Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Mar 9;17(3):e0264855. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264855

RespiCoV: Simultaneous identification of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 46 respiratory tract viruses and bacteria by amplicon-based Oxford-Nanopore MinION sequencing

Annika Brinkmann 1,*, Steven Uddin 1, Sophie-Luisa Ulm 1, Katharina Pape 1, Sophie Förster 1, Khalid Enan 2, Jalal Nourlil 3, Eva Krause 1, Lars Schaade 1, Janine Michel 1, Andreas Nitsche 1
Editor: Kok Keng Tee4
PMCID: PMC8906600  PMID: 35263362

Abstract

Since December 2019 the world has been facing the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Identification of infected patients and discrimination from other respiratory infections have so far been accomplished by using highly specific real-time PCRs. Here we present a rapid multiplex approach (RespiCoV), combining highly multiplexed PCRs and MinION sequencing suitable for the simultaneous screening for 41 viral and five bacterial agents related to respiratory tract infections, including the human coronaviruses NL63, HKU1, OC43, 229E, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2. RespiCoV was applied to 150 patient samples with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and compared with specific real-time PCR. Additionally, several respiratory tract pathogens were identified in samples tested positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2. Finally, RespiCoV was experimentally compared to the commercial RespiFinder 2SMART multiplex screening assay (PathoFinder, The Netherlands).

Introduction

Infections of the respiratory tract range from the mild, self-limiting common cold to life-threatening illnesses and epidemics caused by influenza viruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS) [1, 2]. Recently, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been causing an ongoing global pandemic with more than 281,808,270 diagnosed cases of Covid-19 and 5,411,759 deaths as of 29 December 2021 (https://covid19.who.int/). Shortly after the identification and whole-genome sequencing of the novel emerging virus, specific real-time PCRs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics have been developed and deployed extensively [3–6]. Although up-to-date, fast, reliable, and specific real-time PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics has the highest priority for control and containment of the Covid-19 pandemic, the identification and possible relevance of viral or bacterial co-infections for the severity of the course of Covid-19 have been addressed in many studies [7–10]. During the SARS-CoV pandemic in 2003, reports on dual infections were scarce [11, 12]. However, it has been shown by a systematic review that 19% of patients with COVID-19 have bacterial and viral co-infections which are associated with poorer outcomes [13]. As patients with symptoms described for Covid-19 are usually exclusively tested for SARS-CoV-2, many patients with negative results remain undiagnosed for co-infections, which can lead to non-specific treatment or incorrect treatment of hospitalized patients as well as uncertainty regarding the patients’ health status and a needless placing in quarantine.

In contrast to specific real-time PCRs, Illumina and Nanopore shotgun sequencing enable the unbiased detection of one or several pathogens simultaneously from sputum or swab samples and have previously been performed for identification of respiratory tract pathogens, including Streptococcus pneumoniae and influenza virus [14–16]. However, shotgun sequencing generates a high amount of data accompanied by high costs, involuntary sequencing of the hosts’ DNA which conflicts with personal data protection, and low sensitivity of virus identification.

Here we present an amplicon-based MinION sequencing approach (referred to as RespiCoV) with 114 primers for simultaneous diagnostics of SARS-CoV-2 and further 40 viral and five bacterial agents related to respiratory tract infections (Table 1). This approach can contribute to the detection of co-infections in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and aid in differential diagnostics of patients tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Table 1. List of viruses and bacteria targeted by the RespiCoV Panel.

Family Genus Species
Adenoviridae Mastadenovirus Human adenovirus A
Human adenovirus B
Human adenovirus C
Human adenovirus D
Human adenovirus E
Human adenovirus F
Coronaviridae Betacoronavirus SARS coronavirus
SARS coronavirus 2
MERS coronavirus
Human coronavirus OC43
Human coronavirus HKU1
Alphacoronavirus Human coronavirus NL63
Human coronavirus 229E
Hantaviridae Orthohantavirus Hantaan virus
Herpesviridae Cytomegalovirus Human cytomegalovirus
Lymphocryptovirus Epstein-Barr virus
Simplexvirus Herpes simplex virus 1
Herpes simplex virus 2
Varicellovirus Varicella zoster virus
Orthomyxoviridae Influenzavirus A Influenza A virus
Influenzavirus B Influenza B virus
Influenzavirus C Influenza C virus
Paramyxoviridae Respirovirus Human respirovirus 1
Human respirovirus 3
Rubulavirus Human respirovirus 2
Human respirovirus 4
Mumps orthorubulavirus
Henipavirus Nipah virus
Hendra virus
Morbillivirus Measles virus
Parvoviridae Bocaparvovirus Human bocavirus
Picornaviridae Enterovirus Rhinovirus A
Rhinovirus B
Rhinovirus C
Enterovirus A
Enterovirus B
Enterovirus C
Enterovirus D
Parechovirus Human parechovirus
Pneumoviridae Orthopneumovirus Human respiratory syncytial virus
Metapneumovirus Human metapneumovirus
Alcaligenaceae Bordetella Bordetella pertussis/parapertussis
Chlamydiaceae Chlamydophila Chlamydophila pneumoniae
Legionellaceae Legionella Legionella pneumophila
Mycoplasmataceae Mycoplasma Mycoplasma pneumoniae
Streptococcaceae Streptococcus Streptococcus pneumoniae/pseudopneumoniae
Open in a new tab

