recruitment. Because global differences in bronchiectasis are now recognised, intra-continental differences, illustrated by this study, may have an important role, especially considering the failure to reproduce key findings across “paired” antibiotic clinical trials such as the RESPIRE [40, 41] and ORBIT [42] programmes. These trials assessed different formulations of inhaled ciprofloxacin, a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, in patients with bronchiectasis. In our study, regional variation in genes encoding fluoroquinolone resistance was identified across Europe, where pmrA and patA associate with NWE and the UK, respectively. Importantly, resistance to ciprofloxacin is also encoded by various multidrug efflux pumps, including MexC, MexD and OprJ [80–83], all of which are enriched in SE and discriminant for RT2, in which P. aeruginosa predominates. These findings underscore geographic variation in microbial drivers of resistance, supporting the implementation of geographically stratified approaches in the design of future clinical trials.
Notwithstanding this, it is important to acknowledge that various other genetic mutations or single nucleotide variants may emerge during antibiotic therapy (e.g. mutations in the nfxB gene that lead to efflux overexpression of MexCD-OprJ in P. aeruginosa [83]) that are not readily identified by the protein-based marker detection of resistance genes employed in our metagenomic analysis. This may contribute to emerging resistance over the course of clinical trials. Further, the mobilisation of pumps such a MexCD-OprJ highlights their role in mediating resistance beyond host species such as P. aeruginosa [84], adding further complexity to the interpretation of resistome data. The AIR-BX trials [43] of inhaled aztreonam (AIR-BX1 and AIR-BX2) also demonstrated discordant results, mirroring challenges seen in the RESPIRE and ORBIT programmes. Several mutational variants in negative transcriptional regulators of the mexAB-OprM efflux system have been implicated in aztreonam resistance in P. aeruginosa, and could result in resistance to structurally unrelated antipseudomonal antibiotics [85–87]. Interestingly, we identified consistent associations between P. aeruginosa and mexAB-OprM resistance genes across Europe. Environmental differences across Europe, however, may potentially promote geographic variants of mutations in negative regulators of the mexAB-OprM efflux system, culminating in a common end-point of resistance to aztreonam in P. aeruginosa. The emergence of such variants may not be captured in the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) database, as used in this study. Geographic variation has been shown to influence outcomes in other disease states, including inflammatory bowel disease, and previously in bronchiectasis, where Asian and European patients were compared, reiterating the importance of location in determining microbiology, clinical presentation and, potentially, treatment response [22, 36, 45, 88]. Furthermore, even within the same country, an extrapolation of gut microbiome-based metabolic models across regions proved unsuccessful, adding further evidence to the importance of geographic variation in microbiome-based disease models [89]. Microbiome-related differences by geography can be attributed to a variety of host and environmental factors, including genetics, immunity, lifestyle, environmental exposures and dietary influences [90–94]. Taken together, understanding microbiome-related differences within regions, countries and continents, evidenced here from a European perspective, is critical to achieve the precision-based approach to endophenotyping, clinical care and treatment required in bronchiectasis.
Commensal organisms are generally unidentified or unreported by routine microbiology laboratories. Differential abundance analysis of bronchiectasis metagenomes across Europe, however, identifies an increased abundance of commensal organisms, including Streptococcus spp. and Rothia mucilaginosa in the UK and A. oris, Neisseria bacilliformis, G. sanguinis and S. odontolytica in NWE. The role of commensals in bronchiectasis remains an important area of ongoing research. For some of these organisms, a spectrum of pathogenesis ranging from commensal to pathobiont to pathogen is increasingly recognised [45, 95]. Oral commensals, thought to originate solely from the oropharyngeal compartment, have now been identified in the lower airway, with recent work demonstrating roles in modulating host immune responses [96–98]. R. mucilaginosa and Aggregatibacter inhibit inflammation, P. melaninogenica improves S. pneumoniae lung clearance, and a protective role for Streptococcus mitis in combination with P. melaninogenica and Veillonella parvula has been demonstrated in murine S. pneumonia challenge models through a MyD88-dependent priming of the Th17 response [99–103]. Conversely, Neisseria subflava represents a pathobiont in bronchiectasis, promoting airway damage and unfavourable metabo-lipidomic responses [45]. The emerging and varied roles of commensals in bronchiectasis should therefore be recognised, and metagenomics may play an important role in determining the relevance, differences and balance between beneficial commensals and harmful pathobionts under contrasting conditions and geographic location.
