Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · October 19, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background Post-transplant infections remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation (LT). Conventional microbiological culture has well-recognized limitations in sensitivity and pathogen spectrum coverage. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has emerged as a promising diagnostic platform. However, its systematic evaluation across matched donor–recipient pairs, including characterization of possible donor-to-recipient pathogen transmission and its impact on antimicrobial stewardship, remains limited. Methods We retrospectively enrolled 45 consecutive LT donor–recipient pairs. Multiple sample types were collected from donors ( n = 124) and recipients ( n = 97) and subjected to both mNGS and conventional culture. Recipients were stratified into infection ( n = 29) and non-infection ( n = 16) groups. Pathogen detection rates, diagnostic performance metrics, donor-to-recipient transmission events, and mNGS-informed antimicrobial modifications were systematically analyzed. Results Post-transplant infection occurred in 64.4% of recipients, predominantly involving the pulmonary compartment (89.7%). mNGS achieved significantly higher overall positivity rates than culture in both donors (95.6% vs. 80.0%) and recipients (64.4% vs. 22.2%), with superior detection of fungi and exclusive identification of all viral pathogens. The pathogen-level concordance between methods was predominantly partial (75%–78%). At the patient level, mNGS demonstrated a sensitivity of 69.0% versus 31.0% for culture, while culture maintained higher specificity (93.8% vs. 43.8%). A diverse pathogen landscape was identified, including Pneumocystis jirovecii, rare molds, cytomegalovirus (CMV), and Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)—all exclusively detected by mNGS. A total of 11 possible donor-to-recipient transmission events involving six pathogens were identified across 11 pairs, and 54.5% of affected recipients developed clinical infections, with Klebsiella pneumoniae accounting for the majority of transmission events. mNGS results informed antimicrobial treatment modifications in 69.0% of infected recipients. In the univariate analysis, liver cancer showed an exploratory association with lower post-transplant infection risk (OR = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.02–0.46, p = 0.003). Conclusions This retrospective matched-pair study suggests that mNGS substantially expands pathogen detection beyond conventional culture, enabling the identification of clinically relevant possible donor-derived pathogen transmission and informing antimicrobial treatment modifications in the majority of infected recipients. These findings support mNGS as an adjunctive peri-transplant diagnostic tool pending prospective multicenter validation.