Methods

Primer design and evaluation

The targeted common upper respiratory tract viruses and bacteria for RespiCoV were chosen based on the publications by Hodinka et al. [17] and Jain et al. [18]. Additionally, herpes simplex virus type 1 and Epstein-Barr virus have been associated with upper respiratory tract infections in critically ill patients, and viruses were included as targets of the RespiCoV assay [19, 20]. Varicella zoster virus and herpes simplex virus type 2 were included in the RespiCoV Panel for validation of the method and for amplification as sequencing controls. Because generic markers like 16S rRNA can identify bacteria, we included only the most prominent bacteria.

The 114 primers (S1 Table) for the RespiCoV Panel were designed by using Primer3 v2.3.7 (https://primer3.org/). For the primer design, all references for each virus and bacteria species in Table 1 were aligned by using MAFFT v7.450, and primers were placed on conserved regions. For SARS-CoV-2, primers were designed to target three genome regions of 374, 263, and 363 bp in length, respectively (bp regions 15,814–16,188 (ORF1ab); 16,821–17,084 (ORF1ab); 29,337–29,700 (N/ORF10); based on reference MT345888). These primers can detect also SARS-CoV, with significant differences in the amplified sequence enabling a clear discrimination between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 (90.6%, 91.6%, and 88.4% referred to BetaCoV/Germany/BavPat1/2020 [GISAID] und NC_004718.3). All primers have been selected based on their melting temperature Tm (minimum Tm 58°C, maximum Tm 62°C, optimal Tm 60°C), resulting amplicon length (250–600 bp), and a minimum of possible hetero-dimer formation.

Panel evaluation with human clinical specimens

The performance of the RespiCoV Panel was first tested on clinical specimens from 12 patients with a clinical diagnosis of a respiratory tract infection (throat and nose swabs, sampled before the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic). For comparison, samples were tested with the PathoFinder RespiFinder 2SMART (PathoFinder B.V., Maastricht, The Netherlands), which is a multiplex real-time PCR system for identification of 18 viral and five bacterial pathogens (influenzavirus A and B, human parainfluenza virus types 1–4, human respiratory syncytial virus types A and B, human metapneumovirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus, bocavirus, adenovirus, coronavirus NL63, HKU1, 229E, OC43, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, and Bordetella pertussis). Furthermore, throat swabs from 150 patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were screened with the RespiCoV Panel and specific SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR [6]. Patient samples were extracted with the Qiagen Viral RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). For the RespiCoV Panel, cDNA synthesis was performed according to the SuperScript IV Reverse Transcriptase protocol (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) with random hexamers (65°C for 5 min and 23°C for 10 min), followed by incubation at 55°C for 10 min and inactivation at 80°C for 10 min.

Panel evaluation via samples for an international quality assurance exercise

The RespiCoV method was further tested with samples provided by INSTAND e.V. for a national quality assurance exercise. INSTAND e.V. offers exercises for quality assurance for medical laboratories across Germany. This exercise focused on the genomic detection of SARS-CoV-2 and contained inactivated samples for sensitivity (SARS-CoV-2 in different concentrations) and specificity (other coronaviruses).

For comparison, the samples were identified with specific real-time PCRs for SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV, OC43, NL63, 229E, and HKU1.

PCR amplification

The patient samples were amplified in a single reaction with the following PCR conditions: 3 μl of viral cDNA, 1.6 μl of primer pool, 0.2 mM dNTP (Invitrogen, Karlsruhe, Germany), 4 μl of 10 x Platinum Taq buffer, 2 mM MgCl2, and 5 U Platinum Taq polymerase (Invitrogen) with added water to a final volume of 25 μl. Cycling conditions were 94°C for 5 min, 45 amplification cycles at 94°C for 20 s, 65°C for 30 s, 72°C for 20 s, and a final extension step for 5 min (at 72°C). Thermal cycling was performed in an Eppendorf Mastercycler Pro (Eppendorf Vertrieb Deutschland, Wesseling-Berzdorf, Germany) with a total runtime of 64 min.