The resistome, a collection of AMR gene determinants, exhibits less geographic variability compared to microbiomes and, even in health, exhibits core macrolide resistance [35]. We observed key differences in the bronchiectasis resistome across European regions (i.e. UK, SE, NWE); yet, resistomes were largely homogenous across countries within regions, despite microbial differences. Several genes were linked to non-clinical antimicrobials (e.g. triclosan, phenicol), suggesting environmental influences on regional resistance profiles. Bronchiectasis RT1 and RT2 have been recently established, demonstrating clinical association and amenability to therapeutic intervention [36]. We validated these RTs with high accuracy across Europe, observing increased prevalence of RT2 in regions where microbiomes were dominated by P. aeruginosa, including SE. This correlation suggests that specific bronchiectasis-related genera associate with distinct AMR gene patterns across regions, independent of broader microbial diversity. Thus, in Pseudomonas-dominated regions (e.g. SE), antimicrobial strategies that prioritise treatments addressing Pseudomonas-associated resistance patterns may minimise broader microbiome disruption and avoid resistance amplification across other microbial communities. Similarly, in RT1-dominated areas, where Streptococcus and Haemophilus are prevalent, treatments could be tailored to high MLS and tetracycline resistance patterns. Notably, while RT2 was more prevalent in both SE and NWE, each region exhibited distinct AMR gene profiles within RT2 phenotypes, suggesting geographically specific variants related to this RT. These findings support a further-refined, geographically tailored eradication approach leveraging metagenomic insights to enhance antimicrobial strategy in bronchiectasis. Furthermore, considering the potential of prolonged antibiotic use to shape the microbiome [104] and drive antimicrobial drug resistance, understanding the resistome provides insight into microbial resistance dynamics and scope for a tailored personalised approach to managing bronchiectasis. Despite this, microbiomes also influence treatment response, and the resistome cannot be inferred solely from microbial taxa. Critically, the validation of previously established RTs reinforces their role in bronchiectasis endophenotyping to facilitate clinical translation.
While this work reveals important findings with potential clinical and research implications, it does have limitations. The cross-sectional study design precludes longitudinal evaluation of microbiome–resistome stability, and while geographic variation to microbiomes and resistomes are evident, our work has no coverage of Central and Eastern European regions, which are reported to have severe bronchiectasis and frequent exacerbations [37]. Our results are derived from the first patients enrolled in the pan-European EMBARC-BRIDGE study, which is now extending to further sites, including those in Eastern Europe. The recruitment of only bronchiectasis patients in this study precludes our assessment of regional variations in the “healthy baseline” microbiome as comparators; however, prior published work has already demonstrated this to differ significantly from bronchiectasis [35]. While metagenomic analysis provides an overview of resistomes across Europe, transmissibility and the nature of the resistance genes (i.e. chromosomal or encoded in mobile genetic elements such as plasmids, phages, transposons or integrons) were not assessed. Further, metagenomics faces limitations in capturing fine-scale, whole-genome resolution, potentially overlooking key mutations in resistance genes or regulatory proteins that play a key role in established pathogens [105]. This issue also applies to less-characterised commensal or pathobiont species, in which resistance mechanisms remain largely unexplored. Notably, the CARD database comprises only published and experimentally validated resistance genes [106]. Cryptic and silent resistance genes are hence not captured, thereby limiting evaluation of the “silent” resistome [107]. Our identification of resistance genes in association with bronchiectasis pathogens remains correlative and requires confirmatory evaluation by phenotypic assessment for AMR. Although observational, our study highlights RTs as clinically relevant microbial signatures associated with disease burden and AMR profiles. RT2 is indicative of an increased pathogen load and a higher AMR potential, underscoring the challenges in treating pathogen-dominant microbiomes. These insights may help refine antimicrobial strategies and support the development of more targeted treatment approaches. Our findings contribute to the broader understanding of microbiome-driven heterogeneity in bronchiectasis across Europe, which may inform future mechanistic studies and clinical trial design. Finally, while shotgun metagenomics permits taxonomic characterisation and functional annotation, challenges relating to the detection of fungi and antifungal resistance persists, given their overall relatively low abundance within microbiomes and the immaturity of robust bioinformatic pipelines to address this. The study of viral communities (the virome) with shotgun metagenomics is similarly plagued with challenges, including its minute abundance as well as incomplete viral databases and bioinformatic shortcomings impeding viral taxonomic identification and functional annotation [108–110]. The diverse architecture of viral genomes (linear or circular, DNA or RNA, single- or double-stranded) further impedes simultaneous assessment of the virome using metagenomics [109, 111, 112].
In conclusion, sputum metagenomes in bronchiectasis reproduce culture-based results with enhanced detection for some pathogens. Underlying resistomes demonstrate geographic variation and validate established RTs. Our findings provide a basis to consider appropriate antibiotic usage, optimise antimicrobial trial design and perform geographic endo-phenotyping. Conserved resistance gene profiles of key microbial genera across regions provides a basis for targeted geographic-specific microbial eradication in bronchiectasis.
