Evidence Hub

Detection Blind Spots in Microbial Culture, tNGS, and mNGS: Anaerobic Bacterial Infections in the Lung-A Retrospective Analysis of Two Cases

Zhuang J, Yu Z, Jin C, Qiu H, Wu Y, Feng Q, Zheng S, Wang J

Infection and drug resistance, 2026

Abstract

Aspiration pneumonia is often associated with specific obligate anaerobic bacteria, particularly oral commensals, as causative agents; however, these infections are frequently misdiagnosed in clinical settings. This retrospective analysis of two patients presenting with fever and cough demonstrates that, in the setting of inconclusive routine microbiological testing and tNGS results, along with ineffective empirical antimicrobial therapy, comprehensive mNGS analysis of BALF microbiota-combined with the presence of high-risk oral factors (such as dental caries and severe periodontitis)-facilitated the diagnosis of anaerobic pneumonia. In both cases, tNGS was unable to detect anaerobic pathogens due to the limited scope of anaerobic bacterial targets in commercial panels. In contrast, comprehensive mNGS, when correctly interpreted in conjunction with clinical context, can detect anaerobic sequences. The key difference lies in that mNGS offers a broader detection capability, but it requires careful correlation with clinical circumstances to distinguish between true pathogens and colonizing bacteria. Specifically, Case 1 revealed the presence of Bacteroides timidum and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Case 2 identified Prevotella oralis, Streptococcus australis, and Actinomyces caries. The administration of targeted anti-anaerobic therapy (metronidazole, ornidazole) subsequently resulted in significant improvement in clinical symptoms and radiographic findings. These cases underscore…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free