Library preparation and NGS sequencing

Amplified samples were processed for nanopore sequencing on the MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Oxford, United Kingdom). The libraries were prepared by using the ligation sequencing kit 1D, SQK-LSK109 (Oxford Nanopore Technologies). For combined sequencing of several samples on one flow cell, samples were barcoded with the Native Barcoding Expansion Kit (EXP-NBD104 and EXP-NBD114). Subsequently, the libraries were loaded onto Oxford Nanopore MinION SpotON Flow Cells Mk I, R9.4.1. (Oxford Nanopore Technologies). Samples were run for at least 30 min.

Bioinformatics analysis

The Fast5 data generated during sequencing was transcribed to FastQ sequences by using Guppy v.3.4.5 (Oxford Nanopore Technologies) on the MinION IT device (MNT-001). Computational separation of the barcoded samples was performed with Guppy v.3.4.5 for Windows. FastQ files for each sample were aligned to the reference sequences with Guppy v.4.0.11 for Linux and the resulting alignments were used for read counts. Primer sequences were soft clipped with bamclipper v.1.1.1 and all soft clippings from the BAM file were removed with custom python scripts. For species identification, consensus sequences generated from the reference alignments (Geneious prime v2020.2.3) were validated using online blast. As read counts can differ between runs, samples were only rated positive when the following parameters were met: number of total reads for each sample > 0.5% of the total reads from the run, number of reads for SARS-CoV-2 > 0.5% of all total reads of SARS-CoV-2 from the run plus the reads of SARS-CoV-2 identified in the negative control, and number of reads for SARS-CoV-2 > 50.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ärztekammer Berlin (Berlin Medical Association; #Eth 20/40). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Results

Comparison of RespiFinder 2SMART and the RespiCoV Panel

In one of the samples tested negative with the RespiFinder 2SMART, herpes simplex virus type 1 could be identified with the RespiCoV Panel (67,321 specific amplicons), which is not targeted by the RespiFinder 2SMART. Furthermore, in three of the patient samples tested positive with the RespiFinder 2SMART, additional pathogens could be identified with the RespiCoV Panel. Streptococcus pneumoniae, which is not targeted by the RespiFinder 2SMART, could be identified additionally in two of the samples, and Rhinovirus A could be identified in one of the samples. For three of the samples identified as positive with both methods, additional species/strain information could be gained by the sequence information obtained with the RespiCoV Panel. For example, human adenovirus could be specified further to human adenovirus type B and the lineage of influenzavirus B could be identified as Yamagata. For two of the samples tested positive with both methods, read numbers after MinION sequencing were very low (55 reads for Human respiratory syncytial virus B and 676 reads for Human metapneumovirus). For the remaining samples, 10,937–192,431 reads were sequenced in one hour, providing sufficient viral reads for identification within the first minutes of sequencing (Table 2).

Table 2. Comparison of results for screening of samples from patients with respiratory tract infections with the RespiFinder 2SMART and the RespiCoV Panel.

Results for the RespiFinder 2SMART could be confirmed with the RespiCoV Panel. Some additional species could be identified (Streptococcus pneumoniae, herpes simplex virus 1, and Rhinovirus A).

ID RespiCoV RespiFinder Reads after ~1 h Target reads / total reads
1 Influenza B virus (Yamagata) Influenza B virus 38,132 0.23
Streptococcus pneumoniae negative (not included) 126,832 0.75
2 Herpes simplex virus 1 negative (not included) 67,321 0.96
3 Influenza A virus H3N2 Influenza A virus H3N2 90,898 0.94
4 Coronavirus OC43 Coronavirus OC43 118,726 0.98
5 negative Negative -
6 Influenza A virus H1N1 Influenza A virus H1N1 132,348 0.86
7 Human metapneumovirus Human metapneumovirus 676 0.01
Streptococcus pneumoniae negative (not included) 110,647 0.97
8 Human bocavirus Human bocavirus 22,008 0.91
9 Coronavirus 229E Coronavirus 229E 209,539 0.98
10 negative negative
11 Human adenovirus B Human adenovirus 74,003 0.26
Human parainfluenza virus type 2 Human parainfluenza virus type 2 192,431 0.67
Rhinovirus A negative 10,937 0.04
12 Human respiratory syncytial virus B Human respiratory syncytial virus 55 0.06
Open in a new tab

Screening of samples from patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection with the RespiCoV Panel

Of the 150 clinical samples, 66 samples were identified as negative and 84 samples were identified as positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a specific SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR in our routine diagnostics (Cq range of 18–38, Table 3). With RespiCoV, 65 of the 66 negative samples were correctly identified as negative for SARS-COV-2, whereas one sample was identified as positive for SARS-CoV-2 with low read numbers of SARS-CoV-2 amplicons after sequencing (n = 4000, mean read numbers for samples within Cq range 18–28: 35,000; and 19,000 within Cq range 29–33). However, the patient had been tested negative by specific real-time PCR previously, but after a series of positive tests.