Shareable PDF
Acknowledgements
The authors thank The Academic Respiratory Initiative for Pulmonary Health (TARIPH) and the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine Centre for Microbiome Medicine for collaboration support.
Footnotes
This article has an editorial commentary: https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01020-2025
Ethics statement: The study was approved by the research ethics committee in each participating country (18/LO/1935) and all patients gave written informed consent to participate.
Conflict of interest: P.Y. Tiew has served on advisory boards for GSK and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. P.C. Goeminne reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from Insmed, GSK and Chiesi; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Chiesi; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Boehringer, GSK and Pfizer. M. Shteinberg reports consulting fees from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kamada and Zambon; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from Insmed, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, AstraZeneca, Teva, Novartis, Kamada and Sanofi; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Novartis, Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK and Rafa; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bonus Therapeutics, Israel; leadership roles for EMBARC Management, Israel Pulmonology Society Board and the Israel Society for TB and Mycobacterial Diseases; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Trudell Medical Int.; and is an associate editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. A. De Soyza reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK and Novartis; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Insmed, GSK, Boehringer, 30T and Bayer; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK and Novartis. S. Aliberti reports grants or contracts from Insmed Incorporated, Chiesi, Fisher and Paykel and GSK; royalties or licences from McGraw Hill; consulting fees from Insmed Incorporated, Insmed Italy, Insmed Ireland Ltd, Zambon Spa, AstraZeneca UK Ltd, AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical LP, CSL Behring GmbH, Grifols, Fondazione Internazionale Menarini, Moderna, Chiesi, MCD Italis SrL, Brahms, Physioassist SAS and GSK SpA; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from GSK SpA, Thermofisher Scientific, Insmed Italy, Insmed Ireland, Zambon and Fondazione Internazionale Menarini; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Insmed Incorporated, Insmed Italy, AstraZeneca UK Ltd and MSD Italia SrL. C.S. Haworth reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from 30 Technology, CSL Behring, Chisi, Insmed, Janssen, LifeArc, Meiji, Mylan, Pneumagen, Shionogi, Vertex and Zambon. E. Polverino reports grants or contracts from Grifols; consulting fees from Insmed, Bayer, Chiesi and Zambon; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from Bayer, Chiesi, Grifols, GSK, Insmed, Menarini and Zambon; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Insmed, Pfizer and Moderna. M.R. Loebinger reports consulting fees from Armata, 30T, AstraZeneca, Parion, Insmed, Chiesi, Zambon, Electromed, Recode, AN2 and Boehringer Ingelheim; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from Insmed; and a leadership role as ERS Infection Group Chair. F.C. Ringshausen reports grants or contracts from German Center for Lung Research (DZL), German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), IMI (EU/EFPIA) and iABC Consortium (including Alaxia, Basilea, Novartis and Polyphor), Mukoviszidose Institute, Novartis, Insmed Germany, Grifols, Bayer and InfectoPharm; consulting fees from Parion, Grifols, Zambon, Insmed and Helmholtz-Zentrum für Infektionsforschung; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from I!DE Werbeagentur GmbH, Interkongress GmbH, AstraZeneca, Insmed, Grifols and Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt am Main; payment for expert testimony from Social Court Cologne; support for attending meetings from German Kartagener Syndrome and Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Patient Advocacy Group Mukoviszidose e.V.; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Insmed, Grifols and Shionogi; leadership or fiduciary roles as coordinator of the ERN-LUNG Bronchiectasis Core Network, chair of the German Bronchiectasis Registry PROGNOSIS, member of the steering committee of the European Bronchiectasis Registry EMBARC, member of the steering committee of the European Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease Registry EMBARC-NTM, co-speaker of the medical advisory board of the German Kartagener Syndrome and PCD Patient Advocacy Group, speaker of the respiratory infections and TB group of the German Respiratory Society, speaker of the cystic fibrosis group of the German Respiratory Society, PI of the German Center for Lung Research, member of the protocol review committee of the PCD-CTN, and member of Physician Association of the German Cystic Fibrosis Patient Advocacy Group; and has the following other financial or non-financial interests: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celtaxsys, Corbus, Insmed, Novartis, Parion, University of Dundee, Vertex and Zambon. K. Dimakou reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Norma Hellas, Chiesi, AstraZeneca and Zambon; support for attending meetings from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Norma Hellas, Chiesi, AstraZeneca and Menarini; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Novartis, GSK and Chiesi. A. Shoemark reports consulting fees from Spirovant and Translate Bio; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing or educational events from Translate Bio, Ethris and Insmed; and a leadership role in European Respiratory Society Clinical Research Collaborations (EMBARC, BEATPCD, AMR). J.D. Chalmers reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Grifols, Insmed, LifeArc and Novartis; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Insmed, Grifols, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Janssen, Antabio and Zambon. S.H. Chotirmall has served on advisory boards for CSL Behring, Pneumagen Ltd, Zaccha Pte Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi; on data safety monitoring boards for Inovio Pharmaceuticals and Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University; and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and Chiesi Farmaceutici, all unrelated to this work. The remaining authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Support statement: This research is supported by the National Research Foundation Singapore under its Open Fund-Large Collaborative Grant (MOH-001636) and administered by the Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council; the Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council under its Clinician-Scientist Individual Research Grant (MOH-001356) (S.H. Chotirmall); Clinician Scientist Award (MOH-000710) (S.H. Chotirmall); Transition Award (MOH-001275–00) (P.Y. Tiew); Open Fund Individual Research Grant (MOH-000955) (S.H. Chotirmall); the Singapore Ministry of Education under its AcRF Tier 1 Grant (RT1/22) (S.H. Chotirmall). This study is funded by the European Respiratory Society through the EMBARC3 Clinical Research Collaboration. EMBARC3 is supported by project partners Armata, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Grifols, Insmed, Lifearc, Roche, Verona and Zambon. J.D. Chalmers is supported by the GSK/Asthma and Lung UK Chair of Respiratory Research.
Supplementary material
Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.
Supplementary methods
ERJ-00054-2025.Supplementary_figures_and_tables
Supplementary tables and figures
ERJ-00054-2025.Supplementary_methods
References
- 1.O'Donnell AE. Bronchiectasis - a clinical review. N Engl J Med 2022; 387: 533–545. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra2202819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Chalmers JD, Chang AB, Chotirmall SH, et al. Bronchiectasis. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2018; 4: 45. doi: 10.1038/s41572-018-0042-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Chalmers JD, Mall MA, McShane PJ, et al. A systematic literature review of the clinical and socioeconomic burden of bronchiectasis. Eur Respir Rev 2024; 33: 240049. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0049-2024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Chotirmall SH, Dhar R, McShane PJ, et al. Bronchiectasis: a global disease necessitating global solutions. Lancet Respir Med 2023; 11: 581–583. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00136-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Chotirmall SH, McShane PJ. Time to acknowledge, address, and take action against bronchiectasis. Lancet Glob Health 2019; 7: e1162–e1163. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30311-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Chalmers JD, Chotirmall SH. Bronchiectasis: new therapies and new perspectives. Lancet Respir Med 2018; 6: 715–726. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30053-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Polverino E, Goeminne PC, McDonnell MJ, et al. European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1700629. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00629-2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chalmers JD, Shteinberg M, Mall MA, et al. Cathepsin C (dipeptidyl peptidase 1) inhibition in adults with bronchiectasis: AIRLEAF, a phase II randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study. Eur Respir J 2025; 65: 2401551. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01551-2024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Long MB, Chotirmall SH, Shteinberg M, et al. Rethinking bronchiectasis as an inflammatory disease. Lancet Respir Med 2024; 12: 901–914. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(24)00176-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mac Aogáin M, Dicker AJ, Mertsch P, et al. Infection and the microbiome in bronchiectasis. Eur Respir Rev 2024; 33: 240038. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0038-2024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Chotirmall SH, Chalmers JD. The precision medicine era of bronchiectasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2024; 210: 24–34. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202403-0473PP [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chalmers JD, Gupta A, Chotirmall SH, et al. A phase 2 randomised study to establish efficacy, safety and dosing of a novel oral cathepsin C inhibitor, BI 1291583, in adults with bronchiectasis: Airleaf. ERJ Open Res 2023; 9: 00633-2022. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00633-2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Chalmers JD, Haworth CS, Metersky ML, et al. Phase 2 trial of the DPP-1 inhibitor brensocatib in bronchiectasis. N Engl J Med 2020; 383: 2127–2137. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mac Aogáin M, Chotirmall SH. Microbiology and the microbiome in bronchiectasis. Clin Chest Med 2022; 43: 23–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ccm.2021.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tiew PY, Jaggi TK, Chan LLY, et al. The airway microbiome in COPD, bronchiectasis and bronchiectasis-COPD overlap. Clin Respir J 2021; 15: 123–133. doi: 10.1111/crj.13294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Mac Aogáin M, Jaggi TK, Chotirmall SH. The airway microbiome: present and future applications. Arch Bronconeumol 2022; 58: 8–10. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2021.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Chotirmall SH, Bogaert D, Chalmers JD, et al. Therapeutic targeting of the respiratory microbiome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022; 206: 535–544. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202112-2704PP [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Mac Aogáin M, Tiew PY, Jaggi TK, et al. Targeting respiratory microbiomes in COPD and bronchiectasis. Expert Rev Respir Med 2024; 18: 111–125. doi: 10.1080/17476348.2024.2355155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Dicker AJ, Lonergan M, Keir HR, et al. The sputum microbiome and clinical outcomes in patients with bronchiectasis: a prospective observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 9: 885–896. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30557-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Vidaillac C, Chotirmall SH. Pseudomonas aeruginosa in bronchiectasis: infection, inflammation, and therapies. Expert Rev Respir Med 2021; 15: 649–662. doi: 10.1080/17476348.2021.1906225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Chandrasekaran R, Mac Aogáin M, Chalmers JD, et al. Geographic variation in the aetiology, epidemiology and microbiology of bronchiectasis. BMC Pulm Med 2018; 18: 83. doi: 10.1186/s12890-018-0638-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Mac Aogáin M, Chandrasekaran R, Lim AYH, et al. Immunological corollary of the pulmonary mycobiome in bronchiectasis: the CAMEB study. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1800766. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00766-2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Dhar R, Singh S, Talwar D, et al. Bronchiectasis in India: results from the European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) and Respiratory Research Network of India Registry. Lancet Glob Health 2019; 7: e1269–e1279. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30327-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Aksamit TR, O'Donnell AE, Barker A, et al. Adult patients with bronchiectasis: a first look at the US bronchiectasis research registry. Chest 2017; 151: 982–992. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Tunney MM, Einarsson GG, Wei L, et al. Lung microbiota and bacterial abundance in patients with bronchiectasis when clinically stable and during exacerbation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 187: 1118–1126. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201210-1937OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Byun MK, Chang J, Kim HJ, et al. Differences of lung microbiome in patients with clinically stable and exacerbated bronchiectasis. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0183553. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183553 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Cox MJ, Turek EM, Hennessy C, et al. Longitudinal assessment of sputum microbiome by sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis patients. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0170622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170622 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Woo TE, Lim R, Heirali AA, et al. A longitudinal characterization of the non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis airway microbiome. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 6871. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-42862-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Mac Aogáin M, Narayana JK, Tiew PY, et al. Integrative microbiomics in bronchiectasis exacerbations. Nat Med 2021; 27: 688–699. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01289-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Zhang P, Liu B, Zhang S, et al. Clinical application of targeted next-generation sequencing in severe pneumonia: a retrospective review. Crit Care 2024; 28: 225. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-05009-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Ren D, Ren C, Yao R, et al. The microbiological diagnostic performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in patients with sepsis. BMC Infect Dis 2021; 21: 1257. doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06934-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Cordeiro R, Choi H, Haworth CS, et al. The efficacy and safety of inhaled antibiotics for the treatment of bronchiectasis in adults: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 2024; 166: 61–80. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2024.01.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Chalmers JD, Boersma W, Lonergan M, et al. Long-term macrolide antibiotics for the treatment of bronchiectasis in adults: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 2019; 7: 845–854. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30191-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Kelly C, Chalmers JD, Crossingham I, et al. Macrolide antibiotics for bronchiectasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 3: CD012406. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012406.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Mac Aogáin M, Lau KJX, Cai Z, et al. Metagenomics reveals a core macrolide resistome related to microbiota in chronic respiratory disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 433–447. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201911-2202OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Mac Aogáin M, Ivan FX, Jaggi TK, et al. Airway “resistotypes” and clinical outcomes in bronchiectasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2024; 210: 47–62. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202306-1059OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Chalmers JD, Polverino E, Crichton ML, et al. Bronchiectasis in Europe: data on disease characteristics from the European Bronchiectasis registry (EMBARC). Lancet Respir Med 2023; 11: 637–649. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00093-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Chalmers JD, Aliberti S, Altenburg J, et al. Transforming clinical research and science in bronchiectasis: EMBARC3, a European Respiratory Society Clinical Research Collaboration. Eur Respir J 2023; 61: 2300769. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00769-2023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.The BRIDGE Study - Bronchiectasis Research Involving Databases, Genomics and Endotyping. An EMBARC2 and EMBARC3 Study. 2018. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03791086
- 40.De Soyza A, Aksamit T, Bandel T-J, et al. RESPIRE 1: a phase III placebo-controlled randomised trial of ciprofloxacin dry powder for inhalation in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1702052. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02052-2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Aksamit T, De Soyza A, Bandel T-J, et al. RESPIRE 2: a phase III placebo-controlled randomised trial of ciprofloxacin dry powder for inhalation in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1702053. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02053-2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Haworth CS, Bilton D, Chalmers JD, et al. Inhaled liposomal ciprofloxacin in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis and chronic lung infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ORBIT-3 and ORBIT-4): two phase 3, randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med 2019; 7: 213–226. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30427-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Barker AF, O'Donnell AE, Flume P, et al. Aztreonam for inhalation solution in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (AIR-BX1 and AIR-BX2): two randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 738–749. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70165-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Haworth CS, Shteinberg M, Winthrop K, et al. Inhaled colistimethate sodium in patients with bronchiectasis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: results of PROMIS-I and PROMIS-II, two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials assessing safety and efficacy over 12 months. Lancet Respir Med 2024; 12: 787–798. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(24)00225-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Li L, Mac Aogáin M, Xu T, et al. Neisseria species as pathobionts in bronchiectasis. Cell Host Microbe 2022; 30: 1311–1327. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2022.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Bonavita JMD, Naidich DPMD. Imaging of bronchiectasis. Clin Chest Med 2012; 33: 233–248. doi: 10.1016/j.ccm.2012.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Pasteur MC, Bilton D, Hill AT. British Thoracic Society guideline for non-CF bronchiectasis. Thorax 2010; 65: Suppl. 1, i1–i58. doi: 10.1136/thx.2010.136119 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Hill AT, Haworth CS, Aliberti S, et al. Pulmonary exacerbation in adults with bronchiectasis: a consensus definition for clinical research. Eur Respir J 2017; 49: 1700051. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00051-2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Chalmers JD, Aliberti S, Polverino E, et al. The EMBARC European Bronchiectasis Registry: protocol for an international observational study. ERJ Open Res 2016; 2: 00081-2015. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00081-2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Shoemark A, Shteinberg M, De Soyza A, et al. Characterization of eosinophilic bronchiectasis: a European multicohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022; 205: 894–902. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202108-1889OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Narayana JK, Aliberti S, Mac Aogáin M, et al. Microbial dysregulation of the gut–lung axis in bronchiectasis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2023; 207: 908–920. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202205-0893OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Gusareva ES, Acerbi E, Lau KJX, et al. Microbial communities in the tropical air ecosystem follow a precise diel cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2019; 116: 23299–23308. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908493116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, et al. The vegan package. Community Ecol Package 2007; 10: 719. [Google Scholar]
- 54.McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One 2013; 8: e61217. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Cao Y, Dong Q, Wang D, et al. microbiomeMarker: an R/Bioconductor package for microbiome marker identification and visualization. Bioinformatics 2022; 38: 4027–4029. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac438 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Wang B, Mezlini AM, Demir F, et al. Similarity network fusion for aggregating data types on a genomic scale. Nature Methods 2014; 11: 333–337. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2810 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Blaschke AJ. Interpreting assays for the detection of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: Suppl. 4, S331–S337. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Araújo D, Shteinberg M, Aliberti S, et al. The independent contribution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection to long-term clinical outcomes in bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1701953. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01953-2017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Finch S, McDonnell MJ, Abo-Leyah H, et al. A comprehensive analysis of the impact of Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonization on prognosis in adult bronchiectasis. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2015; 12: 1602–1611. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201506-333OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Davies G, Wells AU, Doffman S, et al. The effect of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on pulmonary function in patients with bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2006; 28: 974–979. doi: 10.1183/09031936.06.00074605 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Martinez-García MA, Oscullo G, Posadas T, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and lung function decline in patients with bronchiectasis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2021; 27: 428–434. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Wei Y, Zhang T, Ma Y, et al. Clinical evaluation of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the detection of pathogens in BALF in severe community acquired pneumonia. Ital J Pediatr 2023; 49: 25. doi: 10.1186/s13052-023-01431-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Zhang XX, Guo LY, Liu LL, et al. The diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for identifying Streptococcus pneumoniae in paediatric bacterial meningitis. BMC Infect Dis 2019; 19: 495. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4132-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Zheng H, Peng P, Wang S, et al. Microbiological diagnostic performance and clinical effect of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for the detection of immunocompromised patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Infect Drug Resist 2025; 18: 1223–1236. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S462358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Petti CA, Woods CW, Reller LB. Streptococcus pneumoniae antigen test using positive blood culture bottles as an alternative method to diagnose pneumococcal bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 2510–2512. doi: 10.1128/JCM.43.5.2510-2512.