Comparison of gene-by-gene and genome-wide short nucleotide sequence based approaches to define the global population structure of Streptococcus pneumoniae

Alannah C. King,Narender Kumar,Kate C. Mellor,Paulina A. Hawkins,Lesley McGee,Nicholas J Croucher,Stephen D Bentley,John A. Lees,Stephanie W Lo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.29.596230
2024-06-02
Abstract:Defining the population structure of a pathogen is a key part of epidemiology, as genomically related isolates are likely to share key clinical features such as antimicrobial resistance profiles and invasiveness. Multiple different methods are currently used to cluster together closely-related genomes, potentially leading to inconsistency between studies. Here, we use a global dataset of 26,306 S. pneumoniae genomes to compare four clustering methods: gene-by-gene seven-locus multi-locus sequencing typing (MLST), core genome MLST (cgMLST)-based hierarchical clustering (HierCC) assignments, Life Identification Number (LIN) barcoding, and k-mer-based PopPUNK clustering (known as GPSCs in this species). We compare the clustering results with phylogenetic and pan-genome analyses to assess their relationship with genome diversity and evolution, as we would expect a good clustering method to form a single monophyletic cluster that has high within-cluster similarity of genomic content. We show that the four methods are generally able to accurately reflect the population structure based on these metrics, and that the methods were broadly consistent with each other. We investigated further to study the discrepancies in clusters. The greatest concordance was seen between LIN barcoding and HierCC (Adjusted Mutual Information Score = 0.950), which was expected given that both methods utilise cgMLST, but have different methods for defining an individual cluster and different core genome schema. However, the existence of differences between the two methods show that the selection of a core genome schema can introduce inconsistencies between studies. GPSC and HierCC assignments were also highly concordant (AMI = 0.946), showing that k-mer based methods which use the whole genome and do not require the careful selection of a core genome schema are just as effective at representing the population structure. Additionally, where there were differences in clustering between these methods, this could be explained by differences in the accessory genome that were not identified in cgMLST. We conclude that for S. pneumoniae, standardised and stable nomenclature is important as the number of genomes available expands. Furthermore, the research community should transition away from seven-locus MLST, and cgMLST, GPSC, and LIN assignments should be used more widely. However, to allow for easy comparison between studies and to make previous literature relevant, the reporting of multiple clustering names should be standardised within research.
Genomics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper aims to address the following issues: 1. **Comparison of different genotyping methods**: The study compares four clustering methods used to define the global population structure of *Streptococcus pneumoniae*, including the traditional seven-locus multilocus sequence typing (MLST) based on gene-by-gene analysis, core genome multilocus sequence typing (cgMLST) and its hierarchical clustering (HierCC), Life Identification Number (LIN) barcoding, and the k-mer-based method (PopPUNK/GPSC). 2. **Evaluation of consistency among different methods**: By comparing these clustering results with phylogenetic trees and pangenome analysis, the study evaluates their performance in reflecting genomic diversity and evolutionary relationships, and explores the differences between the methods. 3. **Standardized naming system**: The paper suggests that for *Streptococcus pneumoniae*, the traditional seven-locus MLST method should be gradually phased out in favor of methods like cgMLST, GPSC, and LIN barcoding. It emphasizes the need to standardize the reporting of multiple clustering names in research to maintain consistency. 4. **Addressing the limitations of existing methods**: The paper points out some limitations of the traditional MLST method, such as the inability to assign sequence types (ST) due to gene deletions or interruptions, over-clustering caused by high recombination rates, and the lack of resolution for closely related isolates. By comparing new methods, the study hopes to find more accurate and consistent clustering solutions.