Table 3. Results of the RespiCoV analyses for 150 samples from patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection (negative = 66, positive = 84).

Sequences of 32 pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2 could be identified, with 23 pathogens in 17 of the 66 negative samples. Co-infections were identified in 8 of the SARS-CoV-2-positive samples.

Negative Cq 18–28 Cq 29–33 Cq 34–38
n = 66 n = 35 n = 24 n = 25
SARS-CoV-2 pos. 1 35 19 3
SARS-CoV-2 neg. 65 0 5 22
Streptococcus pneumoniae 2 2 1 0
Epstein-Barr virus 6 1 1 1
Human cytomegalovirus 4 0 0 0
Herpes simplex virus 1 2 1 1 0
Human adenovirus B1 3 0 0 0
Rhinovirus A 3 0 0 0
Rhinovirus B 2 0 0 0
Open in a new tab

Of the 84 samples tested positive by specific real-time PCR, 35 samples were within the Cq range of 18–28, 24 within a Cq range of 29–33, and 25 within a Cq range of 34–38. Of the 35 samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by specific qPCR within a Cq range of 18–28, all samples were identified correctly as positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RespiCoV. Although read numbers can differ between different runs (level of multiplexing, sequencing time, distribution of positive and negative samples, quality of flow cell), read numbers of SARS-CoV-2 after sequencing ranged from 2731 to 148,520 with a mean of 35,000 reads per sample. Of the 24 samples tested positive with a Cq range of 29–33 by specific real-time PCR, 19 samples could also be identified as positive with RespiCoV. Furthermore, for 4 of the samples of the Cq range 29–32, low reads of SARS-CoV-2 were identified (349–418 reads), but read numbers were below the threshold for positive identification by RespiCoV. One of the 24 samples identified as positive by specific real-time PCR (Ct 29–33) was identified as clearly negative (Cq 31), with only 19 reads of SARS-CoV-2 after RespiCoV PCR and sequencing. For samples identified as positive by specific real-time PCR with Cq values between 34 and 38, only 3 of 25 samples were identified as positive with RespiCoV.

As shown in Fig 1, there is a good correlation between virus genome load represented by the Cq value and the read number within one sequencing run, but not between different runs (shown for three different runs).

Fig 1. Correlation of SARS-CoV-2-specific reads obtained by RespiCoV (shown for three different sequencing runs) and the Cq value generated by a specific real-time PCR assay.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Even if accurate quantification by RespiCoV is questionable, within one run the correlation is significant (R squared: 0.88, 0.96, 0.91, and 0.99 for run 1, run 2, run 3, and the INSTAND samples, respectively).

In the 150 samples, sequences of 32 pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2 could be identified, with 23 pathogens in 17 of the 66 negative samples (25%) (Streptococcus pneumoniae, Epstein-Barr virus, human cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex virus 1, human adenovirus B, and rhinovirus A and B). Double and triple infections were identified in 5 samples (Streptococcus pneumoniae and Epstein-Barr virus; Epstein-Barr virus, human cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus; Epstein-Barr virus and human cytomegalovirus in two samples; Streptococcus pneumoniae and Rhinovirus B). Within the 84 SARS-CoV-2-positive samples, only seven co-infections were identified in six samples (Streptococcus pneumoniae, Epstein-Barr virus, herpes simplex virus 1) with one co-infection of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Epstein-Barr virus in one sample.

Evaluation on INSTAND external quality assurance exercise samples

The RespiCoV method was further tested with samples provided by INSTAND e.V. for quality assurance of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in medical laboratories across Germany. The results obtained with RespiCoV were identical when compared with the real-time PCR results (Table 4). After 30 min of sequencing, 137,295 reads were obtained from the samples with high SARS-CoV-2 concentration (Cq 21.4). For the samples with a low concentration of SARS-CoV-2, only 4,657 reads were sequenced, but the read number was sufficient for identification of the virus within the first minutes of sequencing.