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Govender KN, Street TL, Sanderson ND, et al. Metagenomic sequencing as a pathogen-agnostic clinical diagnostic tool for infectious diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Clin Microbiol 2021; 59: e0291620. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02916-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Diallo K, Feteh VF, Ibe L, et al. Molecular diagnostic assays for the detection of common bacterial meningitis pathogens: a narrative review. EBioMedicine 2021; 65: 103274. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Charalampous T, Alcolea-Medina A, Snell LB, et al. Routine metagenomics service for ICU patients with respiratory infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2024; 209: 164–174. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202305-0901OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Chiu CY, Miller SA. Clinical metagenomics. Nat Rev Genet 2019; 20: 341–355. doi: 10.1038/s41576-019-0113-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Ko KKK, Chng KR, Nagarajan N. Metagenomics-enabled microbial surveillance. Nat Microbiol 2022; 7: 486–496. doi: 10.1038/s41564-022-01089-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Sulaiman I, Wu BG, Li Y, et al. Evaluation of the airway microbiome in nontuberculous mycobacteria disease. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1800810. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00810-2018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Whelan FJ, Waddell B, Syed SA, et al. Culture-enriched metagenomic sequencing enables in-depth profiling of the cystic fibrosis lung microbiota. Nat Microbiol 2020; 5: 379–390. doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0643-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Ayrapetyan M, Williams T, Oliver JD. Relationship between the viable but nonculturable state and antibiotic persister cells. J Bacteriol 2018; 200: e00249-18. doi: 10.1128/JB.00249-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Dickson RP, Erb-Downward JR, Huffnagle GB. Towards an ecology of the lung: new conceptual models of pulmonary microbiology and pneumonia pathogenesis. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 238–246. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70028-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Dickson RP, Martinez FJ, Huffnagle GB. The role of the microbiome in exacerbations of chronic lung diseases. Lancet 2014; 384: 691–702. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61136-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Gu W, Deng X, Lee M, et al. Rapid pathogen detection by metagenomic next-generation sequencing of infected body fluids. Nat Med 2021; 27: 115–124. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1105-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature 2012; 486: 222–227. doi: 10.1038/nature11053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Chotirmall SH, Gellatly SL, Budden KF, et al. Microbiomes in respiratory health and disease: an Asia-Pacific perspective. Respirology 2017; 22: 240–250. doi: 10.1111/resp.12971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Shanahan F, Ghosh TS, O'Toole PW. Human microbiome variance is underestimated. Curr Opin Microbiol 2023; 73: 102288. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2023.102288 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Rehman A, Jeukens J, Levesque RC, et al. Gene–gene interactions dictate ciprofloxacin resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and facilitate prediction of resistance phenotype from genome sequence data. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2021; 65: e0269620. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02696-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Purssell A, Poole K. Functional characterization of the NfxB repressor of the mexCD-oprJ multidrug efflux operon of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Microbiology (Reading) 2013; 159: 2058–2073. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.069286-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Shiba T, Ishiguro K, Takemoto N, et al. Purification and characterization of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa NfxB protein, the negative regulator of the nfxB gene. J Bacteriol 1995; 177: 5872–5877. doi: 10.1128/jb.177.20.5872-5877.1995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Poole K, Gotoh N, Tsujimoto H, et al. Overexpression of the mexC-mexD-oprJ efflux operon in nfxB-type multidrug-resistant strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Mol Microbiol 1996; 21: 713–724. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1996.281397.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Lv L, Wan M, Wang C, et al. Emergence of a plasmid-encoded resistance-nodulation-division efflux pump conferring resistance to multiple drugs, including tigecycline, in Klebsiella pneumoniae. mBio 2020; 11: e02930-19. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02930-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Jorth P, McLean K, Ratjen A, et al. Evolved aztreonam resistance is multifactorial and can produce hypervirulence in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. mBio 2017; 8: e00517-17. doi: 10.1128/mbio.00517-00517 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Quale J, Bratu S, Gupta J, et al. Interplay of efflux system, ampC, and oprD expression in carbapenem resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50: 1633–1641. doi: 10.1128/AAC.50.5.1633-1641.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Masuda N, Sakagawa E, Ohya S, et al. Substrate specificities of MexAB-OprM, MexCD-OprJ, and MexXY-oprM efflux pumps in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 3322–3327. doi: 10.1128/AAC.44.12.3322-3327.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Clooney AG, Eckenberger J, Laserna-Mendieta E, et al. Ranking microbiome variance in inflammatory bowel disease: a large longitudinal intercontinental study. Gut 2021; 70: 499–510. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.He Y, Wu W, Zheng HM, et al. Regional variation limits applications of healthy gut microbiome reference ranges and disease models. Nat Med 2018; 24: 1532–1535. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0164-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Qin Y, Havulinna AS, Liu Y, et al. Combined effects of host genetics and diet on human gut microbiota and incident disease in a single population cohort. Nat Genet 2022; 54: 134–142. doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00991-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Thaiss CA, Zmora N, Levy M, et al. The microbiome and innate immunity. Nature 2016; 535: 65–74. doi: 10.1038/nature18847 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Lin L, Yi X, Liu H, et al. The airway microbiome mediates the interaction between environmental exposure and respiratory health in humans. Nat Med 2023; 29: 1750–1759. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02424-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Gacesa R, Kurilshikov A, Vich Vila A, et al. Environmental factors shaping the gut microbiome in a Dutch population. Nature 2022; 604: 732–739. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04567-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Gilbert JA, Hartmann EM. The indoors microbiome and human health. Nat Rev Microbiol 2024; 22: 742–755. doi: 10.1038/s41579-024-01077-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Chotirmall SH, Chang AB, Chalmers JD. Infection vs inflammation: the bronchiectasis “tug of war”. Chest 2024; 166: 928–930. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Natalini JG, Singh S, Segal LN. The dynamic lung microbiome in health and disease. Nat Rev Microbiol 2023; 21: 222–235. doi: 10.1038/s41579-022-00821-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Dickson RP, Erb-Downward JR, Freeman CM, et al. Bacterial topography of the healthy human lower respiratory tract. mBio 2017; 8: e02287-16. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02287-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Segal LN, Alekseyenko AV, Clemente JC, et al. Enrichment of lung microbiome with supraglottic taxa is associated with increased pulmonary inflammation. Microbiome 2013; 1: 19. doi: 10.1186/2049-2618-1-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Rigauts C, Aizawa J, Taylor SL, et al. Rothia mucilaginosa is an anti-inflammatory bacterium in the respiratory tract of patients with chronic lung disease. Eur Respir J 2022; 59: 2101293. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01293-2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Baty JJ, Stoner SN, Scoffield JA. Oral commensal streptococci: gatekeepers of the oral cavity. J Bacteriol 2022; 204: e0025722. doi: 10.1128/jb.00257-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Wu BG, Sulaiman I, Tsay JJ, et al. Episodic aspiration with oral commensals induces a MyD88-dependent, pulmonary T-helper cell type 17 response that mitigates susceptibility to Streptococcus pneumoniae. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2021; 203: 1099–1111. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202005-1596OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Horn KJ, Schopper MA, Drigot ZG, et al. Airway Prevotella promote TLR2-dependent neutrophil activation and rapid clearance of Streptococcus pneumoniae from the lung. Nat Commun 2022; 13: 3321. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31074-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Goeteyn E, Taylor SL, Dicker A, et al. Aggregatibacter is inversely associated with inflammatory mediators in sputa of patients with chronic airway diseases and reduces inflammation in vitro. Respir Res 2024; 25: 368. doi: 10.1186/s12931-024-02983-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Rogers GB, Bruce KD, Martin ML, et al. The effect of long-term macrolide treatment on respiratory microbiota composition in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: an analysis from the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled BLESS trial. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 988–996. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70213-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Harrington NE, Kottara A, Cagney K, et al. Global genomic diversity of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in bronchiectasis. J Infect 2024; 89: 106275. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2024.106275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Alcock BP, Huynh W, Chalil R, et al. CARD 2023: expanded curation, support for machine learning, and resistome prediction at the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database. Nucleic Acids Res 2023; 51: D690–D699. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Perry JA, Westman EL, Wright GD. The antibiotic resistome: what's new? Curr Opin Microbiol 2014; 21: 45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2014.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Qin J, Li R, Raes J, et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature 2010; 464: 59–65. doi: 10.1038/nature08821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Khan Mirzaei M, Xue J, Costa R, et al. Challenges of studying the human virome – relevant emerging technologies. Trends Microbiol 2021; 29: 171–181. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2020.05.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Bikel S, Valdez-Lara A, Cornejo-Granados F, et al. Combining metagenomics, metatranscriptomics and viromics to explore novel microbial interactions: towards a systems-level understanding of human microbiome. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2015; 13: 390–401. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2015.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Smith SE, Huang W, Tiamani K, et al. Emerging technologies in the study of the virome. Curr Opin Virol 2022; 54: 101231. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2022.101231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Beller L, Matthijnssens J. What is (not) known about the dynamics of the human gut virome in health and disease. Curr Opin Virol 2019; 37: 52–57. doi: 10.1016/j.coviro.2019.05.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
This PDF extract can be shared freely online.
Shareable PDF
ERJ-00054-2025.Shareable
Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.
Supplementary methods
ERJ-00054-2025.Supplementary_figures_and_tables
Supplementary tables and figures
ERJ-00054-2025.Supplementary_methods