Table 4. Results of RespiCoV and specific real-time PCRs of the INSTAND exercise for quality assurance for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Sample Result real-time PCR Cq real-time PCR RespiCoV Amplicon reads ~ 30 min Target reads / total reads
INSTAND-340059 SARS-CoV-2 21.4 SARS-CoV-2 137,295 0.94
INSTAND-340060 OC43 25.3 OC43 23,063 0.93
INSTAND-340061 SARS-CoV-2 31.3 SARS-CoV-2 4,657 0.93
INSTAND-340062 negative negative
INSTAND-340063 SARS-CoV-2 24.6 SARS-CoV-2 90,265 0.93
INSTAND-340064 SARS-CoV-2 28.2 SARS-CoV-2 37,722 0.94
INSTAND-340065 229E 24.7 229E 46,051 0.95
NK negative negative
Open in a new tab

Discussion

In this study, we introduce an amplicon-based MinION sequencing approach, referred to as RespiCoV, which is able to identify and differentiate 41 viral and five bacterial species related to respiratory tract infections, including the human coronaviruses 229E, HKU1, NL63, OC43, MERS, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2, the latter challenging the world in an ongoing pandemic since 2019. We could show that the RespiCoV Panel is able to identify several viral and bacterial species in patients with symptoms of respiratory tract infections. Furthermore, samples from patients with diagnosed infections with SARS-CoV-2 were identified with the RespiCoV Panel, even if viral load was low (up to a Cq value of 33). Although the identification was not shown experimentally for all viral and bacterial targets of the RespiCoV Panel, the performance of the method was shown for several pathogens, including influenza A virus, influenza B virus, human coronavirus OC43 and 229E, human adenovirus B, human bocavirus, human metapneumovirus, human respiratory syncytial virus, human parainfluenza virus types 2, herpes simplex virus type 1, S. pneumoniae, and SARS-CoV-2. Compared with the extensively used and validated RespiPanel 2SMART, we could show that the RespiCoV Panel can be used as an approach for the simultaneous identification of respiratory tract pathogens. Just in one case, only low read numbers of Human respiratory syncytial virus could be identified with the RespiCoV Panel, which may be the result of low virus concentration or the primer design, that could be adapted by integrating additional primers into the RespiCoV primer pool.

Although reliable, fast, and accurate real-time PCR is the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection, the method described here can further contribute to the diagnostics and differential diagnostics of patients with symptoms described for Covid-19. Identification of viral and bacterial co-infections has been performed in several studies with real-time PCR, but the abundance and potential impact of these infections remained unknown. In the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak, co-infections of patients with H1N1 and a second respiratory virus were associated with an increased risk of complications [21]. Furthermore, in children co-infections with respiratory syncytial virus and metapneumovirus or rhinovirus were associated with a 10-fold greater risk of Pediatric Intensive Care Unit level of care [22, 23]. In contrast, other studies have found less severe clinical outcomes with viral co-infection or showed no correlation of co-infections and severity of disease [24, 25]. Co-infections of patients diagnosed for SARS-CoV-2 identified by specific real-time PCRs performed in two independent studies also included common respiratory viruses (influenza A virus, rhinovirus, human respiratory syncytial virus, human coronavirus HKU1, human parainfluenzavirus type 1, and human metapneumovirus), but infection rates were low (5.8% and 3.2%, respectively) [7, 9, 26]. Another study reported 22.4% of all patients assigned to the emergency department to be infected with both SARS-CoV-2 and a second viral pathogen (Editor’s note in [27]).

In our study, for some of the samples diagnosed as positive for SARS-CoV-2 by specific real-time PCR and the RespiCoV Panel, viral co-infections with herpes simplex virus type 1 and Epstein-Barr virus could be identified, both of which are usually not included in screening of patients with respiratory tract infections. However, herpes simplex virus type 1 infection or reactivation in the lower and upper respiratory tract has been recorded in patients in intensive care and has increasingly been associated with pulmonary diseases with poor outcome [19, 28]. Although quantification with the RespiCoV Panel is not validated, low read numbers of herpes simplex virus type 1 and Epstein-Barr virus indicate low viral concentration in the throat.

Furthermore, 24.7% of patients infected with H1N1 during the influenza pandemic showed co-infection with bacteria, mainly Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae [29]. S. pneumoniae has also been identified as a co-infection in patients infected with influenza during the pandemic 1918–1919 and during the Asian and Hong Kong influenza pandemics of 1957 and 1968 [30, 31].

In direct comparison, the RespiCoV Panel was shown to be less sensitive than specific real-time PCRs for SARS-CoV-2, but able to identify SARS-CoV-2 from patient samples with a Cq up to 33. Hands-on and sequencing take several hours and costs can be higher than commercial multiplex-PCR; however, additional information about the identified pathogen, including species and strain, can be obtained by the method. Due to the generation of specific amplicons, no sequence information of the host is generated which could be conflicting with personal data protection for shotgun sequencing.

Conclusion

Since the ongoing outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 starting in 2019, specific real-time PCR diagnostics has been contributing to the elucidation and containment of the pandemic. However, differential diagnostics and identification of Covid-19 co-infections might contribute to health care management and provide further understanding of Covid-19 courses of diseases. With RespiCoV, we have introduced an approach of highly multiplexed PCRs and MinION sequencing which can be used for rapid and comprehensive simultaneous screening for many pathogens.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Primer sequences for the RespiCoV Panel.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (13.6KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We kindly thank Ursula Erikli for copy-editing and Ute Kramer for sequencing.

Data Availability

All sequence data was deposited under the project number PRJEB49379 at the European Nucleotide Archive.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Girard MP, Tam JS, Assossou OM, Kieny MP. The 2009 A (H1N1) influenza virus pandemic: A review. Vaccine. 2010;28:4895–902. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.05.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.De Wit E, Van Doremalen N, Falzarano D, Munster VJ. SARS and MERS: Recent insights into emerging coronaviruses. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14:523–34. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2016.81 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DK, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Eurosurveill. 2020;25:2000045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shirato K, Nao N, Katano H, Takayama I, Saito S, Kato F, et al. Development of Genetic Diagnostic Methods for Novel Coronavirus 2019 (nCoV-2019) in Japan. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2020;73(4):304–7. doi: 10.7883/yoken.JJID.2020.061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chu DKW, Pan Y, Cheng SMS, Hui KPY, Krishnan P, Liu Y, et al. Molecular Diagnosis of a Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Causing an Outbreak of Pneumonia. Clin Chem. 2020;66:549–55. doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Michel J, Neumann M, Krause E, Rinner T, Muzeniek T, Grossegesse M, et al. Resource-efficient internally controlled in-house real-time PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2. Virology J. 2021;18:110. doi: 10.1186/s12985-021-01559-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lin D, Liu L, Zhang M, Hu Y, Yang Q, Guo J, et al. Co-infections of SARS-CoV-2 with multiple common respiratory pathogens in infected patients. Sci China Life Sci. 2020;63:606–9. doi: 10.1007/s11427-020-1668-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Singh V, Upadhyay P, Reddy J, Granger J. SARS-CoV-2 respiratory co-infections: incidence of viral and bacterial co-pathogens. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;105:617–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wang M, Wu Q, Xu W, Qiao B, Wang J, Zheng H, et al. Clinical diagnosis of 8274 samples with 2019-novel coronavirus in Wuhan. medRxiv. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Peci A, Tran V, Guthrie JL, Li Y, Nelson P, Schwartz KL, et al. Prevalence of Co-Infections with Respiratory Viruses in Individuals Investigated for SARS-CoV-2 in Ontario, Canada. Viruses. 2021;13:130. doi: 10.3390/v13010130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chan PKS, Tam JS, Lam CW, Chan E, Wu A, Li CK, et al. Human metapneumovirus detection in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9(9):1058–63. doi: 10.3201/eid0909.030304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Louie JK, Hacker JK, Mark J, Gavali SS, Yagi S, Espinosa A, et al. SARS and common viral infections. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:1143–6. doi: 10.3201/eid1006.030863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Musuuza JS, Watson L, Parmasad V, Putman-Buehler N, Christensen L, Safdar N. Prevalence and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection with SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(5):e0251170. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kustin T, Ling G, Sharabi S, Ram D, Friedman N, Zuckerman N, et al. A method to identify respiratory virus infections in clinical samples using next-generation sequencing. Sci Rep. 2019;9:2606. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37483-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Charalampous T, Kay GL, Richardson H, Aydin A, Baldan R, Jeanes C, et al. Nanopore metagenomics enables rapid clinical diagnosis of bacterial lower respiratory infection. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:783–92. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0156-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lewandowski K, Xu Y, Pullan ST, Lumley SF, Foster D, Sanderson N, et al. Metagenomic nanopore sequencing of influenza virus direct from clinical respiratory samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2020;58:e00963–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hodinka RL. Respiratory RNA Viruses. Microbiol Spectr. 2016;4:DMIH2-0028-2016. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.DMIH2-0028-2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jain N, Lodha R, Kabra SK. Upper respiratory tract infections. Indian J Pediatr. 2001;68:1135–8. doi: 10.1007/BF02722930 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bruynseels P, Jorens PG, Demey HE, Goossens H, Pattyn SR, Elseviers MM, et al. Herpes simplex virus in the respiratory tract of critical care patients: A prospective study. Lancet 2003;362:1536–41. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14740-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bonizzoli M, Arvia R, di Valvasone S, Liotta F, Zakrzewska K, Azzi A, et al. Human herpesviruses respiratory infections in patients with acute respiratory distress (ARDS). Med Microbiol Immunol. 2016;205:371–9. doi: 10.1007/s00430-016-0456-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Echenique IA, Chan PA, Chapin KC, Andrea SB, Fava JL, Mermel LA. Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with Respiratory Viral Co-Infection during the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic. PLoS One. 2013;8:e60845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060845 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Paranhos-Baccalà G, Komurian-Pradel F, Richard N, Vernet G, Lina B, Floret D, et al. Mixed Respiratory Virus Infections. J Clin Virol. 2008;43:407–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2008.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Semple MG, Cowell A, Dove W, Greensill J, McNamara PS, Halfhide C, et al. Dual Infection of Infants by Human Metapneumovirus and Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus Is Strongly Associated with Severe Bronchiolitis. J Infect Dis. 2005;191:382–6. doi: 10.1086/426457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Martin ET, Kuypers J, Wald A, Englund JA. Multiple versus single virus respiratory infections: Viral load and clinical disease severity in hospitalized children. Influenza Other Respi Viruses. 2012;6:71–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00265.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Navarro-Marí JM, Pérez-Ruiz M, Galán Montemayor JC, Marcos Maeso MÁ, Reina J, de Oña Navarro M, et al. Circulation of other respiratory viruses and viral co-infection during the 2009 pandemic influenza. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2012;30:25–31. doi: 10.1016/S0213-005X(12)70101-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wu X, Cai Y, Huang X, Yu X, Zhao L, Wang F, et al. Co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A Virus in Patient with Pneumonia, China. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26:1324–6. doi: 10.3201/eid2606.200299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Touzard-Romo F, Tapé C, Lonks JR. Co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and Human Metapneumovirus. R I Med J. 2013;103:75–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Costa C, Sidoti F, Saldan A, Sinesi F, Balloco C, Simeone S, et al. Clinical impact of HSV-1 detection in the lower respiratory tract from hospitalized adult patients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:E305–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03882.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Blyth CC, Webb SA, Kok J, Dwyer DE, van Hal SJ, Foo H, et al. The impact of bacterial and viral co-infection in severe influenza. Influenza Other Respi Viruses. 2013;7:168–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2012.00360.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Brundage JF, Shanks GD. Deaths from bacterial pneumonia during 1918–19 influenza pandemic. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:1193–9. doi: 10.3201/eid1408.071313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Morens DM, Taubenberger JK, Fauci AS. Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness. J Infect Dis. 2008;198:962–70. doi: 10.1086/591708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kok Keng Tee

7 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-32371RespiCoV: Simultaneous identification of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 40 respiratory tract viruses by amplicon-based Oxford-Nanopore MinION sequencingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Brinkmann,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kok Keng Tee, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors describe a method based on the combination of multiplex PCR with MinION sequencing for the simultaneous detection of SARS-CoV-2 and a panel of potential co-infecting agents. The study was well conducted and no major issues were identified. Some minor comments are provided below.

Please provide additional information on how the species identification was performed upon acquisition of the reads.

Use the term "Cq" instead of "Ct" according to Bustin et al., throughout the manuscript, including in the tables.

In line 161 a "." seems to be missing in the Cq value.

Whenever referring to Tables and Figures, start with with capital "T" and/ or "F".

Tables should be improved, provide captions with additional information.

With the data obtained can the authors provide details regarding the analytical sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of their method?

Reviewer #2: Brinkmann and colleagues presented and evaluated an alternative method for simultaneous identification of respiratory pathogens using amplicon sequencing on a nanopore platform. The method was evaluated with clinical samples and compared with commercially available multiplex screening assays. In addition, the methodology was tested in an international quality assurance exercise.

The study is interesting and valuable because respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2 are often undiagnosed during the pandemic. Sequencing using the Nanopore platform is also becoming more available worldwide. The manuscript is concise and clearly written, although some minor improvements should be made.

Title: the proposed panel also is intended to detect some bacterial pathogens. It would be good to adjust the title accordingly to indicate the broader scope of this method.

Data access statement: the authors state that all data are available through the SRA databases. The accession number should be included in the manuscript.

Bioinformatics analysis: the author used the standard software provided by the sequencing company, which could be advantageous in a clinical setting, but the authors may wish to compare their results with more advanced workflows available for nanopore reads.

Please provide further details on the primer trimming method.

How do the authors prevent contamination to avoid false positive results?

Results:

Authors should include normalization of read counts (e.g., per million mapped reads) in the results to improve comparability across different runs.

Discussion:

The authors should include considerations of the time and cost of the workflow to provide a sense of the feasibility of the method in clinics.

********** 

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 9;17(3):e0264855. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264855.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

4 Jan 2022

Dear Reviewers, dear Editor,

Thank you for considering and reviewing our manuscript. Please find below our response.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

AB: We have changed the style according to the PLOS ONE style templates and hope to meet all criteria.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct.

AB: There have been no final changes to the reference list.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent.

We have added the Ethics statement to the manuscript (line 145-148)

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file.

We have added the Ethics statement to the manuscript (line 145-148)

 

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

AB: We have uploaded all data (PRJEB49379 at the European Nucleotide Archive)

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors describe a method based on the combination of multiplex PCR with MinION sequencing for the simultaneous detection of SARS-CoV-2 and a panel of potential co-infecting agents. The study was well conducted and no major issues were identified. Some minor comments are provided below.

Please provide additional information on how the species identification was performed upon acquisition of the reads.

AB: Dear Reviewer #1, thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Species identification was performed by generating reference alignments with subsequent blast for validation. We have included additional information (line 136-137).

Use the term "Cq" instead of "Ct" according to Bustin et al., throughout the manuscript, including in the tables.

AB: We have changed this accordingly.

In line 161 a "." seems to be missing in the Cq value.

AB: We have corrected this (should have been a “-“)

Whenever referring to Tables and Figures, start with with capital "T" and/ or "F".

Tables should be improved, provide captions with additional information.

AB: We have corrected this and included additional information in the captions of Table 2 and 3.

With the data obtained can the authors provide details regarding the analytical sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of their method?

AB: We have included some general considerations in the discussion (line 284 – 290)

 

Reviewer #2: Brinkmann and colleagues presented and evaluated an alternative method for simultaneous identification of respiratory pathogens using amplicon sequencing on a nanopore platform. The method was evaluated with clinical samples and compared with commercially available multiplex screening assays. In addition, the methodology was tested in an international quality assurance exercise.

The study is interesting and valuable because respiratory pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2 are often undiagnosed during the pandemic. Sequencing using the Nanopore platform is also becoming more available worldwide. The manuscript is concise and clearly written, although some minor improvements should be made.

Title: the proposed panel also is intended to detect some bacterial pathogens. It would be good to adjust the title accordingly to indicate the broader scope of this method.

AB: Dear Reviewer #2, thank you for your suggestions. We have added “bacteria” To the title.

Data access statement: the authors state that all data are available through the SRA databases. The accession number should be included in the manuscript.

AB: We have uploaded all data (PRJEB49379 at the European Nucleotide Archive) and included the data access statement in the methods section.

Bioinformatics analysis: the author used the standard software provided by the sequencing company, which could be advantageous in a clinical setting, but the authors may wish to compare their results with more advanced workflows available for nanopore reads.

AB: Although comparison of analysis workflows might be interesting, we think that this is not scope of the manuscript. As only short target amplicons need to be evaluated, aligning the reads to reference targets is the most simple and straightforward approach without the need for benchmarking.

Please provide further details on the primer trimming method.

AB: Added to the bioinformatics section.

How do the authors prevent contamination to avoid false positive results?

AB: All results are evaluated based on the negative control in the run (line 137-141) to monitor contamination. To avoid contaminations in the lab, we premise general precautions. However, theses are not specifically addressed in the manuscript.

Results:

Authors should include normalization of read counts (e.g., per million mapped reads) in the results to improve comparability across different runs.

AB: For comparability, we included the ratio of target reads / total reads in the sample (table 2, table 4).

Discussion:

The authors should include considerations of the time and cost of the workflow to provide a sense of the feasibility of the method in clinics.

AB: We have included some general considerations in the discussion (line 284 – 290)

________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (15.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Kok Keng Tee

18 Feb 2022

RespiCoV: Simultaneous identification of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 46 respiratory tract viruses and bacteria by amplicon-based Oxford-Nanopore MinION sequencing

PONE-D-21-32371R1

Dear Dr. Brinkmann,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kok Keng Tee, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All the comments have been addressed and no further information is required. From this reviewer's point of view the manuscript is acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #2: Brinkmann and colleaques present a revised manuscript where all comments have been adressed carefully by the authors.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Alejandro Garrido-Maestu

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Kok Keng Tee

28 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-32371R1

RespiCoV: Simultaneous identification of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and 46 respiratory tract viruses and bacteria by amplicon-based Oxford-Nanopore MinION sequencing

Dear Dr. Brinkmann:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kok Keng Tee

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Primer sequences for the RespiCoV Panel.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (13.6KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (15.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All sequence data was deposited under the project number PRJEB49379 at the European Nucleotide Archive.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES