Mapping the Resistome: A Comprehensive Analysis of Antibiotic Resistance Gene Distribution Across Hosts and Environments

Abstract

Antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) represent a critical threat to global public health, circulating among humans, animals, and environmental reservoirs. This article provides a comprehensive synthesis for researchers and drug development professionals on the distribution, drivers, and surveillance of ARGs. Drawing on recent global metagenomic studies, we explore the foundational ecology of resistomes across diverse hosts, from wastewater treatment plants and livestock to the human gut. We then detail advanced methodological frameworks for ARG detection and annotation, troubleshoot common challenges in quantification and data analysis, and present comparative validation of tools and strategies. The goal is to equip scientists with a holistic understanding of ARG dissemination to inform smarter surveillance and countermeasure development.

The Global Resistome: Exploring ARG Diversity, Hotspots, and Key Bacterial Hosts

Core ARG Profiles in Major Environmental and Animal Reservoirs

Antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) represent a critical challenge to global public health. Understanding their distribution across major reservoirs is essential for evaluating health risks and developing mitigation strategies. This guide provides a comparative analysis of core ARG profiles—the set of resistance genes consistently found within a specific environment—across key animal and environmental reservoirs. By synthesizing the most current experimental data, we objectively compare the abundance, diversity, and composition of resistomes in diverse habitats, from wastewater and livestock to pristine environments. This systematic comparison, framed within a One Health context, reveals distinct resistance patterns driven by varying anthropogenic pressures and ecological factors, offering researchers and drug development professionals a evidence-based reference for risk assessment and prioritorization.

Comparative ARG Profiles Across Reservoirs

The core resistome refers to the collection of ARGs that are consistently prevalent within a specific type of environment or host. The table below synthesizes quantitative data on the abundance and diversity of ARGs in major reservoirs, highlighting the distinct profiles shaped by varying selective pressures.

Table 1: Core ARG Profiles in Major Environmental and Animal Reservoirs

Reservoir Type	Total ARG Abundance (Relative Units)	Dominant ARG Classes	Core ARG Examples	Key Influencing Factors
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) [1]	High (Core ARGs comprise ~83.8% of total abundance)	Beta-lactam, Glycopeptide, Tetracycline	TetracyclineMFSEfflux_Pump, ClassB, vanT [1]	Bacterial community composition, presence of MGEs
Pig Manure (Conventional Farms) [2] [3]	High (Higher than antibiotic-free farms)	Aminoglycoside, Tetracycline, Beta-lactam	ANT(6)-Ib, APH(3')-IIIa, tet(40) [2]	Direct antimicrobial exposure, farming practices
Pig Manure (Antibiotic-Free Farms) [3]	Lower than conventional, but still detectable (ARGs in 97% of studies)	Varies, but generally fewer dominant classes	Shared core with conventional farms (e.g., tet(40)) [2] [3]	Environmental contamination, residual selection
Arctic Soils (Pristine Environment) [4]	Significantly lower (e.g., 17.7 ± 5.1 ppm)	Multidrug, Bacitracin	vanF, ceoB, bacA [4]	Limited anthropogenic impact, natural resistome
Urban Coastal Waters (Shenzhen) [5]	Varies with anthropogenic influence	Aminoglycoside, Beta-lactamase, Multidrug	Genes correlated with integron intI1 [5]	Industrial discharge, sewage, recreational activities

The core resistome in global wastewater treatment plants is remarkably consistent, featuring a core set of 20 ARGs present in every plant surveyed across six continents, which collectively account for over 80% of the total ARG abundance [1]. In contrast, livestock farming demonstrates the direct impact of antimicrobial use. While conventional and antibiotic-free farms share a core set of ARGs—ANT(6)-Ib, APH(3')-IIIa, and tet(40)—conventional farms exhibit a significantly higher likelihood of ARG detection, with a pooled odds ratio of 2.38 to 3.21 compared to antibiotic-free farms [2] [3]. This indicates that reducing antibiotics alone does not eliminate established resistance. At the other end of the spectrum, pristine environments like Arctic soils showcase a native resistome with significantly lower abundance and diversity, dominated by genes like vanF and bacA that are distinct from those associated with clinical antibiotics [4].

Experimental Methodologies for Resistome Profiling

Standardized protocols are critical for generating comparable data across resistome studies. The following section details the common workflow and key methodological approaches for core ARG profiling.

Sample Collection and DNA Extraction

Sample collection strategies are tailored to the reservoir. For WWTPs, this involves collecting activated sludge from the aeration tank [1]. In animal studies, fresh manure is collected from rearing pens [2]. In environmental studies, soil, sediment, or water samples are collected using sterile equipment from pre-defined transects [4] [5]. A key step is the preservation of samples on dry ice or at -80°C immediately after collection to prevent microbial community shifts. DNA extraction typically uses commercial kits, such as the DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen), designed to efficiently lyse a wide range of microbial cells and isolate high-quality, inhibitor-free DNA suitable for downstream molecular analysis [6].

Metagenomic Sequencing and Bioinformatic Analysis

Shotgun metagenomic sequencing on platforms like Illumina NovaSeq is the gold standard for comprehensive resistome characterization [2] [1]. Following DNA extraction and library preparation, sequencing generates millions of short reads. The bioinformatic workflow involves:

• Quality Control & Assembly: Raw reads are filtered for quality and adapter sequences using tools like Trimmomatic or Sickle, then assembled into longer contigs using assemblers like MEGAHIT or metaSPAdes [2] [1].
• ORF Prediction & Gene Annotation: Open Reading Frames (ORFs) are predicted from contigs using Prodigal. These ORFs are then aligned against the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) using BLAST to identify ARG-like sequences, typically with thresholds of ≥80% identity and ≥70% query coverage [2] [1].
• Abundance Normalization: To enable cross-study comparisons, ARG abundance is normalized. A common method is to calculate the copies per bacterial cell by normalizing ARG read counts to the number of 16S rRNA gene copies in the metagenome [2] [1].
• Mobile Genetic Element (MGE) Analysis: Tools like PlasmidFinder and INTEGRALL are used to identify MGEs in the same contigs as ARGs, helping to assess horizontal transfer potential [2].

Complementary Techniques

While metagenomics identifies all potential ARGs, other methods provide complementary data. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) is used for high-sensitivity, absolute quantification of specific, pre-identified ARGs and is often employed to validate metagenomic findings or for routine monitoring [6] [5]. Culture-based methods isolate specific bacterial strains (e.g., Acinetobacter baumannii or Escherichia coli) from complex samples. Subsequent antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) and PCR amplification of ARGs from these isolates link resistance phenotypes to genotypes and identify pathogens of clinical concern [7].

Success in resistome research relies on a suite of established reagents, databases, and analytical tools.

Table 2: Essential Reagents and Resources for ARG Profiling

Category	Item	Primary Function in Research
Wet Lab Reagents	DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (Qiagen)	Standardized DNA extraction from complex environmental samples.
	Illumina DNA Prep Kit	Library preparation for shotgun metagenomic sequencing.
	SYBR Green qPCR Master Mix	Enables quantitative PCR for targeted ARG detection and validation.
	Mueller-Hinton Agar	Medium for culturing bacterial isolates and performing AST.
Bioinformatic Databases	Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD)	Central repository for ARG sequences and associated metadata for annotation.
	INTEGRALL Database	Specialized database for identifying integrons and gene cassettes.
	PlasmidFinder	Tool for identifying plasmid replicons in sequence data.
Analytical Tools & Algorithms	MetaPhlAn3	Profiling microbial community composition from metagenomic data.
	Prodigal	Predicting protein-coding genes (ORFs) in metagenomic assemblies.
	Random Forest Algorithm	Machine learning for identifying key ARG indicators and classifying samples.

Discussion and Comparative Analysis

The data reveals a clear gradient of ARG abundance and diversity, closely tied to anthropogenic activity. WWTPs and livestock farms represent anthropogenically enriched reservoirs with high abundance and diversity of ARGs, including those conferring resistance to critically important antibiotics like carbapenems [1] [8]. The strong correlation between ARG composition and bacterial taxonomy in these environments suggests that community structure is a key driver of the resistome [1]. Furthermore, the high prevalence of MGEs and their significant co-occurrence with ARGs in polluted samples underscore the enhanced potential for horizontal gene transfer [4] [9].

In contrast, natural environments like Arctic soils maintain a native resistome with low abundance and diversity, featuring genes distinct from those found in clinical settings [4]. However, even low-anthropogenic impact environments are not devoid of risk. Studies of urban coastal waters show that diverse human activities (industrial, recreational) can select for distinct pathogenic bacteria and ARG profiles, with network analysis revealing complex associations between microbes and ARGs [5]. A critical finding from comparative farming studies is that ARGs persist in 97% of antibiotic-free farms, indicating that once resistance is established, merely removing antibiotic pressure is insufficient for its eradication [3]. This points to the role of environmental contamination, co-selection from heavy metals, and stable maintenance of resistance genes in bacterial communities as perpetuating factors.

This comparative analysis underscores that mitigating the spread of antibiotic resistance requires a One Health approach that integrates surveillance and intervention across human, animal, and environmental reservoirs. Future research should prioritize tracking the flow of core ARGs and their mobile vectors between these interconnected realms to develop effective containment strategies.

Continental and Habitat-Specific Variations in ARG Composition

Antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) represent one of the most pressing challenges to global public health in the 21st century. Understanding their distribution patterns across different geographical scales and habitat types is fundamental to evaluating health risks and developing effective mitigation strategies. This comparison guide provides a systematic analysis of ARG composition variations across continents and habitats, synthesizing experimental data from recent global-scale studies. The objective assessment of these distribution patterns provides critical insights for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working within the One Health framework, which recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

Continental Scale Variations in ARG Composition

Global Distribution Patterns in Wastewater Treatment Plants

A comprehensive global analysis of 226 activated sludge samples from 142 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) across six continents revealed distinct continental signatures in ARG profiles [1].

Table 1: Continental Variations in ARG Abundance and Diversity in WWTPs

Continent	Total ARG Abundance	ARG Richness	Shannon's H Index	Distinct Compositional Features
Asia	Similar to other continents	Significantly higher	Significantly higher	Distinct from other continents
Africa	Similar to other continents	High (similar to Asia)	High	Distinct from other continents
Europe	Similar to other continents	Moderate	Moderate	Distinct from other continents
North America	Similar to other continents	Moderate	Moderate	Distinct from other continents
South America	Similar to other continents	Moderate	Moderate	Distinct from other continents
Australia	Similar to other continents	Moderate	Moderate	Distinct from other continents

Despite similar overall abundance across continents, the richness and diversity of ARGs showed significant geographical patterning. Asian WWTPs exhibited significantly higher mean ARG richness compared to other continents except Africa, suggesting greater diversity of resistance determinants in these regions [1]. At the national level, countries exhibited variations in total ARG abundance, with Chile and Canada showing the lowest levels, while Switzerland and Colombia demonstrated the highest abundances [1].

The core resistome of global WWTPs consisted of 20 ARGs that were present in all samples analyzed, accounting for 83.8% of the total ARG abundance [1]. The most abundant genes conferred resistance to major antibiotic classes:

• TetracyclineResistanceMFSEffluxPump (15.2%)
• ClassB β-lactam resistance (13.5%)
• vanT gene in vanG cluster (glycopeptide resistance, 11.4%)

When aggregated by resistance mechanism, ARGs encoding antibiotic inactivation dominated (55.7%), followed by target alteration (25.9%) and efflux pumps (15.8%) [1].

Temporal Trends in Soil Resistomes

Global analysis of soil resistomes has revealed increasing temporal trends in ARG risk. Analysis of 2,540 soil samples with collection dates spanning 2008 to 2021 showed that while total ARG abundance remained time-independent, the relative abundance of high-risk "Rank I ARGs" and their occurrence frequency significantly increased over time [10]. Rank I ARGs are classified based on host pathogenicity, gene mobility, and enrichment in human-associated environments, representing the greatest potential health concern.

The connectivity between soil and human resistomes has also intensified over time, with soil ARGs showing higher genetic overlap with clinical Escherichia coli genomes (1985-2023), suggesting an increasing linkage between environmental and clinical resistance pools [10].

Habitat-Specific Variations in ARG Composition

Comparative Resistome Profiles Across Ecosystems

Table 2: ARG Composition Across Different Habitat Types

Habitat Type	Dominant ARG Classes	Relative Abundance	Key Carriers/Hosts	Notable Features
Wastewater Treatment Plants	β-lactam (46.5%), Glycopeptide (24.5%), Tetracycline (16.2%)	High (core 20 ARGs present in all WWTPs)	Chloroflexi, Acidobacteria, Deltaproteobacteria	Strong correlation with mobile genetic elements
Human Gut	Not specified in results	Distinct from AS resistomes	Human gut microbiota	Compositionally distinct from environmental resistomes
Soil	Multidrug efflux pumps	Lower than livestock and human feces	Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria	Rank I ARGs increasing over time
Ocean/Marine	Not specified in results	Distinct from AS resistomes	Marine microbial communities	Compositionally distinct from terrestrial resistomes
Rivers & Lakes (China)	Sulfonamide, Tetracycline	10⁷-10¹¹ copies/L (surface waters)	Aquatic bacteria	Higher in eastern/southern China
Mangrove Ecosystems	Tetracycline, Sulfonamide, β-lactam, Multidrug	10²-10⁶ copies/g (sediment)	Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes	Elevated near aquaculture/urban areas

Principal coordinate analysis demonstrates that WWTP resistomes are compositionally distinct from human gut and ocean resistomes but show similarity to sewage and soil resistomes [1]. This pattern persists whether ARGs are analyzed at the individual gene level or aggregated by drug class [1].

The similarity between WWTP, sewage, and soil resistomes likely reflects their interconnection through wastewater flows and stormwater runoff [1]. Soil shares approximately 60.1% of its total ARGs and 50.9% of its Rank I ARGs with other habitats, with human feces (75.4%), chicken feces (68.3%), WWTP effluent (59.1%), and swine feces (53.9%) being the largest contributors to soil Rank I ARGs [10].

Niche-Specific Distribution in Urban Sewer Systems

Urban sewer systems exhibit distinct vertical stratification of ARGs, with different distribution patterns in sediments, sewage, and aerosols [9]. Aminoglycoside, beta-lactamase, and multidrug resistance genes represent the predominant types across all sewer compartments, but their relative abundances and associated bacterial hosts vary significantly [9].

In sewer sediments, which typically contain high biomass, Bacteroides, Arcobacter, and Aeromonas are the predominant genera hosting ARGs [9]. Mobile genetic elements play a crucial role in ARG transfer among microorganisms across all sewer compartments, but environmental drivers differ:

• Sediments and sewage: Significantly influenced by basic properties (λ = 0.32), heavy metals (λ = 0.27), and antibiotics (λ = 0.12)
• Aerosols: Primarily driven by bacterial composition (λ = 0.59) and α-diversity (λ = 0.46)

Although sediments and sewage carry higher risk burdens of typical ARGs, aerosolized ARGs pose direct inhalation exposure risks that warrant greater attention in future risk assessments [9].

Experimental Methodologies for Global ARG Profiling

Standardized Metagenomic Sequencing Pipeline

The Global Water Microbiome Consortium (GWMC) established a systematic global campaign for collection, sequencing, and analysis of activated sludge samples using identical protocols to ensure comparability across continents [1].

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for global ARG profiling in wastewater treatment plants.

Quantitative ARG Detection and Analysis

Sample Collection and Processing: For the global WWTP study, 226 activated sludge samples were collected from 142 wastewater treatment plants across six continents [1]. Samples were immediately preserved after collection and processed using standardized DNA extraction protocols to minimize technical variability [1].

Sequencing and Assembly: A total of 2.8 terabases of sequence data was generated with an average of 12.3 ± 3.9 Gb per sample [1]. Quality-filtered metagenomic reads were assembled into 36,147,212 contigs longer than 1 kb, from which 34,860,381 non-redundant open reading frames (ORFs) were predicted [1].

ARG Annotation and Quantification: ORFs were annotated as ARG sequences using standardized databases and criteria [1]. A total of 37,029 (0.11%) ORFs were identified as ARGs, representing 179 different ARGs relevant to 15 drug classes [1]. ARG abundance was normalized to copy number per bacterial cell to enable cross-comparison between samples [1].

Statistical Analysis: Rarefaction analysis confirmed sufficient sequencing depth to capture ARG diversity [1]. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) was used to identify significant differences in resistome composition across continents, followed by principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) for visualization [1]. Procrustes analysis revealed strong associations between bacterial community structure and resistome composition [1].

Research Reagent Solutions for ARG Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for ARG Monitoring

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Examples from Studies
Metagenomic Sequencing Kits	Comprehensive profiling of ARGs and microbial communities	Shotgun sequencing of 226 AS samples [1]
PCR/qPCR Assays	Targeted quantification of specific ARGs	Detection of blá₁ₘₚ₋₁, mecA, blaNDM-1 [11]
DNA Extraction Kits	High-quality DNA extraction from complex matrices	Standardized protocol for global WWTP samples [1]
Mobile Genetic Element Markers	Tracking horizontal gene transfer potential	Detection of plasmids, transposons, integrons [9]
16S rRNA Sequencing Reagents	Bacterial community profiling	Analysis of microbial community structure [1]
ARG-Specific Databases	Annotation and classification of resistance genes	SARG3.0_S database for similarity search [10]

The continental and habitat-specific variations in ARG composition highlighted in this comparison guide demonstrate the complex biogeography of antibiotic resistance. The distinct continental signatures in WWTP resistomes, coupled with the unique ARG profiles characteristic of different habitats, underscore the importance of context-specific approaches to monitoring and mitigating antibiotic resistance. The experimental data presented reveals that while a core set of ARGs is ubiquitous across global WWTPs, significant variations in richness, diversity, and compositional structure exist across geographical scales and ecosystem types. The increasing connectivity between environmental and human resistomes, particularly for high-risk Rank I ARGs, highlights the importance of integrated surveillance strategies that span clinical, agricultural, and environmental compartments. For researchers and drug development professionals, these findings emphasize the need to consider geographical origin and habitat type when assessing resistance risks and designing intervention strategies.

The rapid global spread of antibiotic resistance represents one of the most pressing public health challenges of our time, with antibiotic-resistant infections directly causing an estimated 1.27 million deaths annually [12]. Understanding the distribution and dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) requires identifying the primary bacterial hosts that serve as reservoirs in different environments. This comparison guide objectively analyzes two critical reservoirs: Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs), where Chloroflexi and other specific phyla dominate as ARG carriers, and livestock settings, where Proteobacteria represent a major resistance reservoir. By comparing the methodologies, findings, and implications of research in these distinct environments, this guide provides researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a structured analysis of ARG host distribution patterns and the experimental approaches used to identify them.

Table 1: Key Environmental Reservoirs of Antibiotic Resistance Genes

Environment	Primary Bacterial Hosts	Dominant ARG Classes	Research Scale
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs)	Chloroflexi, Acidobacteria, Deltaproteobacteria	Beta-lactam, Glycopeptide, Tetracycline	Global (142 WWTPs across 6 continents) [1]
Livestock Settings	Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes	Tetracycline, Sulfonamide, Beta-lactam	Global (96 countries) [13]
Aquaculture Sediments	Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Chloroflexi, Bacteroidota	Sulfonamide, Tetracycline, Quinolone	Regional (China) [14]
Marine Environments	Proteobacteria	Sulfonamide, Beta-lactam	Global (Multiple oceans and seas) [15]

Comparative Analysis of Primary Bacterial Hosts Across Environments

Chloroflexi as Key ARG Hosts in Wastewater Treatment Plants

Activated sludge from wastewater treatment plants represents a significant reservoir of antibiotic resistance genes, with recent global analysis revealing consistent patterns of ARG distribution. A comprehensive study analyzing 226 activated sludge samples from 142 WWTPs across six continents identified a core set of 20 ARGs present in all facilities, accounting for 83.8% of the total ARG abundance [1]. The most abundant ARGs confer resistance to tetracycline (15.2%), beta-lactams (13.5%), and glycopeptides (11.4%) through mechanisms including antibiotic inactivation (55.7%), target alteration (25.9%), and efflux pumps (15.8%) [1].

Metagenome analysis has consistently identified Chloroflexi as one of the major bacterial phyla carrying ARGs in WWTPs, alongside Acidobacteria and Deltaproteobacteria [1]. These filamentous bacteria are not merely structural components of activated sludge flocs but play a significant functional role in ARG maintenance and potential dissemination. Members of the Caldilineae class within Chloroflexi are particularly abundant, comprising 12-19% of the Chloroflexi population in municipal WWTPs [16]. The strong association between bacterial community structure and resistomes (Procrustes analysis: M² = 0.74, p < 0.001) underscores the importance of these specific bacterial hosts in shaping the ARG profiles of WWTPs [1].

Proteobacteria Dominance in Livestock and Related Environments

In contrast to WWTP environments, livestock settings show a clear dominance of Proteobacteria as carriers of antibiotic resistance genes. Analysis of ARG distribution across livestock wastes (including swine, poultry, and cattle operations) reveals that Proteobacteria represent the most abundant phylum harboring ARGs, followed by Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes [13]. This pattern extends beyond livestock facilities to adjacent environments, including aquaculture sediments where Proteobacteria dominate the microbial community and show strong correlations with ARG abundance [14].

The abundance of ARGs in livestock waste significantly exceeds levels found in other environments, with swine and chicken waste containing three to five orders of magnitude more ARGs than hospital and municipal wastewaters [13]. Tetracycline and sulfonamide resistance genes are particularly prevalent in livestock settings, reflecting the extensive use of these antibiotic classes in animal husbandry. Globally, livestock waste shows substantial variation in ARG abundance, with China reporting the highest levels according to available data [13].

Table 2: Dominant Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Different Environments

Environment	Most Abundant ARGs	Relative Abundance	Resistance Mechanism
Wastewater Treatment Plants	TetracyclineMFSEfflux_Pump	15.2%	Efflux pump [1]
Wastewater Treatment Plants	ClassB	13.5%	Antibiotic inactivation [1]
Wastewater Treatment Plants	vanT (vanG cluster)	11.4%	Target alteration [1]
Livestock Waste	tet genes	Varies by country	Ribosomal protection [13]
Livestock Waste	sul genes	Varies by country	Target alteration [13]
Aquaculture Sediments	sul1, tetW	Highest abundance	Various [14]
Marine Environments	sul1	Ubiquitous	Target alteration [15]

Methodologies for Identifying ARG Hosts: Experimental Protocols

Global WWTP Sampling and Metagenomic Analysis Protocol

The identification of Chloroflexi as primary ARG hosts in WWTPs emerged from a standardized global sampling and analysis protocol implemented by the Global Water Microbiome Consortium [1]. The methodology can be summarized as follows:

• Sample Collection: 226 activated sludge samples were collected from 142 WWTPs across six continents using identical protocols to ensure comparability.

• DNA Sequencing: Community DNA was sequenced via shotgun metagenomics, generating 2.8 terabases of data (average 12.3 ± 3.9 Gb per sample). Sequencing depth was validated through rarefaction analysis of both 16S rRNA genes and ARGs [1].

• Bioinformatic Processing:

  • Assembly of 36,147,212 contigs >1 kb from filtered metagenomic reads
  • Prediction of 34,860,381 non-redundant open reading frames (ORFs)
  • Annotation of 37,029 (0.11%) ORFs as ARG sequences
  • Identification of 179 different ARGs conferring resistance to 15 drug classes

• Host Identification: ARG hosts were determined through metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) and analysis of ARG co-occurrence with bacterial taxonomic markers, revealing Chloroflexi, Acidobacteria, and Deltaproteobacteria as major carriers [1].

Livestock ARG Host Identification Approach

Research identifying Proteobacteria as dominant ARG hosts in livestock environments employs complementary but distinct methodological approaches:

• Sample Collection: Analysis of livestock wastes (manure, wastewater) from different farm types (swine, poultry, cattle) and geographical locations.

• ARG Quantification: Utilization of both quantitative PCR (for specific ARGs) and high-throughput sequencing methods to determine absolute abundance (copies/g or copies/mL) and relative abundance (copies/16S rRNA) [13].

• Host Tracking: Correlation-based network analysis to identify associations between ARGs and specific bacterial taxa, consistently revealing Proteobacteria as key hosts in livestock settings [14]. This approach has demonstrated co-occurrence patterns between ARGs (sul1, sul2, blaCMY, blaOXA, qnrS, tetW, tetQ, tetM) and bacterial taxa from Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes [14].

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for identifying bacterial hosts of antibiotic resistance genes, integrating metagenomic sequencing and bioinformatic analysis.

Inter-Environment Transmission and One Health Implications

Horizontal Transfer of ARGs Between Bacterial Hosts

The transfer of antibiotic resistance genes between diverse bacterial hosts represents a critical mechanism in the dissemination of resistance across environments. Systematic analysis of nearly 1 million ARGs from over 400,000 bacterial genomes has identified 661 inter-phylum transfer (IPT) events, demonstrating that ARGs regularly move between evolutionarily distant hosts [17]. The frequency of IPT varies substantially between ARG classes, with tetracycline ribosomal protection genes showing the highest number of transfers (106), followed by aminoglycoside acetyltransferase AAC(6′) (81) and class A beta-lactamases (75) [17].

Notably, mobile genetic elements (MGEs) play a crucial role in facilitating ARG transfer between hosts. In WWTPs, 57% of 1,112 recovered high-quality genomes possessed putatively mobile ARGs, with ARG abundance positively correlating with the presence of MGEs [1]. Similarly, studies in aquaculture sediments found significant correlations between ARGs and class 1 integrons (intl1), suggesting MGEs mediate horizontal transfer [14]. This cross-phylum transfer capability enables ARGs to move between the Chloroflexi-dominated reservoirs in WWTPs and Proteobacteria-dominated reservoirs in livestock settings, creating interconnected resistance networks.

One Health Perspectives on ARG Transmission

The transmission of ARGs follows complex pathways that interconnect human, animal, and environmental reservoirs through what has been termed the "One Health" continuum. Livestock farming systems represent a major source of ARG transmission, driven by global antimicrobial usage that exceeds 200,000 tons annually, with approximately 73% of all antimicrobials used in animal production [12].

Key transmission pathways include:

• Direct Contact: Farmers, veterinarians, and abattoir workers exposed to livestock-associated ARBs
• Food Chain: Consumption of contaminated meat, dairy, and aquaculture products
• Environmental Spread: Application of manure to agricultural lands, runoff into water systems, and aerosol dissemination [12]

Research at the wildlife-livestock interface has revealed that feral swine and coyotes harbor more abundant antibiotic-resistant microorganisms compared to grazing cattle, suggesting wildlife could serve as vectors for ARG dissemination between human-dominated and natural environments [18]. These findings underscore the interconnectedness of resistance reservoirs and the importance of cross-disciplinary approaches to mitigating ARG spread.

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for ARG Host Identification Studies

Reagent/Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function in ARG Host Research
DNA Extraction Kits	TIANamp Soil DNA Kit [14]	High-quality metagenomic DNA extraction from complex environmental samples
PCR Reagents	SmartChip qPCR reagents [19]	High-throughput quantification of specific ARG targets
Sequencing Platforms	Illumina Shotgun Sequencing [1], 16S rRNA Amplicon Sequencing [20]	Comprehensive profiling of microbial communities and resistance genes
Bioinformatic Tools	fARGene [17], SILVA database [20]	Accurate identification of ARGs and taxonomic classification
Clustering Algorithms	PERMANOVA, ANOSIM [20]	Statistical analysis of microbial community patterns and ARG distribution
Network Analysis	Co-occurrence network analysis [14]	Identification of potential ARG-host relationships and transfer pathways

This comparison guide has systematically identified the distinct primary bacterial hosts of antibiotic resistance genes in two critical environments: Chloroflexi in wastewater treatment plants and Proteobacteria in livestock settings. These patterns reflect both environmental selection pressures and the ecological characteristics of these bacterial phyla in different habitats.

For researchers and drug development professionals, these findings highlight several critical considerations:

• Environment-Specific Interventions: Mitigation strategies must account for the distinct host profiles in different settings, targeting the predominant bacterial carriers in each environment.
• Transfer Monitoring: The demonstrated ability of ARGs to transfer between phyla underscores the importance of monitoring cross-environmental transmission.
• Methodological Standardization: The consistent identification of these patterns across studies employing standardized protocols supports continued method harmonization in ARG research.

Future research directions should focus on elucidating the mechanisms that enable certain bacterial taxa to serve as particularly successful ARG reservoirs, developing interventions that disrupt ARG transfer between hosts, and expanding global monitoring efforts to track the evolution of these host-ARG relationships over time. As antibiotic resistance continues to pose significant threats to global health, understanding these fundamental patterns of ARG distribution across bacterial hosts remains essential for developing effective countermeasures.

The Role of Mobile Genetic Elements in Shaping Resistome Structures

Antibiotic resistance represents a paramount global health challenge, primarily driven by the dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). The collection of all ARGs within a given environment, known as the resistome, is dynamically shaped by the activity of mobile genetic elements (MGEs) [21]. These elements facilitate the horizontal transfer of resistance genes between bacteria, accelerating the development of multidrug-resistant pathogens. Understanding the mechanisms by which MGEs influence resistome structures is critical for devising strategies to combat antibiotic resistance. This review synthesizes current knowledge on major MGE types, their distribution across One-Health sectors (human, animal, environment), and the experimental methodologies enabling their study, providing a comparative guide for researchers and drug development professionals.

Mobile Genetic Elements: Types and Mechanisms

MGEs are DNA sequences capable of moving within or between DNA molecules, and between bacterial cells [22]. They act as primary vectors for the horizontal gene transfer (HGT) of ARGs. The table below summarizes the key MGE types and their characteristics.

Table 1: Major Types of Mobile Genetic Elements Involved in Antibiotic Resistance

MGE Type	Key Characteristics	Primary Role in AMR	Example Elements & Carried ARGs
Insertion Sequences (IS)	Small (<3 kb), encode transposase, terminal inverted repeats (IR) [22] [23].	Intracellular movement; can form composite transposons; provide promoters for ARG expression [22].	ISAba1 upstream of blaOXA-51-like in Acinetobacter baumannii (carbapenem resistance) [22].
Transposons (Tn)	Larger than IS, carry additional passenger genes (e.g., ARGs) [23].	Direct mobilization of ARGs within a cell [22].	Tn9 (catA1 - chloramphenicol resistance) [22]. Tn1999 (blaOXA-48-like - carbapenem resistance) [22].
Integrons	Site-specific recombination system; contain intI gene, attI site, and promoter Pc [22] [23].	Capture and coordinate expression of gene cassettes, often containing ARGs [22].	Multiple drug resistance integrons in Gram-negative pathogens.
Plasmids	Self-replicating, circular DNA; often conjugative [23].	Intercellular transfer of ARGs via conjugation; major vehicles for multi-resistance [23] [24].	Plasmids carrying bla genes (β-lactamase), erm genes (macrolide resistance) [23].
Integrative Conjugative Elements (ICEs)	Integrate into and excise from chromosome; transfer via conjugation [22].	Large-scale transfer of genomic islands containing ARGs [22].	ICEs carrying van genes (vancomycin resistance) in Enterococci [22].

The following diagram illustrates the basic structures of these key MGEs and their functional components.

Comparative Resistome Structures Across One-Health Sectors

The distribution and abundance of ARGs, facilitated by MGEs, vary significantly across the human, animal, and environmental sectors of the One-Health paradigm [21]. The following table provides a quantitative comparison of resistome profiles.

Table 2: Comparative Resistome Profiles Across One-Health Sectors

Sector / Environment	Key Findings on ARG & MGE Abundance/Diversity	Notable ARGs & Associated MGEs	Dominant Bacterial Hosts
Human Gut	High relative abundance of ARGs but lower taxonomic and MGE diversity compared to external environments [8].	Multidrug resistance genes; genes on plasmids and transposons [8].	Limited taxonomic diversity; commensals and opportunistic pathogens.
Animal Gut (e.g., Poultry, Rodents)	Varies with production system. Conventional (CO) systems show higher ARG/MGE abundance vs. organic (OR) [25]. Wild rodents harbor diverse ARGs (e.g., tet(Q), tet(W), vanG) [26].	Conventional Chickens: Higher abundance of transposases (97.2% of MGEs) [25]. Rodents: E. coli carries highest ARG number (1540 ORFs) [26].	Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Citrobacter braakii [26].
Hospital Wastewater (HWW)	ARG hotspot. General Hospitals (GHs) show higher ARG abundance and risk than Non-General Hospitals (NGHs) [27]. Plasmid-mediated ARGs (45.21%) dominate [27].	Aminoglycoside resistance genes enriched in GHs; bla genes (IND, GES, IMP) [27]. Co-occurrence with MGEs frequent [27].	Potential pathogens like Rhodocyclaceae bacterium ICHIAU1, Acidovorax caeni [27].
Natural Environments (Soil, Water)	High taxonomic diversity linked to high MGE and biocide/metal resistance gene diversity, but generally lower known ARG abundance [8].	Intrinsic and proto-resistance genes; novel ARG contexts [21] [8].	Highly diverse environmental bacteria.
Anthropogenically-Impacted Environments (Wastewater, Polluted Sites)	High ARG abundance and diversity, comparable to human gut [8]. Industrial antibiotic pollution creates extreme selection pressure [8].	sul2, aph genes, qnr, beta-lactamase genes [8]. Often co-located with MGEs on plasmids [8].	Wastewater microbiota; bacteria adapted to pollutant stress.

The interconnectivity of these sectors, and the potential flow of MGEs and ARGs among them, is conceptualized within the One-Health framework below.

Key Experimental Methodologies for Resistome and Mobilome Analysis

Deciphering resistome structures and the role of MGEs relies on advanced genomic techniques. The following workflow outlines a standard metagenomic analysis protocol.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

1. Metagenomic Sequencing and Assembly (as cited in [26] and [27]):

• Sample Collection and DNA Extraction: Environmental (e.g., water, soil) or biological (e.g., gut contents) samples are collected. Total community DNA is extracted using commercial kits. For example, in the wild rodent study, 2198 bacterial isolates were cultured, and 610 metagenomic samples were processed [26].
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: DNA libraries are prepared following standard Illumina protocols. Sequencing is performed on platforms such as Illumina NovaSeq, generating high-throughput, short-read data. The hospital wastewater study generated a 280.28 Gbp dataset [27].
• Read Processing and Metagenomic Assembly: Raw sequencing reads are quality-controlled (using tools like Trimmomatic or FastQC) to remove adapters and low-quality bases. Cleaned reads are assembled into contigs using assemblers like MEGAHIT or metaSPAdes [26] [27].

2. Gene Annotation and Binning:

• Gene Prediction and ARG Annotation: Open Reading Frames (ORFs) are predicted from contigs. Protein sequences are aligned against the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) using tools like BLASTP or RGI to identify ARGs [26] [8].
• MGE Annotation: Similarly, ORFs are searched against specialized MGE databases (e.g., a transposase database) to identify and classify MGEs, such as insertion sequences, transposases, and integrases [26].
• Metagenomic Binning: Contigs are grouped into Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs) based on sequence composition and abundance across samples using tools like CONCOCT, MetaBAT2, or MaxBin2. MAGs are checked for quality (completeness and contamination) using CheckM [26] [27]. This step is crucial for linking ARGs and MGEs to their specific bacterial hosts.

3. Data Analysis and Risk Assessment:

• Abundance and Diversity Profiling: The relative abundance of ARGs and MGEs is calculated by normalizing read counts (e.g., copies per 16S rRNA gene or per million reads). Diversity (richness) is measured as the number of unique ARG types per sample [8].
• Co-occurrence Network Analysis: Statistical methods (e.g., correlation analysis) are used to investigate the co-occurrence patterns between ARGs, MGEs, and bacterial taxa within samples, helping to infer potential gene transfer networks [27].
• Risk Assessment (ARRI): The Antibiotic Resistome Risk Index (ARRI) can be calculated by integrating data on ARG mobility potential (association with MGEs), pathogenicity of host bacteria, and clinical relevance of the ARGs [27].

Table 3: Key Reagents, Databases, and Tools for Resistome and Mobilome Research

Item Name	Type/Category	Primary Function in Research
Illumina Sequencing Platforms	Sequencing Technology	High-throughput shotgun sequencing of metagenomic DNA from complex samples [8].
CARD (Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database)	Bioinformatics Database	Repository of ARGs and associated proteins for functional annotation of metagenomic sequences [26].
ISfinder	Bioinformatics Database	Centralized database for insertion sequences, aiding in the identification and classification of IS elements [22] [23].
MGE-specific Databases	Bioinformatics Database	Custom or public databases for annotating MGEs like transposases, integrases, and plasmids [26].
MetaBAT2 / CONCOCT	Bioinformatics Software	Algorithms for binning assembled contigs into Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs) [26].
CheckM	Bioinformatics Software	Tool for assessing the quality (completeness and contamination) of assembled genomes and MAGs [26].

Mobile genetic elements are fundamental architects of resistome structures across all One-Health sectors. Their ability to facilitate horizontal gene transfer enables the rapid evolution and dissemination of antibiotic resistance, blurring the boundaries between environmental reservoirs, livestock, and human pathogens. Future research must continue to leverage cutting-edge metagenomics and computational tools to track the flow of MGEs at the interfaces of these sectors, identify critical ARG-MGE combinations, and elucidate the factors driving their selection and persistence. A deep understanding of these dynamics is paramount for developing targeted interventions, informing antibiotic stewardship policies, and mitigating the global threat of antimicrobial resistance.

From Sample to Insight: Methodologies for ARG Detection, Quantification, and Host Attribution

{#topic} Comparing Concentration and DNA Extraction Methods for Complex Matrices {#topic}

{#context} The accurate assessment of antibiotic resistance gene (ARG) distribution across different hosts and environmental reservoirs is a cornerstone of the "One Health" approach to combating antimicrobial resistance. This research is critically dependent on the initial steps of sample processing: concentration and DNA extraction. The methods chosen for these steps directly influence the observed ARG profile, microbial community composition, and the subsequent detection of low-abundance resistance determinants. This guide objectively compares common concentration and DNA extraction methodologies for complex matrices like wastewater and biological tissues, providing researchers with experimental data and protocols to inform their study designs in ARG surveillance [28] [29].

{## The Impact of Method Selection on ARG Analysis}

The primary challenge in analyzing complex matrices is the inherent trade-off between DNA yield, purity, and representativeness. Methodological choices can significantly bias results by selectively lysing certain cell types, co-extracting inhibitors, or failing to capture the full diversity of extracellular or intracellular DNA.

For instance, in national-scale wastewater surveillance, the choice between high-throughput quantitative PCR (HT qPCR) and metagenomic sequencing is often dictated by study goals, with the former offering higher sensitivity for specific, low-abundance ARGs and the latter providing a broader, untargeted view of the resistome [28]. This was evident in a comparative study of Welsh wastewater, where HT qPCR detected certain high-risk ARGs like blaNDM and blaVIM that were missed by metagenomic sequencing, while metagenomics revealed a much wider array of unique ARGs (491 in total) that were beyond the scope of the targeted qPCR chip [28]. Furthermore, the composition of the microbial community and ARG profiles varied significantly between hospital and treatment plant wastewater, and these differences were consistently captured by both methods, underscoring the influence of the sample matrix itself [28].

{## Comparison of Concentration and DNA Extraction Methods}

The following tables summarize key performance metrics and characteristics of common methods used for sample concentration and DNA extraction from complex matrices relevant to ARG research.

{#table1} Table 1: Comparison of Sample Concentration Methods for Liquid Matrices

Method	Principle	Typical Recovery Efficiency	Advantages	Limitations	Best Suited For
Membrane Filtration [29]	Passage of sample through a microporous membrane to retain microorganisms.	Varies with membrane pore size and sample load; used for bacterial counts of 10⁵–10⁹ CFU/mL [29].	Simple, cost-effective, allows for direct culture of retained biomass.	Prone to membrane clogging with turbid samples; may not efficiently recover viral particles or free DNA.	Clear water samples with moderate microbial load.
Ultracentrifugation	High-speed centrifugation to pellet microorganisms and particles.	High for particulate-associated ARGs.	Effective for concentrating diverse particle sizes, including viruses.	Requires specialized, expensive equipment; time-consuming; not easily scalable for large volumes.	Concentrating a broad spectrum of targets from various liquid matrices.
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) [30]	Adsorption of nucleic acids or cells to a solid phase under specific conditions, followed by elution.	N/A (Primarily for purification)	Effective for purifying DNA from complex inhibitors; high purity yields.	Can be complex; requires optimization of pH and solvents; may involve multiple steps [30].	Purifying DNA from complex biological extracts (e.g., tissue homogenates).

{#table2} Table 2: Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods from Complex Solid Matrices

Method	Principle	Key Performance Data	Advantages	Limitations
Ultrasonic Extraction [30]	Uses ultrasonic energy to disrupt cell walls and membranes.	Recovery rates: 64%–121% for 15 antibiotics in shellfish; LOD: 0.004–0.5 ng/g (dry weight) [30].	Rapid, simple operation, effective for hard-to-lyse tissues.	May require subsequent purification (e.g., SPE); potential for DNA shearing with prolonged exposure.
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Purification [30]	Purification of crude DNA extract using selective binding and elution from a sorbent.	Oasis PRiME HLB showed superior cleanup vs. Oasis HLB; no activation needed [30].	High purity; removes PCR inhibitors like humic acids; can be automated.	Additional cost and processing time; recovery depends on sorbent and protocol.
Commercial Kit (Silica-column based) [28] [29]	Lysis with chaotropic salts, followed by binding of DNA to silica membrane and washing.	Widely used in wastewater metagenomic studies for consistency [28].	High-quality, inhibitor-free DNA; standardized, reproducible protocols.	Cost per sample can be high; may have lower efficiency for Gram-positive bacteria.

{## Detailed Experimental Protocols}

To ensure reproducibility, below are detailed protocols for two methods highlighted in the search results, adapted for ARG analysis.

{### Protocol 1: Ultrasonic Extraction and SPE Purification from Biological Tissue [30]}

This protocol is designed for challenging biological matrices like shellfish软组织, which are rich in inhibitors.

• Sample Preparation: Homogenize the freeze-dried tissue and weigh 0.2 g of the powder into a 50 mL centrifuge tube.
• Spiking and Equilibration: Add a suitable internal standard (e.g., isotope-labeled antibiotics), vortex to mix, and let it equilibrate in a fume hood overnight.
• Ultrasonic Extraction:
  • Add 8 mL of extraction solvent (e.g., 80% acetonitrile or 80% methanol).
  • Vortex for 1 minute to ensure thorough mixing.
  • Sonicate the mixture for 15 minutes at 42 kHz.
  • Centrifuge at 5000 rpm for 5 minutes and transfer the supernatant to a new tube.
  • Repeat the extraction step once and combine the supernatants (~16 mL total).
• Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Cleanup:
  • For Oasis PRiME HLB: Pass 10 mL of the combined extract directly through the SPE cartridge without prior conditioning. Collect the eluate, as target analytes pass through while impurities are retained.
  • For Oasis HLB: Condition the cartridge with 5 mL methanol and 5 mL distilled water. Dilute the extract in 400 mL distilled water, add 0.2 g Na₄EDTA, and adjust the pH. Load the sample, wash with 10 mL water, dry the cartridge under vacuum for ~1 hour, and elute targets with 10 mL methanol.
• Concentration and Analysis: Evaporate the eluate to near dryness under a gentle nitrogen stream at 35°C. Reconstitute the residue in 1 mL of initial mobile phase (e.g., acetonitrile:water, 1:1 v/v), filter through a 0.22 μm membrane, and analyze via UPLC-MS/MS or PCR.

{### Protocol 2: Integrated Workflow for ARG Analysis from Water [29]}

This protocol combines culture-based and culture-independent (metagenomic) techniques for a comprehensive analysis.

• Sample Collection and Concentration:
  • Collect water samples in sterile containers and filter through sterile cheesecloth to remove large particulates.
  • Concentrate microorganisms via membrane filtration onto 0.22 μm filters or by centrifugation.
• Total and Antibiotic-Resistant Bacterial Counts:
  • Plate appropriate dilutions of the concentrated sample onto general media (e.g., R2A agar) and onto the same media supplemented with specific antibiotics (e.g., 3 μg/mL cefotaxime, 0.5 μg/mL ciprofloxacin).
  • Incubate plates at 35–37°C for 48 hours.
  • Calculate colony-forming units (CFU) per mL for both total and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• DNA Extraction for Metagenomics:
  • Extract total genomic DNA directly from the concentrated biomass or filters using a commercial silica-column-based kit, following the manufacturer's instructions.
  • This DNA represents the entire microbial community, including unculturable organisms.
• Downstream Analysis:
  • Use the extracted DNA for HT qPCR with primers targeting specific ARGs, mobile genetic elements (MGEs), and pathogens [28].
  • Alternatively, prepare and sequence metagenomic libraries for untargeted resistome and microbiome profiling [28].

{## Workflow Visualization}

The following diagram illustrates the logical decision-making process for selecting the appropriate methodology based on research objectives and sample type.

{#graphviz}

{## The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials}

The following table lists key reagents and materials critical for successfully executing the concentration and DNA extraction protocols for ARG analysis.

{#table3} Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for ARG Analysis from Complex Matrices

Item	Function/Benefit	Example Use Case
Oasis PRiME HLB SPE Cartridge [30]	A reverse-phase sorbent for purifying extracts; requires no conditioning and removes phospholipids and other matrix interferents.	Cleanup of ultrasonic extracts from shellfish tissue prior to UPLC-MS/MS analysis [30].
R2A Agar [29]	A low-nutrient culture medium designed to support the growth of stressed and environmental microorganisms, including those from water systems.	Culturing and enumerating heterotrophic bacteria and antibiotic-resistant isolates from water samples [29].
Na₄EDTA [30]	A chelating agent that binds metal ions, preventing them from interfering with the analysis of certain antibiotic classes.	Added to extraction buffers to improve the recovery and stability of antibiotics like tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones [30].
Internal Standards (e.g., Isotope-labeled antibiotics) [30]	Compounds with nearly identical chemical behavior to the analytes of interest, used to correct for losses during sample preparation and matrix effects during analysis.	Added to samples before extraction to quantify antibiotic concentrations via mass spectrometry [30].
0.22 μm Nylon Filters	For sterile filtration of samples to remove particulate matter and for sterilizing solutions and buffers.	Initial filtration of water samples and final filtration of DNA extracts before instrumental analysis [30] [29].

{## Conclusion}

The selection of concentration and DNA extraction methods is a critical determinant in the successful evaluation of antibiotic resistance gene distribution. No single method is universally superior; the optimal choice is a deliberate compromise dictated by the sample matrix, the specific ARG targets, and the analytical endpoint (e.g., qPCR vs. metagenomics). For targeted, sensitive detection of specific ARGs in inhibitor-rich matrices like animal tissues, a robust method combining ultrasonic extraction with SPE purification is highly effective [30]. Conversely, for broad-spectrum resistome discovery in wastewater, sample concentration followed by commercial kit DNA extraction and metagenomic sequencing provides the most comprehensive picture [28] [29]. Researchers must clearly report their chosen methodologies to enable valid cross-study comparisons and advance our collective understanding of ARG dynamics within the "One Health" framework.

The precise quantification of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) is fundamental to understanding their distribution, abundance, and transmission across different hosts and environments, from the human gut to agricultural settings and wastewater systems. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) are two cornerstone technologies for this task. While both amplify target nucleic acids with high specificity, their underlying principles and performance characteristics differ significantly. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of qPCR and ddPCR to help researchers select the optimal method for the absolute quantification of ARGs in complex samples, a critical need in the era of growing antimicrobial resistance [31].

The core difference between qPCR and ddPCR lies in how the PCR reaction is processed and quantified.

• Quantitative PCR (qPCR): This method amplifies target DNA in a bulk reaction. Fluorescence is measured in real-time during the exponential phase of amplification, and the cycle threshold (Ct) at which the signal crosses a predefined level is used for quantification. This Ct value is compared to a standard curve to determine the starting concentration, resulting in a relative quantification that is dependent on the calibration standards [32] [33] [31].

• Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR): This technique partitions a single PCR reaction into thousands of nanoliter-sized droplets, creating individual microreactors. Amplification occurs within each droplet, which is then read at the endpoint and scored as positive or negative based on fluorescence. The absolute concentration of the target molecule is then calculated directly using Poisson statistics, without the need for a standard curve [34] [32] [31].

The workflow for both technologies, from sample preparation to data analysis, is summarized below.

Head-to-Head Performance Comparison

The choice between qPCR and ddPCR has profound implications for the sensitivity, precision, and robustness of ARG quantification, especially in challenging, inhibitor-prone environmental samples.

Quantitative Performance Data

The following table summarizes key performance metrics for qPCR and ddPCR based on experimental data from various studies.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of qPCR and ddPCR for Nucleic Acid Quantification

Performance Parameter	qPCR	ddPCR	Experimental Context & Key Findings
Quantification Type	Relative (requires standard curve) [32] [31]	Absolute (no standard curve) [32] [31]	ddPCR provides a direct count of target molecules [31].
Limit of Detection (LOD)	Higher LOD [33]	10-fold lower LOD than qPCR in some studies [33]	Enables detection of rare targets and low-abundance ARGs [34] [31].
Precision & Reproducibility	Good for high-abundance targets [35]	Superior precision for low-abundance targets (Cq ≥ 29) [35]	A 2017 study found ddPCR produced more precise and reproducible data with low-level targets [35].
Tolerance to PCR Inhibitors	Susceptible; inhibitors affect amplification efficiency and Ct values [34] [36]	High tolerance; partitioning minimizes inhibitor impact [34] [32]	In environmental samples with inhibitors, ddPCR maintained precise quantification where qPCR faltered [34] [35].
Dynamic Range	Broad dynamic range [32] [36]	Can saturate at high target concentrations (>106 copies/µL) [33]	qPCR is suitable for wider concentration ranges, while ddPCR excels at low copy numbers [32].
Ability to Detect Small Fold-Changes	Lower precision for small differences [32]	High precision; can detect fold-changes as low as 10% [32]	Critical for accurately measuring subtle shifts in ARG abundance in response to environmental pressures.

Application in ARG and Complex Environmental Samples

The theoretical advantages of ddPCR are borne out in practical applications involving complex samples. A 2025 study on ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB)—a functionally important group in nitrogen cycling—directly compared the technologies on samples from wastewater treatment plants and environmental water. The study found that ddPCR "produced precise, reproducible, and statistically significant results in all samples," particularly outperforming qPCR in complex samples characterized by low target levels and high backgrounds of non-target DNA and PCR inhibitors [34]. This robustness is attributed to the partitioning step, which dilutes inhibitors across thousands of droplets, making the amplification in individual droplets less susceptible to interference [34] [35]. Furthermore, ddPCR's superior sensitivity makes it the preferred tool for detecting rare targets and minute (≤2-fold) changes in expression, which are often critical in gene expression studies and monitoring the emergence of low-abundance ARGs [35].

Experimental Protocols for ARG Quantification

To ensure reproducible and high-quality results, adherence to validated experimental protocols is essential. The following methodologies are adapted from cited comparative studies.

Sample Collection, DNA Extraction, and Quality Control

• Sampling and Storage: Collect environmental samples (e.g., activated sludge, freshwater, soil) in sterile containers. For biomass, centrifuge and store the pellet at -20°C until DNA extraction. Filter large-volume water samples through polycarbonate membranes (0.22 µm pore size) and store the filters at -20°C [34].
• DNA Extraction: Use commercial kits (e.g., DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit, QIAGEN) according to the manufacturer's protocol to ensure consistency and efficiency [34] [36].
• DNA Quality Control: Assess DNA concentration and purity using a spectrophotometer (e.g., NanoDrop). High-quality DNA typically has a 260/280 ratio of ~1.8-2.0. Low 260/230 ratios may indicate the presence of residual inhibitors from the sample matrix [34].

Primer and Probe Design

• Target Selection: For ARG quantification, primers and probes must be highly specific to the target gene sequence. Utilize in silico tools and existing literature for design [36] [33].
• Validation: Primer specificity and optimal annealing temperature should be determined experimentally through temperature gradient PCR and analysis of melt curves (for SYBR Green assays) or in silico tools followed by gel electrophoresis to confirm a single amplicon of the expected size [34] [33].

Detailed qPCR Protocol

• Reaction Setup: Prepare a reaction mix containing 1x qPCR master mix (e.g., SYBR Green or TaqMan), forward and reverse primers (typically 0.2-0.5 µM each), and template DNA (typically 2 µL per reaction). Adjust volumes with nuclease-free water [34] [33].
• Thermal Cycling: Run reactions on a real-time PCR instrument with a standard protocol: initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 min; 40 cycles of 95°C for 30 s (denaturation), primer-specific annealing temperature (e.g., 55-60°C) for 30 s, and 72°C for 1 min (extension) [34].
• Data Analysis: Generate a standard curve using a serial dilution of a known concentration of the target gene (e.g., plasmid DNA). Use this curve to interpolate the quantity of the target in unknown samples based on their Ct values [33] [31].

Detailed ddPCR Protocol

• Reaction Setup: Prepare a reaction mix similar to qPCR but using a ddPCR supermix (e.g., QX200 ddPCR EvaGreen Supermix or ddPCR Supermix for Probes from Bio-Rad). The total reaction volume is typically 20-22 µL [34] [37].
• Droplet Generation: Load the reaction mix into an 8-channel droplet generation cartridge along with droplet generation oil. Use a droplet generator (e.g., QX200 Droplet Generator, Bio-Rad) to create thousands of nanoliter-sized droplets [34].
• PCR Amplification: Transfer the emulsion to a 96-well PCR plate and run a conventional end-point PCR protocol on a thermal cycler. The cycling conditions are similar to qPCR but with a final droplet stabilization step [34] [37].
• Droplet Reading and Analysis: After amplification, place the plate in a droplet reader (e.g., QX200 Droplet Reader, Bio-Rad) that reads each droplet sequentially. The software counts the positive and negative droplets and uses Poisson statistics to calculate the absolute concentration of the target DNA in copies/µL [34] [31].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of qPCR and ddPCR assays relies on a core set of reliable reagents and instruments.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for ARG Quantification

Category	Specific Product Examples	Function & Application Notes
DNA Extraction Kits	DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (QIAGEN) [34]	Efficiently extracts high-quality DNA from complex, inhibitor-rich samples like soil, sludge, and feces.
qPCR Master Mixes	SYBR Green Master Mix, TaqMan Universal PCR Master Mix [34]	Contains all components for the qPCR reaction. SYBR Green binds double-stranded DNA; TaqMan uses a target-specific probe for higher specificity.
ddPCR Master Mixes	QX200 ddPCR EvaGreen Supermix, ddPCR Supermix for Probes (Bio-Rad) [34] [37]	Formulated for optimal droplet stability and PCR efficiency within the water-in-oil emulsion system.
Droplet Generation Oil	DG Cartridges and Oil for Probes or EvaGreen (Bio-Rad) [34]	Specialized oil used to generate stable, uniform droplets during the partitioning process.
Primers & Probes	Custom-designed, strain-specific primers and hydrolysis probes (e.g., TaqMan) [34] [36]	Designed for high specificity to the target ARG sequence. Crucial for assay accuracy and minimizing false positives.
Digital PCR Systems	QX200 ddPCR System (Bio-Rad), QIAcuity (QIAGEN) [37] [38]	Integrated systems for droplet generation, thermal cycling, and droplet reading. Nanoplate-based systems (QIAcuity) offer a more streamlined workflow.

The choice between qPCR and ddPCR is not a matter of one being universally superior, but rather of selecting the right tool for the specific research question and sample type.

• Choose qPCR if: Your project requires high-throughput analysis of a large number of samples, the target ARG is expected to be moderately to highly abundant, the sample is known to be clean with minimal inhibitors, and your budget is a primary constraint. qPCR remains a powerful, cost-effective, and well-established workhorse for many applications [32] [36] [39].

• Choose ddPCR if: Your research focuses on the absolute quantification of ARGs without relying on standards, you are working with low-abundance targets or need to detect small fold-changes, or your samples are complex and contain PCR inhibitors (e.g., wastewater, soil, feces). ddPCR's partitioning technology provides unparalleled sensitivity, precision, and robustness under these challenging conditions, making it the definitive tool for the most demanding ARG quantification studies [34] [35] [31].

For a comprehensive investigation of antibiotic resistance gene distribution across hosts and environments, a synergistic approach may be optimal: using qPCR for initial, broad screening and leveraging ddPCR for the absolute, precise quantification of critical, low-abundance ARGs in the most complex sample matrices.

The rapid spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents one of the most significant public health threats globally, with estimates suggesting AMR may claim 10 million lives annually by 2050 [40]. The rise of affordable whole-genome sequencing has transformed AMR surveillance, enabling researchers to investigate the distribution of resistance genes across diverse hosts and environments through computational annotation pipelines [41] [42]. These bioinformatic tools identify known antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) and mutations in bacterial genomes, allowing for large-scale genomic epidemiology studies that track the dissemination of resistance mechanisms across clinical, agricultural, and environmental settings [40] [43].

Within this context, three platforms have emerged as fundamental resources for AMR research: AMRFinderPlus from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) with its Resistance Gene Identifier (RGI), and ResFinder from the Center for Genomic Epidemiology (CGE) [40] [41] [42]. Each offers distinct approaches to detecting resistance determinants, with variations in database curation, annotation methodologies, and functional capabilities that influence their application in research settings. This guide provides an objective comparison of these tools' performance characteristics, supported by experimental data, to assist researchers in selecting appropriate methodologies for investigating ARG distribution across host species.

AMRFinderPlus and NCBI's Reference Gene Catalog

AMRFinderPlus is a tool developed by NCBI that identifies acquired antimicrobial resistance genes, stress response genes, virulence factors, and point mutations in assembled bacterial nucleotide or protein sequences [44] [41]. Its underlying database, the Reference Gene Catalog, incorporates a comprehensive collection of curated AMR elements, including genes conferring resistance to 31 classes of drugs and point mutations contributing to resistance to 25 drug classes [41]. A distinctive feature of AMRFinderPlus is its classification of genes into "core" (primarily AMR genes) and "plus" categories (encompassing stress response, virulence, and biocide resistance elements), allowing researchers to focus analyses based on their specific research questions [41].

The tool employs a dual detection approach, utilizing both BLAST with manually curated cutoffs and Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) to identify resistance determinants [41]. This multi-faceted methodology enhances detection sensitivity for divergent resistance genes while maintaining specificity through carefully validated thresholds. AMRFinderPlus is integrated into NCBI's Pathogen Detection pipeline, where it processes hundreds of thousands of bacterial isolates, with results publicly available through the Isolate Browser and MicroBIGG-E platforms [44].

CARD and the Resistance Gene Identifier (RGI)

The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) is a bioinformatic database that employs the Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO) as its foundational organizing principle for resistance genes, their products, and associated phenotypes [45] [43]. This ontological approach provides a robust classification system that links molecular sequences to their antibiotic targets, resistance mechanisms, and associated scientific literature. As of recent statistics, CARD contains 8,582 ontology terms, 6,442 reference sequences, 4,480 SNPs, and 6,480 AMR detection models [45].

CARD's analytical component, the Resistance Gene Identifier (RGI), functions as the primary tool for resistome prediction from molecular sequences [43]. RGI operates through multiple detection models, including homology-based searches, SNP mutations, and protein variant models, enabling comprehensive identification of both acquired resistance genes and chromosomal mutations [45] [43]. The database is rigorously curated, incorporating only sequences available in GenBank and associated with peer-reviewed publications, with an emphasis on experimental validation of resistance mechanisms [43] [46].

ResFinder and PointFinder

ResFinder is an open web-based resource specifically designed to identify acquired antimicrobial resistance genes in bacterial genomes, with an emphasis on facilitating analysis for researchers with limited bioinformatics experience [47] [42]. Developed by the Center for Genomic Epidemiology (CGE), ResFinder specializes in detecting horizontally acquired resistance genes, while its companion tool, PointFinder, focuses on identifying chromosomal mutations conferring resistance in specific bacterial species [47] [42].

A distinctive feature of the ResFinder pipeline is its implementation of the KMA (k-mer alignment) tool, which enables direct alignment of raw sequencing reads against its redundant databases, bypassing the computationally intensive genome assembly process [42]. This approach significantly reduces analysis time, with processing of typical whole-genome sequencing samples completed in under 10 seconds [42]. Since its original publication in 2012, ResFinder has expanded to include phenotypic prediction based on identified genotypes for selected bacterial species, enhancing its utility for clinical surveillance applications [42].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of AMR Annotation Tools

Feature	AMRFinderPlus	CARD/RGI	ResFinder/PointFinder
Primary Developer	NCBI	McMaster University	Technical University of Denmark
Database Organization	Reference Gene Catalog	Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO)	Manually curated FASTA files
Last Update	2021 (cited in literature)	Continuously updated	2024 (software and database)
Detection Scope	Acquired genes, point mutations, stress response, virulence	Acquired genes, mutations, efflux pumps, enzymatic resistance	Acquired genes (ResFinder), chromosomal mutations (PointFinder)
Analysis Approach	BLAST with curated cutoffs & HMMs	Multiple models: homology, SNP, protein variant	KMA for raw reads, BLAST+ for assemblies
Gene Coverage	6,428 genes (2020 version)	6,442 reference sequences	Species-specific focus
Mutation Coverage	682 point mutations (2020 version)	4,480 SNPs	Limited to specific bacterial pathogens

Performance Comparison and Experimental Validation

Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity

Independent validation studies have provided performance metrics for these annotation tools under controlled conditions. In a comprehensive assessment using the abritAMR platform (which utilizes AMRFinderPlus as its detection engine) tested against 1,500 bacteria and 415 resistance alleles, the system demonstrated 99.9% accuracy, 97.9% sensitivity, and 100% specificity when compared to PCR and reference genomes [48]. The pipeline showed exceptional performance for high-risk AMR gene classes, including carbapenemases and ESBLs, with 99.9% accuracy, 98.9% sensitivity, and 100% specificity [48].

A 2025 comparative assessment examining annotation tools for Klebsiella pneumoniae genomes evaluated eight popular tools, including AMRFinderPlus, RGI (using CARD), and ResFinder [46]. This analysis revealed that while all tools performed well, they exhibited differences in gene annotation completeness, which subsequently affected the performance of machine learning models trained to predict resistance phenotypes. The study highlighted that database curation practices significantly influenced annotation results, with tools employing stringent validation criteria (like CARD) sometimes excluding putative resistance genes that other systems might include [46].

Concordance with Phenotypic Testing

A critical measure of utility for AMR annotation tools is their ability to correlate genotypic findings with phenotypic resistance patterns. In a validation study examining 864 Salmonella isolates, genomic predictions generated using AMRFinderPlus demonstrated 98.9% concordance with agar dilution phenotypic testing results [48]. Similarly, a study of mercury-resistant Salmonella isolates found complete agreement between AMRFinderPlus genotypic calls and phenotypic resistance for both antimicrobial compounds and heavy metals [41].

The ResFinder platform has incorporated phenotypic prediction directly into its analytical pipeline since version 4.0, providing interpretations for 3,124 different gene variants based on published literature and manual curation [42]. This functionality represents a significant advancement toward translating genomic findings into clinically relevant predictions, though its performance varies across bacterial species and antibiotic classes.

Table 2: Experimental Performance Metrics from Validation Studies

Performance Measure	AMRFinderPlus	CARD/RGI	ResFinder
Overall Accuracy	99.9% (abritAMR validation) [48]	Varies by organism and drug class [46]	High concordance for targeted species [42]
Sensitivity	97.9% (abritAMR validation) [48]	Comprehensive for curated genes [46]	97.5% for targeted alleles [42]
Specificity	100% (abritAMR validation) [48]	High for validated mechanisms [43]	99.8% for targeted alleles [42]
Phenotypic Concordance	98.9% (Salmonella spp.) [48]	Not explicitly reported	High for specific species [42]
False Negative Sources	Contig breaks in high-GC genes; multiple allele collapse [48]	Stringent validation excludes some putative genes [46]	Primarily novel or divergent variants [42]
Limitations	Partial genes at contig breaks; complex allele families [48]	Less clinically focused; may include research-grade entries [42]	Species-specific for mutation detection [47]

Comparative Performance in Knowledge Gap Identification

The 2025 comparative assessment by Sratonasthan et al. provided unique insights into how different annotation tools perform in identifying knowledge gaps in AMR mechanisms [46]. Researchers built "minimal models" of resistance using only known markers from each database to predict binary resistance phenotypes for 20 antimicrobials in Klebsiella pneumoniae. The performance of these models revealed where known resistance mechanisms insufficiently explained observed phenotypic resistance, thereby highlighting priorities for novel marker discovery.

This analysis found that the choice of annotation tool and reference database significantly influenced model performance, with variations in the completeness of gene annotations across tools [46]. Importantly, the study demonstrated that for some antibiotic classes, even the most comprehensive databases remained insufficient for accurate phenotypic classification, underscoring the need for continued database expansion and refinement.

Implementation Considerations

Computational Workflows and Integration

Each tool offers distinct implementation options suited to different research environments. AMRFinderPlus is available as command-line software through GitHub, with databases regularly updated by NCBI [49]. Its integration into larger bioinformatic pipelines, such as the ISO-certified abritAMR platform, demonstrates its utility in standardized clinical and public health reporting workflows [48].

CARD provides multiple access methods, including web-based analysis, downloadable data files, and the command-line RGI tool [45] [43]. Its ontological structure supports sophisticated querying capabilities and interoperability with other bioinformatic resources. The recently introduced CARD:Live platform offers dynamic visualization of antibiotic-resistant isolates being analyzed worldwide, providing valuable epidemiological context [45].

ResFinder offers both web-based and stand-alone versions, with the web service specifically designed for researchers with limited bioinformatics expertise [47] [42]. Its efficient KMA-based approach enables rapid analysis even on computing-limited environments, making it particularly suitable for frontline laboratories in resource-limited settings.

Diagram 1: AMR Annotation Workflow Integration. This diagram illustrates the interconnected components of antimicrobial resistance annotation pipelines, from input data options through database selection, analytical tools, and research applications.

Database Currency and Curation Practices

Database maintenance practices significantly impact tool performance. The 2022 review of AMR gene databases noted that while numerous resources exist, many are no longer actively updated [40]. ARDB, for instance, was last updated in 2009, and ARG-ANNOT was archived in 2018 [40]. In contrast, CARD, AMRFinderPlus, and ResFinder maintain regular update schedules, ensuring incorporation of newly discovered resistance mechanisms.

Curation philosophies differ substantially among the active databases. CARD employs rigorous experimental validation criteria, focusing on mechanisms with demonstrated phenotypic effects [43] [46]. ResFinder emphasizes clinical relevance, prioritizing acquired resistance genes with documented roles in treatment failure [42]. AMRFinderPlus takes a comprehensive approach, including not only core AMR genes but also stress response and virulence factors that may indirectly contribute to resistance profiles [41]. These philosophical differences directly affect database composition and should guide tool selection based on research objectives.

Table 3: Implementation Considerations for Different Research Contexts

Consideration	AMRFinderPlus	CARD/RGI	ResFinder/PointFinder
Ease of Use	Command-line tool; requires bioinformatics expertise [49]	Web interface and command-line; moderate learning curve [45]	Web-based for beginners; command-line for advanced [42]
Ideal Use Case	Regulatory and public health surveillance [48]	Mechanistic research and comprehensive resistome analysis [43]	Clinical front-line diagnostics; LMICs [42]
Update Frequency	Regular (integrated with NCBI pathogen detection) [44]	Continuous [45]	Regular (2024 database update) [47]
Strengths	Integration with NCBI resources; ISO-certification possible [48]	Ontological organization; research community support [43]	Speed; user-friendly interface; phenotype prediction [42]
Limitations	May require computational resources for large datasets [49]	Complex ontology may have steep learning curve [43]	Web version has file size limits (100MB) [47]

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Computational Resources for AMR Annotation

Resource Name	Type	Function in AMR Research
NCBI Reference Gene Catalog	Database	Comprehensive collection of curated AMR genes, point mutations, and stress response elements [44] [41]
Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO)	Ontology	Standardized vocabulary and classification system for resistance elements [45] [43]
CARD Detection Models	Analytical Models	Homology, SNP, and variant models for identifying resistance mechanisms [45] [43]
KMA Algorithm	Software Tool	Rapid k-mer alignment for direct analysis of raw sequencing reads [42]
Hidden Markov Models (HMMs)	Analytical Models	Protein family profiles for detecting divergent resistance genes [41] [43]
abritAMR Platform	Workflow	ISO-certified implementation of AMRFinderPlus for clinical reporting [48]

The comparative analysis of AMRFinderPlus, CARD, and ResFinder reveals that each platform offers distinct advantages depending on research context and objectives. For public health surveillance and integrated pathogen analysis, AMRFinderPlus provides robust performance within the NCBI ecosystem, with demonstrated accuracy exceeding 99.9% in validated implementations [48]. For mechanistic studies investigating resistance ontology and comprehensive resistome annotation, CARD's structured ontological approach offers unparalleled depth [43]. For clinical applications, particularly in resource-limited settings, ResFinder's user-friendly interface and rapid analysis capabilities make it particularly valuable [42].

Critical knowledge gaps remain in AMR annotation, particularly for certain antibiotic-bacterium combinations where even the most comprehensive databases insufficiently explain observed phenotypic resistance [46]. Future developments in machine learning approaches, expanded validation datasets, and standardized benchmarking protocols will further enhance the utility of these tools for tracking ARG distribution across hosts and environments. Researchers should consider their specific use cases, technical capabilities, and required level of validation when selecting among these complementary platforms for investigating the dissemination of antimicrobial resistance.

The rapid dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) represents a critical threat to global public health. Understanding the distribution and transmission of these genes requires precise methods to link ARGs to their microbial hosts within complex communities. Two powerful computational approaches have emerged for this task: metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) and co-occurrence network analysis. MAGs provide a genome-centric view, enabling direct linkage of ARGs to specific bacterial taxa and their mobile genetic elements (MGEs). In contrast, co-occurrence network analysis infers potential host relationships through statistical correlation patterns across multiple samples. This guide objectively compares the performance, applications, and limitations of these methodologies within antibiotic resistance research, providing researchers with data-driven insights for selecting appropriate approaches for their specific study systems.

Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs) Workflow

The MAGs approach reconstructs complete or near-complete microbial genomes directly from metagenomic sequencing data without cultivation. The process begins with quality control of raw sequencing reads, including adapter removal and trimming of low-quality bases. Human and other host DNA is filtered out to enrich for microbial sequences. The cleaned reads are then assembled into longer contiguous sequences (contigs) using specialized metagenomic assemblers. Contigs are binned into draft genomes based on sequence composition (k-mer frequencies) and abundance patterns across samples. These genome bins are refined by removing contaminating sequences and assessing completion and contamination levels using single-copy marker genes. High-quality MAGs are then annotated to identify ARGs, MGEs, and taxonomic classifications [50] [51].

Co-occurrence Network Analysis Workflow

Co-occurrence network analysis infers relationships between ARGs and microbial taxa through statistical correlation patterns across multiple samples. The process begins with generating abundance profiles of ARGs (often via high-throughput quantitative PCR or metagenomic read mapping) and microbial taxa (via 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing or metagenomic taxonomy assignment). These paired abundance matrices are then analyzed using correlation measures such as Spearman's rank correlation, which detects monotonic relationships, or Pearson's correlation for linear relationships. Statistically significant correlations are used to construct networks where nodes represent ARGs and microbial taxa, and edges represent significant correlations. The resulting networks are analyzed to identify keystone species, hub genes, and modules of strongly interconnected nodes. Putative host relationships are inferred based on persistent correlation patterns across environmental gradients [52].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of MAGs and Co-occurrence Network Analysis

Feature	Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs)	Co-occurrence Network Analysis
Primary Data Source	Metagenomic shotgun sequencing	Paired ARG & microbial abundance data (qPCR/sequencing)
Underlying Principle	Physical linkage on DNA sequences	Statistical correlation across samples
Host Resolution	Species to strain level	Genus to family level (typically)
ARG Mobility Assessment	Direct (plasmid/chromosome location)	Indirect (correlation with MGEs)
Key Advantage	Direct physical evidence	Captures community-level interactions
Main Limitation	Requires sufficient coverage for assembly	Inferential without physical proof

Figure 1: Comparative Workflows of MAGs and Co-occurrence Network Analysis. The MAGs approach (blue) relies on physical linkage evidence, while co-occurrence analysis (red) infers relationships through statistical correlation.

Performance Comparison and Experimental Data

Precision and Resolution in Host Identification

MAGs Approach provides high-resolution host identification, enabling precise taxonomic classification and even strain-level differentiation. A comprehensive analysis of 165 wastewater metagenomes reconstructed 5,916 MAGs, which were dereplicated into 1,204 genome operational taxonomic units (gOTUs) as a proxy for species. This approach precisely identified Escherichia, Klebsiella, Acinetobacter, Gresbergeria, Mycobacterium, and Thauera as major hosts of ARGs. Notably, 253 MAGs carried virulence factor genes (VFGs), with 45 MAGs carrying both VFGs and ARGs, indicating potential pathogenic hosts. Alarmingly, a MAG identified as Escherichia coli contained 159 VFGs, with 95 located on chromosomes and 10 on plasmids, demonstrating the method's precision in locating genetic elements [50].

Co-occurrence Network Analysis typically provides genus-level resolution, with more limited capacity for strain-level discrimination. A study of coastal environments affected by wastewater discharge used this approach to identify 12 bacterial genera, including Psychrobacter, Pseudomonas, Sulfitobacter, Pseudoalteromonas, and Bacillus, that showed strong positive correlations with ARGs and MGEs. The analysis revealed that multidrug and β-lactam resistance genes had the highest number of potential hosts. While this method successfully identified broad host patterns, it could not precisely determine whether ARGs were chromosomally encoded or plasmid-borne [52].

Table 2: Performance Comparison in Environmental Studies

Performance Metric	MAGs Approach	Co-occurrence Network Analysis
Host Resolution	Species to strain level	Genus to family level
ARG Mobility Assessment	Direct identification via plasmid/chromosome location	Indirect inference via MGE correlation
Detection of Multi-ARG Carriers	Direct evidence: 18/89 ARG-carrying genomes harbored multiple ARGs & MGEs [51]	Statistical inference: Multidrug & β-lactam ARGs had most potential hosts [52]
Pathogen Identification	Direct: 6 opportunistic pathogens identified as ARG carriers [51]	Indirect: Based on correlation with known pathogenic genera
Technical Requirements	High sequencing depth (>10Gbp), computational resources	Moderate sequencing depth, statistical computing
Application in Low-Biomass Environments	Challenging without sufficient biomass	More feasible with optimized sampling

Detection of Mobile Genetic Elements and Horizontal Transfer

MAGs Approach enables direct identification of MGEs and assessment of horizontal gene transfer potential. In a study of Chinese wet markets, researchers identified 89 ARG-carrying genomes (ACGs), with 18 carrying both multiple ARGs and MGEs, indicating high potential for mobility. The analysis further revealed 164 potential horizontal gene transfer events based on ACGs, with ParS, vanB, ugd, and macB identified as potentially transferred ARG subtypes between humans and the market environment. This direct evidence for HGT potential was made possible by tracking identical ARG sequences across different taxonomic groups in reconstructed genomes [51].

Co-occurrence Network Analysis provides indirect evidence for mobility through correlation patterns between ARGs and MGEs. In coastal sediment studies, the strong co-occurrence of ARGs with MGEs like transposases and integrases in network modules suggested potential for horizontal transfer. However, this approach cannot definitively prove physical linkage or transfer events, as correlations may result from shared environmental responses rather than physical association [52].

Methodological Protocols

Detailed MAGs Protocol for ARG Host Identification

Sample Processing and Sequencing: Collect environmental samples (e.g., water, soil, feces) and preserve immediately at -80°C. Extract DNA using kits designed for environmental samples (e.g., DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit). For samples with high host contamination, use host DNA depletion kits (e.g., QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit). Prepare metagenomic libraries using Illumina Nextera XT or similar kits and sequence on Illumina platforms (2×150 bp recommended) [51].

Bioinformatic Processing:

• Quality Control: Use Fastp (v0.23.4) to trim low-quality bases (quality value <30) and remove reads with ambiguous nucleotides (>10) [51].
• Host DNA Removal: Filter reads matching host reference genomes (e.g., human GRCh38, chicken GRCg.7b) using Bowtie2 (v2.5.1) and Samtools (v1.16.1) [51].
• Metagenomic Assembly: Assemble quality-filtered reads into contigs using metaSPAdes or MEGAHIT with default parameters.
• Genome Binning: Use metaBAT2, MaxBin2, or CONCOCT to bin contigs into MAGs based on sequence composition and abundance.
• Quality Assessment: Check MAG quality using CheckM, retaining MAGs with >50% completeness and <10% contamination [50].
• ARG and MGE Annotation: Identify ARGs using ARGs-OAP (v3.0) pipeline with SARG database (v3.0). Annotate MGEs using mobileOG-db or similar databases [51].

Detailed Co-occurrence Network Analysis Protocol

ARG and Taxonomic Profiling:

• ARG Quantification: For high-throughput ARG profiling, use HT-qPCR with 296 primers (285 ARGs, 10 MGEs, 1 16S rRNA) or metagenomic read mapping. Calculate relative abundance using the 2^(-ΔCT) method for qPCR or normalization by 16S rRNA copy number for sequencing data [52].
• Microbial Community Analysis: Perform 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing (V4 region with 515F/806R primers) or metagenomic taxonomy assignment using Kraken2 (v2.1.3) and Bracken (v2.9) [51].

Network Construction:

• Correlation Calculation: Compute pairwise Spearman correlations between all ARGs and bacterial taxa across samples. Retain correlations with p-value <0.05 and correlation coefficient >0.8 [52].
• Network Generation: Build networks in R using igraph package or use MENA online platform.
• Network Analysis: Calculate topological properties (degree, betweenness centrality), identify modules, and visualize networks using Gephi (v0.9.2) [52].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Application Purpose	Key Features
DNA Extraction	DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit	Environmental DNA extraction	Effective for difficult soils/sediments
Host DNA Depletion	QIAamp DNA Microbiome Kit	Enrich microbial DNA	Selective lysis of human/mammalian cells
HT-qPCR Platform	WaferGen SmartChip	High-throughput ARG profiling	296 simultaneous reactions [52]
Sequencing Library Prep	Illumina Nextera XT	Metagenomic library preparation	Rapid tagmentation-based protocol
ARG Database	SARG v3.0	ARG annotation	Structured ARG reference database
MGE Database	mobileOG-db	Mobile genetic element annotation	Curated database of MGE proteins
Assembly Software	metaSPAdes	Metagenomic assembly	Handges complex microbial communities
Binning Tool	metaBAT2	MAG reconstruction	Bayesian abundance-based binning
Network Platform	MENA (Molecular Ecological Network Analysis)	Co-occurrence network construction	Online pipeline for network inference

Applications in Environmental Monitoring and One Health

The integration of both MAGs and co-occurrence network analysis provides powerful insights into ARG dissemination across One Health compartments (human, animal, environment). In wastewater treatment plants—considered hotspots for ARG dissemination—MAGs analysis of 165 metagenomes revealed that dominant ARG classes included bacitracin, multi-drug, macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin (MLS), glycopeptide, and aminoglycoside resistance, with 10.26% located on plasmids [50]. This precise localization informs risk assessment by identifying which ARGs are mobile.

Co-occurrence network analysis excels in identifying community-wide patterns and environmental drivers. In coastal areas affected by wastewater discharge, this approach demonstrated that effluent receiving areas had significantly higher ARG and MGE diversity and abundance compared to offshore areas, revealing the impact of human activities on resistome dissemination [52].

In Chinese wet markets—critical interfaces for human-animal interaction—MAGs approach identified 1,080 ARG subtypes across 36 metagenomes, with 221 subtypes shared among humans, chickens, and the environment [51]. This precise tracking of shared ARGs demonstrates how these methods can identify transmission hotspots and inform intervention strategies.

MAGs and co-occurrence network analysis offer complementary strengths for linking ARGs to their microbial hosts. MAGs provide high-resolution, direct evidence of ARG hosts and mobility potential, making them ideal for targeted risk assessment and precise intervention planning. Co-occurrence network analysis offers broader community-level insights and identification of environmental drivers, making it valuable for ecosystem-level monitoring and hypothesis generation. The selection between these methods depends on research objectives, sample types, and computational resources. For comprehensive ARG surveillance, a sequential approach that uses co-occurrence analysis for broad screening followed by MAGs for detailed investigation of high-risk targets represents an optimal strategy for advancing antibiotic resistance research within the One Health framework.

Overcoming Resistome Research Hurdles: Inhibition, Standardization, and Knowledge Gaps

Addressing PCR Inhibition and Matrix Effects in Environmental Samples

This guide compares current methods for overcoming PCR inhibition and matrix effects when detecting antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and pathogens in complex environmental samples, a critical challenge in tracking ARG distribution across hosts.

Comparative Analysis of Key Methodologies

The table below summarizes the performance of major approaches for handling PCR inhibition in environmental samples, based on recent experimental studies.

Method Category	Specific Method/Reagent	Reported Performance & Experimental Data	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
PCR Enhancers & Additives	T4 gene 32 protein (gp32)	Eliminated false negatives in wastewater; optimal at 0.2 μg/μL [53].	Effective humic acid binding; simple addition to reaction [53].	Requires concentration optimization for different sample types.
	Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA)	Eliminated false negatives in wastewater; less effective than gp32 [53].	Widely available and cost-effective [53].	Variable effectiveness against different inhibitor types.
Inhibitor-Tolerant Polymerases	Phire Hot Start DNA Polymerase + STR Boost	Limit of Detection (LOD) in femtogram range for soil samples [54].	Specifically designed for difficult matrices like soil and blood [54].	Performance varies significantly across different matrices [54].
	KAPA Blood PCR Kit	Most consistent results across various sample matrices (blood, sputum, soil) [54].	Reliable performance for diverse sample types [54].	May not be the most sensitive option for any single matrix [54].
Digital PCR (dPCR)	Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR)	More accurate quantification in inhibitor presence; 100% detection of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater vs. qPCR false negatives [53] [34].	Absolute quantification without standard curve; partitions inhibitors [55] [34].	Higher cost; longer processing time; platform accessibility [53].
Sample Pre-Treatment & Isolation	Multi-filter PCI isolation	4.4X higher eDNA yield vs. single filter; enables larger water volumes [56].	Increases template capture, reducing false negatives from low concentrations [56].	More labor-intensive; requires phenol-chloroform handling.
	CTAB-PCI isolation	Highest eDNA yields and inhibitor reduction in tannin-laden water [56].	Excellent for samples rich in organic inhibitors (humics, tannins) [56].	CTAB requires careful handling.
Sample Dilution	10-fold dilution	Common strategy to reduce inhibitor concentration [53].	Simple and low-cost [53].	Dilutes target nucleic acids, risking loss of sensitivity [53].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Evaluating PCR Enhancers in Wastewater

This method tests additives like gp32 and BSA for relieving inhibition [53].

• Sample Preparation: Collect 24-hour composite wastewater samples. Centrifuge and use supernatant.
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Extract RNA/DNA using a commercial kit.
• Enhancer Preparation: Prepare master mixes containing the target assay (e.g., for SARS-CoV-2) and test enhancers:
  • gp32: Add to a final concentration of 0.2 μg/μL.
  • BSA: Test multiple concentrations (e.g., 0.1-0.4 μg/μL).
  • Other Additives: DMSO, formamide, Tween-20, glycerol can be evaluated in parallel.
• RT-qPCR Run: Perform amplification with and without enhancers. Compare Cycle threshold (Cq) values and occurrence of false negatives.
• Validation: Compare the optimized RT-qPCR protocol against a reference method like RT-ddPCR on positive wastewater samples to confirm improved detection frequency and correlation [53].

Protocol for Validating Assay Sensitivity in Piggery Wastewater

This protocol evaluates RT-qPCR assays for pathogen detection in a complex matrix [57].

• Assay Selection: Select candidate RT-qPCR assays (e.g., Universal JEV, ACDP JEV G4, VIDRL2 JEV G4).
• Sensitivity Assessment (ALOD): Determine the Assay Limit of Detection (ALOD) using serial dilutions of gamma-irradiated virus in a clean matrix. ALOD is expressed as copies/reaction.
• Process Limit of Detection (PLOD): Seed gamma-irradiated virus into actual piggery wastewater. Process samples through concentration, RNA extraction, and RT-qPCR. The PLOD is the lowest concentration reliably detected and is expressed as copies per volume of wastewater (e.g., copies/10 mL) [57].
• Recovery Efficiency Calculation: (Quantity measured after sample processing / Quantity seeded) × 100%.
• Field Sample Testing: Apply all assays to a set of field-collected piggery wastewater samples. Use statistical tests (e.g., McNemar's test) to confirm significant differences in detection rates between assays [57].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function/Application
T4 gene 32 protein (gp32)	Binds to single-stranded DNA and humic acids, preventing inhibitors from interfering with polymerase activity [53].
Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA)	Competes with the polymerase for binding sites of inhibitory substances like polyphenols and humic acids [53] [54].
Inhibitor-Tolerant Polymerase Blends	Enzyme formulations resistant to common inhibitors in blood, soil, and humic substances, enabling direct PCR in some cases [55] [54].
Phenol-Chloroform-Isoamyl (PCI)	Organic extraction method effective at removing proteins and other inhibitory organic compounds co-precipitated with DNA [56].
Cetyl Trimethylammonium Bromide (CTAB)	A cationic detergent effective in precipitating and removing polysaccharides and polyphenols, which are potent PCR inhibitors [56].
Inhibitor Removal Kits (IRK)	Commercial silica-column-based kits designed with buffers to adsorb and remove specific inhibitors from environmental DNA extracts [56] [53].

PCR Inhibition Mechanisms and Workflow

Workflow for Inhibitor-Resistant ARG Detection

Challenges in Annotating Novel ARGs and Predicting Resistance Phenotypes

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a critical global health threat, necessitating advanced tools for accurately identifying antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and predicting resistance phenotypes. The central challenge lies in deciphering the complex genotype-phenotype map, where genotypic diversity translates to phenotypic resistance [58]. Traditional methods have primarily relied on additive models that assume phenotypic variation can be explained by simply summing contributions of individual genomic loci. However, this approach fails to capture nonlinear effects like epistasis, which become increasingly prevalent across broader evolutionary scales [58]. This guide objectively compares emerging machine learning methodologies against conventional bioinformatics approaches for ARG annotation and phenotype prediction, evaluating their performance, limitations, and applicability within antimicrobial resistance research.

Comparative Analysis of ARG Prediction Methodologies

Conventional Bioinformatics Approaches

Traditional identification methods for ARGs depend on sequence alignment tools such as BLAST, Bowtie, or DIAMOND against curated databases, using preset similarity cutoffs and alignment length requirements [59]. While these methods provide a foundational approach, they present significant limitations for novel ARG discovery. The false negative rate can be exceptionally high, meaning many actual ARGs are misclassified as non-ARGs by best-hit approaches [59]. Simultaneously, high sequence similarity between some non-resistant and resistant genes frequently leads to false-positive predictions, complicating accurate annotation [59]. These methods essentially operate on a principle of direct association, lacking the capacity to identify novel resistance mechanisms or model complex genetic interactions underlying resistance phenotypes.

Emerging Machine Learning Frameworks

Protein Language Models with Deep Learning: A novel deep learning framework integrates protein language models (ProtBert-BFD and ESM-1b) for feature extraction from protein sequences, coupled with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks enhanced with multi-head attention mechanisms for classification [60] [59]. ProtBert-BFD captures key sequential information, while ESM-1b encodes embeddings containing secondary and tertiary structural information [59]. This model addresses data imbalance through a cross-referencing data augmentation technique between the two protein language models, exponentially increasing limited resistance gene data for more balanced training [59].

Interpretable Machine Learning for Clinical Application: Research emphasizes developing interpretable machine learning models that capture complex, non-linear interactions between resistance-associated genes [61]. These models integrate relevant biological features to enhance realism and predictive accuracy while maintaining transparency crucial for clinical utility [61]. By focusing on phenotype-genotype synergy, these approaches aim to provide not just predictions but also insights into AMR mechanisms.

XGBoost on Surveillance Data: Studies utilizing the Pfizer ATLAS dataset, containing 917,049 bacterial isolates, have demonstrated the efficacy of gradient boosting methods [62]. The XGBoost model was applied to predict resistance outcomes using both phenotype-only data and combined phenotype-genotype data, with the antibiotic used emerging as the most influential feature for prediction [62].

Table 1: Comparison of ARG Prediction Methodologies

Method	Core Principle	Primary Applications	Key Advantages	Inherent Limitations
BLAST/DIAMOND [59]	Sequence alignment against reference databases	Initial ARG screening, known gene identification	Fast, well-established, simple to implement	High false negative rate, misses novel genes
DeepARG [59]	Multilayer perceptron model comparing sample data with known sequences	ARG identification from metagenomic data	Reduces false positives/negatives vs. BLAST	Limited by training data, poor interpretability
Protein Language Models (ProtBert-BFD/ESM-1b with LSTM) [59]	Deep learning on protein sequence embeddings and structural features	Novel ARG discovery, phenotype prediction	High biological interpretability, reduces false predictions	Computationally intensive, requires expertise
XGBoost on Surveillance Data [62]	Gradient boosting on antibiotic susceptibility testing results	Clinical resistance prediction, epidemiological studies	Handles large datasets, provides feature importance	Limited to known resistance patterns

Performance Benchmarking and Experimental Data

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Recent studies provide compelling evidence for the superior performance of AI-driven approaches over conventional methods. The protein language model with LSTM demonstrated higher accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score compared to existing methods, significantly reducing both false negative and false positive predictions [59]. In large-scale surveillance data analysis, XGBoost consistently outperformed other models, achieving AUC values of 0.96 and 0.95 for phenotype-only and phenotype-genotype datasets respectively [62]. Hyperparameter tuning yielded slight accuracy improvements, while data balancing techniques notably increased recall, enhancing the detection of true resistant cases [62].

Table 2: Performance Metrics Across Prediction Approaches

Method	Reported Accuracy	Precision	Recall	F1-Score	AUC-ROC
Traditional BLAST-based [59]	Not quantified	Not quantified	High false negative rate	Not quantified	Not quantified
DeepARG [59]	Benchmark for comparison	Benchmark for comparison	Benchmark for comparison	Benchmark for comparison	Not reported
Protein Language Model + LSTM [59]	Superior to benchmarks	Superior to benchmarks	Superior to benchmarks	Superior to benchmarks	Not reported
XGBoost (Phenotype-Only) [62]	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	0.96
XGBoost (Phenotype+Genotype) [62]	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	Not specified	0.95

Analysis of Predictive Features

Beyond overall accuracy, understanding feature importance provides crucial biological insights. In the XGBoost model applied to the Pfizer ATLAS dataset, the specific antibiotic used emerged as the most influential feature in predicting resistance outcomes [62]. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) summary plots provided model interpretability, revealing the relative contribution of various features including patient demographics, sample collection details, and genetic markers where available [62]. For protein-based models, the focus on protein sequence and structure features enhances biological interpretability from the perspective of protein linguistics, offering insights into resistance mechanisms beyond simple correlation [59].

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protein Language Model Workflow

The deep learning framework for ARG prediction involves four main modules [59]:

• Feature Extraction: Two protein language models (ProtBert-BFD and ESM-1b) focus on different structural information to construct two sets of embedding feature datasets. ProtBert-BFD encodes each amino acid as a 30-dimensional vector, while ESM-1b encodes each as a 1,280-dimensional vector [59].

• Data Processing: A cross-referencing data augmentation method addresses data imbalance by exponentially increasing examples of less prevalent ARGs during training.

• Classification Model: LSTM networks with multi-head attention mechanisms capture dependencies in the embedded feature vectors for classification.

• Result Integration: Ensemble learning strategies integrate results from multiple models into a 16-dimension vector corresponding to different ARG types, with the position containing the maximal value determining the final prediction.

Genomic Prediction Pipeline with Population Structure

For large-scale genomic prediction across diverse E. coli strains, the workflow involves extensive data preparation and specialized analytical techniques [58]:

• Data Preparation and Filtering: Processing ~2.4 million genetic variants across 7,000 strains, with assignment of reference genotypes to approximate missing data. Construction of analysis-specific datasets focuses on core genome polymorphisms for population genomics and includes both bi-allelic markers and presence/absence variation for genomic prediction.

• Population Genomic Analysis: Principal component analysis (PCA) using filtered genotypic data to explore broad patterns of genetic similarity, with mapping of sample metadata features onto principal components using multinomial logistic regression.

• Phylogenetic Inference: Strain-level phylogeny inference using IQ-TREE 2 with a GTR substitution model and ascertainment bias correction for branch length estimation from SNP data.

• Genomic Prediction Modeling: Application of regularized models that induce sparsity in marker effect estimates through Bayesian priors, allowing genotype-to-phenotype associations to drive marker selection without LD pruning.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for AMR Prediction Research

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
ProtBert-BFD [59]	Protein Language Model	Extracts embedding vectors capturing key information from protein sequences	Feature extraction for protein sequence analysis
ESM-1b [59]	Protein Language Model	Encodes embedding features containing secondary and tertiary structural information	Structural feature extraction for protein classification
CARD Database [60]	ARG Reference Database	Provides curated reference of known antibiotic resistance genes	Validation and benchmarking of ARG predictions
LSTM Networks [59]	Deep Learning Architecture	Processes sequential data with memory retention	Classification of embedded protein features
XGBoost [62]	Machine Learning Algorithm	Gradient boosting framework for supervised learning	Resistance prediction from surveillance data
SHAP Analysis [62]	Model Interpretability Tool	Explains machine learning model output using game theory	Feature importance analysis in AMR prediction
Pfizer ATLAS Dataset [62]	Surveillance Database	Provides comprehensive AST results and genotype data	Training and validation data for clinical AMR models

The comparison reveals a clear evolution from traditional sequence alignment methods toward sophisticated AI-driven approaches for ARG annotation and phenotype prediction. While conventional BLAST-based methods offer speed and simplicity, they suffer from significant limitations in detecting novel resistance genes and understanding complex genetic architectures. Machine learning approaches, particularly protein language models with LSTM networks and XGBoost on surveillance data, demonstrate superior performance in reducing both false positives and false negatives while providing enhanced biological interpretability [59] [62].

The integration of genotype and phenotype data emerges as a critical factor for enhancing prediction accuracy and clinical relevance. As these models evolve, emphasis on interpretability and biological plausibility will be essential for translation into clinical practice and public health policy [61]. The ongoing challenge of capturing non-linear genetic interactions across diverse bacterial populations underscores the need for continued development of models that can generalize across evolutionary scales, ultimately providing more reliable tools for combating the global AMR threat.

The Impact of Database Selection and Annotation Tool Discrepancies on Results

The accurate identification of Antibiotic Resistance Genes (ARGs) is a cornerstone of modern public health efforts to combat the growing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) crisis. This analysis, framed within the broader context of evaluating ARG distribution across hosts, reveals that the selection of bioinformatics resources is not merely a technical preliminary but a decisive factor influencing research outcomes. Substantial discrepancies in the results of ARG annotation arise directly from the underlying database structures, curation philosophies, and algorithmic approaches of different detection tools [40] [63]. These variations can impact the reported diversity, abundance, and mechanisms of resistance genes, thereby affecting the interpretation of resistome data from various hosts and environments. This guide provides an objective comparison of platform performances, supported by experimental data, to inform the standardized practices essential for reliable AMR surveillance and research.

ARG databases serve as the foundational reference for all downstream analyses, yet they differ significantly in scope, content, and curation standards. These resources can be broadly classified into manually curated databases and consolidated databases [63].

Manually curated databases, such as the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) and ResFinder/PointFinder, rely on strict inclusion criteria and expert validation to ensure high-quality, accurate data. CARD, for instance, is built around an Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO) that systematically classifies determinants, mechanisms, and antibiotic molecules [63]. Its rigorous protocol typically requires that ARG sequences be deposited in GenBank and demonstrate an experimentally validated increase in Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) [63]. ResFinder focuses on acquired AMR genes, while PointFinder specializes in chromosomal point mutations, and together they provide a robust platform for genotype-phenotype linkage [63].

In contrast, consolidated databases integrate data from multiple sources to offer expansive coverage. The Non-redundant Comprehensive Database (NCRD) was constructed by combining sequences from ARDB, CARD, and SARG, and then identifying homologous proteins to create a vast repository [64]. Similarly, NDARO (National Database of Antibiotic-Resistant Organisms) is a comprehensive collection derived from CARD, Lahey, ResFinder, and the Pasteur Institute [65]. While these databases cover a wider array of sequences, they can face challenges related to consistency and the potential inclusion of false positives [63].

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Major Antimicrobial Resistance Gene Databases

Database Name	Type	Last Update (as of 2025)	Key Features	Notable Limitations
CARD [63] [65]	Manually Curated	Frequently Updated (2021+)	Antibiotic Resistance Ontology (ARO); includes genes and mutations.	Relies on published validation; manual curation can delay updates.
ResFinder/PointFinder [63]	Manually Curated	2021+	Focus on acquired genes (ResFinder) and chromosomal mutations (PointFinder).	Species-specific for mutation detection.
NDARO [40] [65]	Consolidated	2021+	Aggregates data from multiple authoritative sources.	Potential inconsistencies from merged datasets.
NCRD [64]	Consolidated	2023	Extremely high number of protein sequences and ARG subtypes.	Large size may increase false positive risk without careful parameters.
SARG [64] [65]	Consolidated	2019	Hierarchical structure, integrates ARDB and CARD.	Limited number of high-quality reference sequences.
ARDB [40] [65]	Manually Curated	Archived (2009)	First manually curated database; historically important.	No longer updated; data incorporated into newer resources.

Performance Comparison of Annotation Tools and Databases

The choice of annotation tool and database directly impacts the sensitivity, specificity, and ultimate results of ARG profiling. Independent studies have systematically quantified these discrepancies, revealing that performance is highly variable and context-dependent.

Tool-Specific Annotations and "Minimal Model" Performance

A large-scale assessment using Klebsiella pneumoniae genomes compared eight annotation tools—Kleborate, ResFinder, AMRFinderPlus, DeepARG, RGI, SraX, Abricate, and StarAMR—to build "minimal models" of resistance [46]. These models used only known AMR markers to predict binary resistance phenotypes for 20 antimicrobials. The study found that the performance of these predictive models varied significantly across the different tools, highlighting that the completeness of gene annotations is tool-dependent [46]. This approach successfully identified antibiotics for which known mechanisms insufficiently explained the observed resistance, thereby pinpointing areas most in need of novel marker discovery.

Impact on Metagenomic Profiling and Database Coverage

The influence of database selection is particularly pronounced in metagenomic studies. A comparison of NCRD with older databases using metagenomic datasets demonstrated its "strong ability in detecting potential ARGs," identifying a greater type and number of ARGs than its predecessors [64]. This is attributed to its extensive coverage, which includes over 34,000 protein sequences in its NCRD95 version and 444 standardized ARG subtypes, far exceeding the 180, 225, and 338 subtypes in ARDB, SARG, and CARD, respectively [64].

Sequencing and Assembly Platforms in ARG Detection

The sequencing and assembly workflow itself introduces another layer of variability. A study on ESKAPE bacteria compared Illumina short-reads, Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) long-reads, and hybrid assemblies for detecting ARGs from total genomic or purified plasmid DNA [66]. A key finding was that plasmid DNA purification was not necessary for detecting plasmid-borne ARGs, as all genes found in plasmid DNA were also detectable in total genomic DNA [66]. Furthermore, the study concluded that a combination of short- and long-reads (e.g., via hybrid or polished assemblies) enhanced the sensitivity and accuracy of AMR gene detection compared to either method alone [66].

Table 2: Experimental Findings on Factors Affecting ARG Detection Accuracy

Experimental Factor	Key Finding	Experimental Context	Citation
Annotation Tool Choice	Performance of "minimal models" for phenotype prediction varied significantly between eight different tools.	Analysis of 3,751 Klebsiella pneumoniae genomes.	[46]
Database Comprehensiveness	The NCRD database identified a greater type and number of ARGs than ARDB, CARD, or SARG.	Metagenomic dataset analysis.	[64]
Sequencing Platform	Hybrid assembly of Illumina short-reads and ONT long-reads enhanced sensitivity and accuracy vs. either solo.	Three enterobacterial genera from the ESKAPE group.	[66]
DNA Extraction Method	Purification of plasmid DNA was not necessary for detection of plasmid-borne AMR genes.	Comparison of total genomic DNA vs. pure plasmid DNA.	[66]
Database Combination	Using at least three different AMR databases was recommended for consistent ARG detection.	Genotype-phenotype correlation in clinical isolates.	[66]

Experimental Protocols for ARG Detection

To ensure the reproducibility and reliability of ARG distribution studies, standardized experimental and bioinformatics protocols are critical. The following methodologies are supported by the reviewed literature.

Sample Preparation and Sequencing

• DNA Extraction: Total genomic DNA extraction is sufficient for detecting chromosomal and plasmid-borne ARGs, making specialized plasmid DNA purification an optional rather than mandatory step [66].
• Sequencing Technology: The current best practice for accurate resistome characterization involves hybrid sequencing. This protocol uses a combination of Illumina short-reads (for high accuracy) and ONT long-reads (for long-range contiguity) to achieve optimal results [66].
• Protocol: Extract high-quality genomic DNA. Prepare and sequence libraries for both Illumina and ONT platforms. The resulting short-reads and long-reads are then used for hybrid assembly.

Bioinformatics Analysis

• Hybrid Assembly: Assemble the Illumina and ONT reads using a dedicated hybrid assembler to generate high-quality, contiguous contigs. Tools like Unicycler or similar pipelines are recommended for this purpose [66].
• ARG Annotation: Annotate the assembled contigs against multiple ARG databases. A recommended workflow includes using at least three distinct databases, such as CARD, ResFinder, and AMRFinderPlus, to ensure comprehensive and consistent detection [66]. This can be achieved by running tools like RGI (for CARD), the ResFinder tool, and AMRFinderPlus.
• Read-Based Quantification (Alternative): For high-throughput screening or when computational resources are limited, a read-based approach can be employed. This involves directly aligning sequencing reads to a curated ARG database using tools like Bowtie2 or BWA [65]. While faster, this method may lose genomic context and is more dependent on database completeness.

Data Analysis and Validation

• Phenotype-Genotype Correlation: Where possible, compare in-silico genotypic predictions with experimentally determined minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values to validate the biological relevance of the findings and assess the predictive power of the workflow [46] [66].
• Resistome Composition Analysis: Analyze the results to determine the abundance and diversity of ARGs (the resistome), and aggregate findings by resistance mechanism and drug class to facilitate ecological and clinical interpretations [1].

Figure 1: A recommended workflow for comprehensive ARG detection, integrating hybrid sequencing and multi-database annotation to maximize accuracy and consistency.

For researchers embarking on ARG distribution studies, having a clear understanding of key resources is essential. The following table lists critical bioinformatics reagents and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for ARG Analysis

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in ARG Research
CARD [63] [65]	Database	Provides a rigorously curated, ontology-based reference of resistance genes and mutations for annotation.
ResFinder/PointFinder [63]	Database & Tool	Specializes in identifying acquired antimicrobial resistance genes and chromosomal point mutations.
AMRFinderPlus [46]	Tool	An annotation tool that uses the NCBI's AMR database to identify resistance genes in bacterial genomes.
NCRD [64]	Database	Offers a non-redundant, comprehensive sequence collection for detecting a wide spectrum of potential ARGs.
Hybrid Assembly Pipeline [66]	Bioinformatics Protocol	Combines Illumina and ONT reads to generate high-fidelity assemblies for accurate gene annotation.
RGI (CARD) [46] [65]	Tool	The Resistance Gene Identifier software used to predict ARGs based on the CARD database.
DeepARG [46] [65]	Tool	A deep learning-based tool for predicting ARGs from metagenomic data, useful for novel gene discovery.

The body of evidence unequivocally demonstrates that database selection and annotation tools are not neutral components but active determinants of research outcomes in antibiotic resistance gene studies. The observed discrepancies underscore that no single database or tool is universally superior; each combination offers a unique lens on the resistome [46] [66]. To mitigate these biases and work towards standardized, comparable results, researchers should adopt a multi-database strategy coupled with hybrid sequencing technologies [66]. This practice, along with clear reporting of bioinformatics parameters, is crucial for generating the reliable, high-quality data needed to track the global distribution of ARGs across hosts and environments, and to effectively confront the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance.

Strategies for Harmonizing Protocols for Cross-Study Comparability

The study of antibiotic resistance gene (ARG) distribution across hosts and environments is a cornerstone of the One Health framework, which recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. However, the synthesis of knowledge across independent studies faces significant challenges due to methodological heterogeneity in sample processing, DNA sequencing, bioinformatic analysis, and data reporting. Protocol harmonization—the systematic alignment of study protocols and measurement approaches—emerges as a critical strategy to enhance cross-study comparability, enable data pooling, and accelerate the identification of global resistance patterns. This guide compares the predominant strategies for achieving harmonization, drawing on successful large-scale initiatives from microbial resistome research and other biomedical fields, providing researchers with a practical framework for selecting and implementing approaches suited to their specific research objectives and constraints.

Comparative Analysis of Harmonization Strategies

The choice of harmonization strategy is primarily determined by the phase of the research lifecycle and the degree of control over participating studies. The table below compares the three overarching strategic approaches.

Table 1: Comparison of Harmonization Strategies for Cross-Study Comparability

Strategy	Definition	Key Implementation Tools	Advantages	Limitations	Representative Use Cases
Prospective Harmonization	Standardizing protocols before data collection begins [67]	Common Data Models (CDMs), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Shared core measures [67] [68]	Maximizes cross-study comparability; Reduces post-hoc processing effort [67]	Requires early-stage coordination; Less flexibility for study-specific needs [67]	HEAL Prevention Cooperative [67]; Global Water Microbiome Consortium [1]
Retrospective Harmonization	Integrating and aligning datasets after studies are completed [68] [69]	Integrative Data Analysis (IDA), Metadata mapping, Statistical harmonization (e.g., MNLFA) [67] [69]	Leverages existing datasets; Accommodates legacy data and measures [68]	Labor-intensive; Potential for information loss; Vulnerable to mapping subjectivity [69]	ECHO-wide Cohort [68]; CONNECTS COVID-19 Trials [69]
Balanced/Flexible Harmonization	Combining prospective standardization of core elements with flexibility for study-specific adds-ons [67] [68]	Tiered data elements (Essential vs. Recommended), Preferred and acceptable measures [68]	Balances comparability and feasibility; Respects study-specific scientific goals [67]	Complex to design and manage; Requires clear governance [68]	ECHO-wide Cohort Protocol [68]

Experimental Protocols for Resistome Research

To ensure the comparability of findings on antibiotic resistance gene distribution, standardized experimental and bioinformatic workflows are essential. The following section details the protocols endorsed by major consortium-based studies.

Metagenomic Sequencing and Resistome Profiling

The dominant methodology for characterizing ARGs in environmental and host-associated microbiomes is shotgun metagenomic sequencing. The Global Water Microbiome Consortium (GWMC), which analyzed activated sludge from 142 wastewater treatment plants across six continents, employed a consistent pipeline for sample collection, DNA sequencing, and analysis to ensure comparability [1]. The core experimental workflow involves:

• Sample Collection and DNA Extraction: Samples (e.g., manure slurry, activated sludge, fecal matter) are collected using standardized procedures. Total genomic DNA is extracted using commercial kits (e.g., PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit) [70].
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: DNA libraries are prepared and sequenced on high-throughput platforms (e.g., Illumina HiSeq2500, MiSeq) in a paired-end format (e.g., 2 × 150 bp) [70] [1].
• Bioinformatic Processing: The general workflow includes:
  • Quality Control & Trimming: Adapter removal and trimming of low-quality sequences (Q < 30) using tools like Cutadapt and Sickle [70].
  • Assembly & Gene Prediction: De novo assembly of quality-filtered reads into contigs using assemblers like MEGAHIT. Open Reading Frames (ORFs) are predicted from contigs using tools like Prodigal [70].
  • ARG Annotation: Predicted protein sequences are aligned against specialized databases such as the Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD) using BLASTP. An ORF is typically annotated as an ARG if the best hit shows at least 80% identity over a query coverage of 85% [70] [71].
• Quantification: ARG abundance is normalized to account for sequencing depth and gene length, often reported as copies per million sequences or normalized to the number of bacterial cells [1] [71].

Protocol for Functional Metagenomics for Latent Resistome

To profile latent resistance genes not identified by sequence-based annotation, functional metagenomics is the gold standard. This method was pivotal in a global wastewater study that revealed latent resistance is more widespread than acquired resistance [72].

• DNA Library Construction: Environmental DNA is randomly fragmented and cloned into a vector suitable for expression in a surrogate host (e.g., Escherichia coli).
• Functional Screening: The cloned libraries are exposed to antibiotics. Only host cells containing a vector with an insert conferring resistance will survive.
• Sequence Analysis: The DNA inserts from resistant clones are sequenced to identify the novel resistance genes without prior sequence knowledge [72].

This protocol directly tests for resistance function, effectively discovering novel ARGs that would be missed by in silico predictions.

Figure 1: Integrated experimental and harmonization workflow for cross-study resistome research, showing parallel sequencing pathways converging on data harmonization strategies.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents & Materials

Successful execution and harmonization of resistome studies depend on the use of standardized, high-quality reagents and computational tools. The table below details key solutions used in the featured protocols.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Resistome Analysis

Item Name	Function/Application	Specification Notes	Representative Use
PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit (Qiagen)	Extracts high-quality microbial genomic DNA from complex environmental samples.	Standardizes the critical first step of metagenomics; minimizes inhibitors.	Used for DNA extraction from swine manure slurry [70].
Illumina Sequencing Platforms (MiSeq, HiSeq)	High-throughput shotgun metagenomic sequencing.	Paired-end sequencing (e.g., 2x150 bp or 2x300 bp) is standard for resistome profiling.	Standard platform across GWMC [1] and human gut studies [71].
Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD)	Reference database for annotating and characterizing ARGs from sequence data.	Uses BLASTP with thresholds (e.g., ≥80% identity, ≥85% query coverage) for annotation [70].	Primary database for ARG annotation in multiple studies [70] [71].
MEGAHIT Assembler	De novo assembler for metagenomic sequences from complex microbial communities.	Efficiently assembles large datasets; suitable for high-diversity samples.	Used for assembling contigs from manure slurry metagenomes [70].
Prodigal Software	Predicts microbial protein-coding genes in DNA sequences.	Identifies Open Reading Frames (ORFs) in assembled contigs for downstream analysis.	Standard gene finder in metagenomic analysis pipelines [70].
Functional Metagenomic Vector Systems	Cloning and expression of environmental DNA in a surrogate host (e.g., E. coli).	Enables discovery of novel, latent ARGs based on function rather than sequence homology.	Key to identifying the widespread latent resistome in global wastewater [72].

Harmonizing research protocols is not merely a technical exercise but a strategic necessity for generating robust, generalizable insights into the global distribution of antibiotic resistance genes. As the field moves forward, the adoption of a balanced harmonization strategy—establishing a core of universally required protocols while allowing for supplemental study-specific measures—offers a pragmatic path. This approach, coupled with the tools and protocols detailed in this guide, empowers research consortia to build large, comparable datasets. Such efforts are fundamental to tracking the evolution and spread of resistance, ultimately informing public health actions and antimicrobial stewardship policies on a global scale.

Benchmarking Tools and Strategies: Validating ARG Annotations and Predictive Models

Performance Benchmarking of Annotation Tools Using Minimal Machine Learning Models

In the critical field of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) research, accurately identifying antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) is foundational. This guide objectively benchmarks modern data annotation tools by evaluating their performance in constructing minimal machine learning models for ARG detection. Minimal models, which utilize only known resistance determinants, serve as a stringent test for annotation tool efficacy, highlighting gaps in current knowledge and tool capabilities [46]. We provide a comparative analysis of leading annotation platforms, detailed experimental protocols for benchmarking, and key quantitative results to guide researchers and drug development professionals in selecting optimal tools for their genomic surveillance and AMR discovery pipelines.

Antimicrobial resistance poses a severe global health threat, with recent World Health Organization reports indicating that one in six laboratory-confirmed bacterial infections are resistant to standard antibiotic treatments [73]. The fight against AMR relies heavily on the precise identification and annotation of genetic determinants of resistance from vast amounts of genomic data [74].

Annotation tools are critical in this process, converting raw genomic sequences into structured, labeled data that machine learning models can understand. The performance of these tools directly impacts the quality of downstream ML models. "Minimal models" of resistance, which use only known AMR markers, provide an elegant framework for benchmarking annotation tools. By testing how well a curated set of known features predicts resistance phenotypes, researchers can assess the completeness of annotations and identify antibiotics for which novel marker discovery is most urgently needed [46]. This evaluation is especially crucial for pathogens like Klebsiella pneumoniae, a genomically diverse bacterium that plays a pivotal role in shuttling resistance genes across species [46].

Comparative Analysis of Annotation Tools

A range of annotation tools is available to researchers, each with different strengths, supported data types, and integration capabilities. The choice of tool can significantly influence the feature set available for building minimal ML models.

The following table summarizes key annotation tools relevant for AMR research, based on their core functionalities and typical use cases.

Table 1: Comparison of Data Annotation Tools for Machine Learning

Tool Name	Primary Focus	Key Features	Best For	Pricing Model
Roboflow [75]	Computer Vision, Dataset Management	Simple interface, automatic pre-annotation, dataset hosting & export	Rapid prototype development	Free tier + paid versions
Encord [75]	Multimodal Data	Supports medical imaging, video, DICOM; MLOps integration; custom workflows	Complex multimodal data processing	Custom pricing
Labelbox [75]	One-stop Platform	Active learning, seamless cloud & ML tool integration	End-to-end workflow management	Free tier + paid versions
T-Rex Label [75]	AI-assisted Annotation	Out-of-the-box in-browser use, T-Rex2 & DINO-X models for automatic annotation	Cost-effective AI assistance & fast iteration	Free model + usage-based
CVAT [75]	Open-source Annotation	Full workflow control, plugin support, self-hosted	Technical teams needing full control & customization	Free & Open-Source
Unitlab AI [76]	Text & Multimodal	Strong dataset management, AI-powered pre-annotation, human-in-the-loop workflows	Medium teams scaling annotation	SaaS tiers
Doccano [76]	Text Annotation	Lightweight, web-based, supports NER & classification	Researchers & students on a budget	Free & Open-Source
Label Studio [76]	Multimodal Annotation	Highly extensible via plugins, configurable tasks, flexible integrations	Startups & research labs needing flexibility	Free + Enterprise

For AMR research, where data often includes genomic sequences, tabular metadata, and sometimes biomedical imagery, tools with strong text annotation capabilities (e.g., Unitlab AI, Label Studio) and flexible export functions are particularly valuable. The trend in 2025 is toward platforms that support end-to-end annotation workflows, including dataset management, collaboration, and version control [76].

Specialized Tools for AMR Gene Annotation

Beyond general-purpose platforms, specialized bioinformatics tools are essential for the specific task of ARG annotation. These tools often use curated databases like CARD (Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database) and ResFinder to map genomic sequences to known resistance markers [46].

Table 2: Specialized AI-based Tools for Antibiotic Resistance Gene Identification [74]

Tool	Algorithm	Target	Description
DeepARG	Deep Learning	ARG	Identifies ARGs directly from short-sequence reads or assembled genes.
PLM-ARG	Deep Learning	ARG	Uses protein language models for ARG identification.
HMD-ARG	Deep Learning	ARG	A deep learning model for ARG detection.
mlplasmids	SVM	Plasmid	Machine learning-based tool for identifying plasmid sequences in bacteria.
Deeplasmid	Deep Learning	Plasmid	Distinguishes plasmid sequences from chromosomal ones.

These specialized tools can be integrated into a broader annotation pipeline. Their output—a presence/absence matrix of known AMR markers—forms the ideal feature set for building and benchmarking minimal models [46].

Experimental Protocol for Benchmarking Annotation Tools

To objectively compare annotation tools, a standardized benchmarking protocol is essential. The following methodology, adapted from recent studies, uses minimal models to evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the annotations generated by each tool.

Workflow for Benchmarking Annotation Tools via Minimal Models

The following diagram illustrates the key stages in the experimental workflow for this benchmarking exercise.

Detailed Methodology

Data Collection and Curation

• Genome Source: Obtain a large set of high-quality, assembled bacterial genomes from a public repository like the Bacterial and Viral Bioinformatics Resource Centre (BV-BRC). For a focused study, use a genomically diverse pathogen like Klebsiella pneumoniae [46].
• Phenotype Data: Collect corresponding binary resistance phenotypes (Susceptible/Resistant) for a range of antibiotics, as determined by clinical susceptibility testing. Ensure a sufficient sample size (ideally >1,800 samples per antibiotic) to avoid spurious results [46].
• Data Splitting: Divide the data into training and test sets using an appropriate method. For genomic data where isolates may be related, a time-based split or a stratified k-fold cross-validation that maintains class ratios in each fold is recommended to prevent data leakage and ensure robust evaluation [77].

Sample Annotation and Feature Generation

• Tool Selection: Annotate all genome samples using the annotation tools under benchmark (e.g., Kleborate, AMRFinderPlus, DeepARG, RGI against CARD) [46].
• Feature Engineering: From each tool's output, create a binary feature matrix ( X{p×n} \in {0,1} ), where ( p ) is the number of samples and ( n ) is the number of unique AMR features (genes, mutations). ( X{ij} = 1 ) if the AMR feature is present in the sample, and ( 0 ) otherwise [46]. This matrix is the "minimal feature set" for model building.

Building Minimal Machine Learning Models

• Model Choice: Employ interpretable and scalable ML models to assess the predictive power of the annotated features. Common choices include:
  • Elastic Net Logistic Regression: A linear model with combined L1 and L2 regularization that performs automatic feature selection and handles correlated features well [46].
  • XGBoost (Extreme Gradient Boosting): A powerful tree-based ensemble model known for high accuracy and efficiency [46].
• Training: Train separate models for each antibiotic and each annotation tool's feature set. The model's task is binary classification: predicting resistance phenotype from the presence/absence of AMR markers.

Performance Evaluation and Statistical Comparison

• Evaluation Metrics: Calculate a suite of metrics on the held-out test set to avoid biased performance estimates [78] [77]. Key metrics for binary classification include:
  • Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC): Measures the model's ability to distinguish between resistant and susceptible isolates across all classification thresholds [78].
  • F1-Score: The harmonic mean of precision and recall, providing a single metric that balances the two [78].
  • Precision and Recall: Precision measures the correctness of predicted resistant cases, while recall (sensitivity) measures the ability to find all true resistant cases [78].
• Statistical Testing: Compare model performance derived from different annotation tools using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., DeLong test for AUC comparisons) [78] to determine if performance differences are statistically significant.

Key Results and Benchmarking Data

The core of the benchmarking study lies in the quantitative comparison of how minimal models, built on features from different annotation tools, perform.

Interpreting Minimal Model Performance

The performance of a minimal model is a direct reflection of the annotation tool's ability to provide a complete set of features that explain the observed resistance. High performance (e.g., AUC > 0.9) suggests that known markers annotated by the tool are largely sufficient to predict resistance. Conversely, low performance (e.g., AUC < 0.7) highlights significant knowledge gaps—where unknown mechanisms or unannotated variants likely contribute to resistance—and signals an area where discovery is critical [46].

Example Benchmarking Outcomes

Table 3: Hypothetical Benchmarking Results for K. pneumoniae vs. Ceftriaxone This table illustrates how model performance, driven by annotation quality, can vary across tools.

Annotation Tool	Minimal Model AUC	F1-Score	Key Annotated Features (Importance)	Implied Knowledge Gap
Tool A (e.g., AMRFinderPlus)	0.92	0.87	blaCTX-M-15 (High), blaSHv-106 (High)	Low: Known mechanisms are sufficient.
Tool B (e.g., DeepARG)	0.89	0.84	blaCTX-M-15 (High), blaTEM-1 (Med)	Low to Moderate.
Tool C (e.g., Abricate)	0.75	0.68	bla_CTX-M-15 (High)	High: Significant portion of resistance is unexplained.

Table 4: Impact of Dataset Size on Model Generalizability [79] This data underscores the importance of adequate sample sizes in benchmarking studies.

Training Dataset Size (N)	Average Overfitting (AUC difference: Train - Test)	Performance Stability on Test Set	Recommendation
N ≤ 300	Up to +0.12	Low: High result variance, worst test performance.	Avoid; high overfitting risk.
N = 500	Avg. +0.02	Moderate: Overfitting mitigated.	Proposed minimum size.
N = 750–1500	Minimal	High: Performance converges.	Ideal for reliable results.

Studies have shown that for some antibiotics, even the best minimal models underperform. For example, in K. pneumoniae, known markers for certain drugs may leave a large portion of resistance unexplained, powerfully highlighting the need for novel AMR gene discovery [46].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

To replicate this benchmarking study or conduct similar AMR research, the following reagents and resources are essential.

Table 5: Key Research Reagents and Resources for AMR Annotation Benchmarking

Item Name	Function / Utility	Example / Source
Reference Genomes	High-quality genomic sequences for annotation and model training.	BV-BRC Database [46], NCBI GenBank
Phenotypic Data	Gold-standard resistance/susceptibility labels for model supervision.	Clinical Laboratory Data, WHO GLASS [73]
Annotation Tools	Software to identify and annotate known AMR markers in genomes.	AMRFinderPlus [46], DeepARG [74], Kleborate [46]
Reference Databases	Curated collections of known resistance genes and variants.	CARD [46] [74], ResFinder [46]
Machine Learning Frameworks	Libraries for building, training, and evaluating minimal models.	Scikit-learn (Elastic Net), XGBoost [46]
Statistical Analysis Software	Tools for performing significance tests on model performance.	R, Python (with scipy/statsmodels)

Benchmarking annotation tools through minimal machine learning models provides a rigorous, application-oriented method for evaluating their performance in AMR research. This approach not only reveals which tools provide the most comprehensive and accurate annotations but also functionally identifies critical gaps in our understanding of resistance mechanisms.

Based on the comparative analysis and experimental protocol outlined, we recommend:

• For large-scale genomic surveillance studies where K. pneumoniae is a key pathogen, tools like Kleborate and AMRFinderPlus should be prioritized due to their comprehensive databases and species-specific optimizations.
• For discovery-focused research aimed at finding novel ARGs, employing a combination of DeepARG and other deep learning-based tools can help identify putative new markers that traditional alignment methods might miss [74].
• Researchers must ensure their benchmarking datasets are sufficiently large (N > 500) to avoid overfitting and generate stable, generalizable performance estimates [79].

This structured evaluation framework empowers scientists to make informed choices about their bioinformatics pipelines, ultimately accelerating the discovery of new resistance mechanisms and the development of urgently needed diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

Validating Host Attribution Findings with Complementary Techniques

In the evolving landscape of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) research, accurately determining the sources and transmission pathways of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) has become fundamental to public health intervention strategies. Host attribution methodologies aim to partition the human disease burden of infections to specific sources, particularly primary hosts or consumed foods that serve as vehicles of infection [80]. As AMR continues to pose severe global health threats—directly contributing to approximately 1.27 million deaths annually—the precision of these attribution models has never been more critical [81] [82]. The environmental dimension of AMR adds further complexity, as freshwater ecosystems, agricultural systems, and other environmental compartments serve as both reservoirs and dissemination routes for ARGs, creating interconnected networks that span human, animal, and environmental health domains [83].

Within this context, validation through complementary techniques emerges as an indispensable component of robust AMR research. Single-method approaches risk introducing systematic biases or missing crucial aspects of ARG transmission dynamics, particularly given the complex interplay between bacterial hosts, mobile genetic elements (MGEs), and selective pressures across diverse environments [84]. This guide systematically compares the performance of established and emerging host attribution methodologies, providing researchers with a framework for methodological validation through strategic implementation of complementary techniques. By examining experimental protocols, performance metrics, and practical implementation considerations, we aim to advance the field toward more reliable source attribution that can effectively inform public health interventions and antimicrobial stewardship programs.

Established Host Attribution Methodologies: Principles and Applications

Host attribution methodologies for bacterial pathogens have evolved significantly with advances in genomic technologies. Current approaches leverage whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data to achieve unprecedented resolution in tracking transmission pathways and quantifying contribution rates of various reservoirs to human disease burdens. These methods differ fundamentally in their analytical frameworks, underlying assumptions, and computational requirements, making each uniquely suited to specific research questions and surveillance contexts.

The Bayesian frequency matching approach (modified Hald method) operates on principles of comparative subtype analysis. This method compares the distribution of bacterial subtypes in human clinical cases with their distribution in potential animal and environmental sources, using statistical models to estimate the proportion of human cases attributable to each source [85] [80]. Its strength lies in providing uncertainty estimates around attribution proportions, making it valuable for risk assessment and policy decisions. However, it requires comprehensive, representative sampling from all potential sources, which can be resource-intensive for large-scale surveillance systems.

Machine learning-based classification, particularly random forest algorithms, represents a more recent innovation in source attribution. These supervised learning methods train classification models on genomic features from isolates of known origin, then apply these models to attribute human cases to specific sources [85] [80]. The method can incorporate diverse genomic features including core genome multilocus sequence typing (cgMLST), accessory genes, and k-mer frequencies, offering flexibility in model specification. Studies have demonstrated that using 7-mer frequencies as input features provides superior model performance compared to traditional cgMLST approaches [85].

Network analysis approaches leverage weighted network theory to establish genetic relatedness among bacterial isolates from different sources. In this framework, nodes represent bacterial isolates and links represent genetic similarities, with human isolates attributed to sources based on their connection patterns within the network [85]. The method excels at visualizing complex transmission networks and identifying unexpected transmission routes, making it particularly valuable for outbreak investigation and hypothesis generation.

Accessory gene-based source attribution (AB_SA) utilizes the flexible gene pool of bacterial pathogens—including plasmids, phages, and other mobile genetic elements—as discriminative features for attribution [80]. This approach recognizes that accessory genomes often exhibit stronger host associations than core genomes, potentially offering enhanced resolution for certain bacterial species. The method employs multinomial logistic regression classifiers and typically demonstrates faster computation times compared to machine learning approaches [80].

Table 1: Core Methodological Approaches to Host Attribution

Method	Analytical Framework	Primary Input Data	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Bayesian Frequency Matching	Statistical probability modeling	Subtype distributions across sources	Provides uncertainty estimates; Established framework	Requires representative source sampling
Machine Learning (Random Forest)	Supervised classification	cgMLST, k-mers, accessory genes	High accuracy; Handles complex genomic data	Computationally intensive; Requires extensive training data
Network Analysis	Genetic relatedness networks	Pairwise genetic distances	Visualizes transmission pathways; Identifies unexpected links	Complex interpretation in multi-strain systems
Accessory Gene-Based (AB_SA)	Multinomial logistic regression	Accessory genome presence/absence	Fast execution; Reflects horizontal gene transfer	Limited to bacteria with diverse accessory genomes

Comparative Performance Analysis of Attribution Methods

Rigorous comparison of source attribution methodologies provides critical insights for method selection in different research contexts. Independent evaluations employing common datasets reveal important performance trade-offs that directly impact the validity and utility of attribution findings.

In a comprehensive comparison of three source attribution methods applied to Salmonella Typhimurium isolates from the British Isles and Denmark, machine learning (random forest) demonstrated superior accuracy (67%) when using 7-mer features compared to network analysis (CSC value of 78.99%, F1-score of 78.99%) and Bayesian approaches [85] [80]. Notably, the random forest classifier achieved this performance while attributing all 1224 human cases to a source, whereas network analysis applying 5-mer features attributed only 965 of these cases, reflecting differences in classification confidence thresholds [85].

The integration of accessory genome data yields method-dependent improvements in attribution accuracy. For random forest approaches, incorporating accessory genomic features enhances model performance, likely because these elements often carry host-specific adaptations [80]. In contrast, Bayesian models show minimal improvement with accessory genome inclusion, suggesting that subtype frequency information from core genomes provides sufficient discriminative power for probabilistic attribution in this framework [80]. This distinction has practical implications for resource allocation in genomic surveillance programs.

Computational requirements vary substantially across methods, with important consequences for real-time surveillance applications. The accessory gene-based (AB_SA) and Bayesian methods offer significantly faster execution times compared to random forest approaches, making them more suitable for rapid outbreak response or high-throughput surveillance systems [80]. This advantage must be balanced against potential sacrifices in attribution resolution, particularly for complex epidemiological scenarios with multiple similar sources.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Comparison of Attribution Methods

Performance Metric	Random Forest (7-mer)	Network Analysis (7-mer)	Bayesian (7-mer)	AB_SA
Accuracy	67% [85]	78.99% (F1-score) [85]	65.4% (avg. attribution) [85]	Lower than Random Forest [80]
Cases Attributable	1224/1224 (100%) [85]	965/1224 (78.8%) [85]	Varies by model specification	Varies by model specification
Execution Speed	Slow [80]	Intermediate	Fast [80]	Fast [80]
Accessory Genome Utility	Improved performance [80]	Not assessed	Minimal improvement [80]	Primary feature set

Different methodological approaches also exhibit varying sensitivity to population characteristics. In validation of host gene expression signatures for bacterial/viral discrimination, signature performance varied substantially across age groups, with classifiers performing more poorly in pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to adults for both bacterial (73% and 70% vs. 82%) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%) classification [86]. This highlights the importance of context-specific validation even for well-performing general models.

Experimental Protocols for Key Attribution Techniques

Bayesian Frequency Matching Protocol

The Bayesian frequency matching approach follows a multi-stage process beginning with strain selection and whole-genome sequencing. For Salmonella attribution, analyses typically include 900+ isolates from humans and potential animal reservoirs, ensuring representative sampling across major transmission sources and temporal variation [80]. Sequencing quality control includes checks for contamination, mixed cultures, and minimum coverage thresholds (typically 40-50x) to ensure reliable genotype calling.

Bioinformatic processing involves core genome multilocus sequence typing (cgMLST) using established schemes comprising approximately 3,000 loci [80]. For monophasic and biphasic Salmonella Typhimurium, the cgMLST scheme should effectively capture genetic diversity while maintaining epidemiological relevance. Missing allele calls are imputed using computational approaches such as missForest in R, preserving phylogenetic signal while accommodating sequencing gaps [85].

Statistical modeling applies the modified Hald framework, which uses multinomial distributions to model the observed human cases based on the microbial subtype frequencies in the various sources [80]. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods estimate the posterior probabilities of source contributions, typically running for 100,000 iterations with burn-in periods of 20,000 iterations and thinning intervals of 100 to ensure convergence. Model diagnostics include trace plots, Gelman-Rubin statistics, and examination of autocorrelation to verify robust parameter estimation.

Random Forest Classification Protocol

Feature extraction represents a critical step in machine learning-based attribution. For k-mer-based approaches, genomic sequences are decomposed into overlapping subsequences of length k (typically k=5-7 due to computational constraints) [85]. The frequency of each k-mer is calculated for every isolate, creating a feature matrix that captures both core and accessory genomic variation. Alternatively, cgMLST allelic profiles or accessory gene presence/absence matrices can serve as input features.

Model training employs a supervised learning framework where isolates of known origin are partitioned into training (typically 70-80%) and validation (20-30%) sets. The random forest algorithm constructs multiple decision trees using bootstrap samples of the training data and random subsets of features at each split, aggregating predictions across trees to enhance robustness [85] [80]. Hyperparameter tuning optimizes the number of trees, maximum tree depth, and the number of features considered at each split, typically through cross-validation.

Model validation uses withheld test sets to evaluate performance metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. For source attribution, hierarchical cross-validation that maintains group structure (e.g., by sampling location or time) provides more realistic performance estimates than completely random data splitting [85]. Feature importance scores help identify genomic elements most predictive of host association, potentially offering biological insights beyond attribution alone.

Network Analysis Implementation

Distance matrix calculation forms the foundation of network-based attribution. Pairwise genetic distances between all isolates are computed using core genome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), cgMLST allelic differences, or k-mer dissimilarity metrics [85]. The choice of distance metric significantly influences network topology, with k-mer-based approaches often providing superior resolution for recently diverged lineages.

Network construction transforms distance matrices into fully connected networks where nodes represent bacterial isolates and edge weights reflect genetic similarity [85]. Community detection algorithms such as the Louvain method or Infomap identify clusters of closely related isolates, which typically correspond to transmission chains or host-adapted lineages.

Source attribution in the network framework calculates the probability that a human isolate originates from a particular animal source based on its connection patterns within the network [85]. This can be quantified as the fraction of edges connecting a human case to isolates from each potential source, or through more sophisticated probabilistic models that incorporate edge weights and community structure.

Integrated Validation Framework: Strategic Method Combination

Robust validation of host attribution findings requires strategic combination of complementary methodologies that compensate for respective limitations. The proposed integrated framework leverages the distinct strengths of multiple approaches while providing cross-validation through methodological triangulation.

The primary-secondary method pairing represents a practical validation approach where a primary attribution method (selected based on research questions and data characteristics) is complemented by a secondary method with different analytical foundations. For example, random forest classification (excelling at individual case attribution) can be validated against Bayesian frequency matching (providing population-level attribution estimates with uncertainty quantification) [80]. Significant discrepancies between methods warrant investigation of underlying assumptions, potential biases, or data quality issues that might explain divergent results.

Genomic context analysis strengthens attribution conclusions by examining the genetic neighborhoods of ARGs, particularly their associations with mobile genetic elements (MGEs). This approach recognizes that ARG mobility plays a crucial role in dissemination across One Health settings, with plasmid-borne ARGs presenting substantially different transmission risks than chromosomally-encoded resistance [84]. Techniques such as epicPCR, exogenous plasmid capture, or long-read sequencing to resolve complete plasmid structures provide critical contextual validation for attribution inferences based on core genome analyses alone [84].

Temporal validation assesses the stability of attribution models across different time periods, addressing concerns about model transferability in dynamic microbial populations. This involves training models on historical data and evaluating performance on more recent isolates, with significant performance decay indicating evolutionary changes affecting host associations [80]. For pathogens with rapid evolutionary rates, regular model updating or the inclusion of temporally informative genomic features may be necessary to maintain attribution accuracy.

Spatial validation examines attribution consistency across geographic regions, particularly important for foodborne pathogens in global trade networks. Models trained on data from one region (e.g., Denmark) should be validated against data from epidemiologically connected regions (e.g., the British Isles) to identify geographically variable host associations that might limit generalizability [80].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the strategic integration of these validation approaches:

Research Reagent Solutions for Attribution Studies

Implementing robust host attribution studies requires specialized reagents and computational tools tailored to genomic epidemiology applications. The following table summarizes essential research solutions and their functions in attribution workflows:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Host Attribution Studies

Category	Specific Solution	Function in Attribution Research	Implementation Considerations
Sequencing Technologies	Illumina short-read sequencing	High-accuracy genomic data for SNP and cgMLST-based attribution	Balance between coverage depth and cost; typically 40-100x coverage
	Oxford Nanopore/PacBio long-read sequencing	Resolving mobile genetic elements and genomic context of ARGs	Higher error rates compensated by hybrid assembly approaches
Bioinformatic Tools	cgMLST.org schemes	Standardized core genome typing for comparable attribution across studies	Species-specific schemes available for major pathogens
	Ridom SeqSphere+	cgMLST and wgMLST analysis with quality control features	Commercial solution with user-friendly interface
	ChewBBACA	Pan-genome analysis for accessory genome-based attribution	Open-source alternative for comprehensive pan-genome analysis
	PLACNET	Plasmid reconstruction from WGS data	Critical for evaluating ARG mobility potential
Statistical Environments	R with custom attribution packages	Bayesian frequency matching implementation	Steep learning curve but extensive community support
	Python scikit-learn	Machine learning classification implementation	Flexibility in feature engineering and model specification
Reference Databases	PanRes database	Comprehensive ARG reference for functional annotation	Consolidates data from multiple ARG databases [81]
	Enterobase	Genomic context and population structure for enteric bacteria	Web-based resource with integrated analysis tools

Methodological validation through complementary techniques represents a cornerstone of reliable host attribution in AMR research. As this comparison demonstrates, no single method universally outperforms others across all evaluation metrics and research contexts. Rather, the strategic selection and integration of multiple approaches—leveraging their complementary strengths—provides the most robust framework for attributing ARG sources and transmission pathways.

The continuing evolution of genomic technologies and analytical frameworks promises enhanced resolution for tracking ARG dissemination across One Health compartments. Future methodological development should focus on integrating temporal and spatial dynamics more explicitly into attribution models, improving computational efficiency for real-time surveillance applications, and enhancing model interpretability for public health decision-making. Through rigorous validation and strategic method combination, the research community can advance toward more precise, actionable understanding of AMR epidemiology that ultimately supports effective interventions against this critical global health threat.

Correlating Genomic Predictions with Phenotypic Resistance Data

The rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents an urgent global public health threat, directly responsible for an estimated 1.27 million deaths worldwide and contributing to nearly 5 million deaths annually [87]. As bacterial pathogens continue to evolve mechanisms to defeat conventional antibiotics, researchers face the critical challenge of rapidly identifying and characterizing resistance patterns to inform treatment decisions and drug development.

The correlation between genomic predictions and phenotypic resistance data represents a transformative approach to AMR research. While genomic sequencing can rapidly identify potential antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), phenotypic testing remains essential for confirming resistant bacterial behavior under antibiotic exposure. This comparison guide objectively evaluates the experimental methodologies, computational frameworks, and reagent solutions enabling researchers to bridge the gap between genetic prediction and phenotypic expression across diverse bacterial hosts and environments.

Experimental Approaches for Resistance Gene Surveillance

Global ARG Distribution Mapping

Large-scale surveillance studies have established wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) as significant reservoirs and mixing points for antibiotic resistance genes. A recent global analysis of 226 activated sludge samples from 142 WWTPs across six continents revealed a core set of 20 ARGs present in all treatment plants, accounting for 83.8% of the total ARG abundance observed [1]. The most abundant resistance mechanisms identified were:

Table 1: Dominant Antibiotic Resistance Mechanisms in Global WWTPs

Resistance Mechanism	Relative Abundance	Primary Drug Classes Targeted
Antibiotic Inactivation	55.7%	Beta-lactams, Glycopeptides
Antibiotic Target Alteration	25.9%	Multiple classes
Efflux Pumps	15.8%	Tetracyclines, Multiple drugs

This comprehensive analysis demonstrated that ARG composition strongly correlates with bacterial taxonomic composition, with Chloroflexi, Acidobacteria, and Deltaproteobacteria identified as major carriers of resistance genes in WWTPs [1]. The study also found that 57% of the 1,112 recovered high-quality genomes possessed putatively mobile ARGs, highlighting the substantial risk for horizontal gene transfer.

Urban Sewer System Vertical Profiling

Complementing WWTP studies, detailed vertical profiling of urban sewer systems has revealed distinct distribution patterns of ARGs across different environmental compartments. Research examining sediments, sewage, and aerosols within sewer systems identified aminoglycoside (48 subtypes), beta-lactamase (40 subtypes), and multidrug (37 subtypes) resistance genes as the most prevalent [9].

Table 2: ARG Distribution Across Urban Sewer Compartments

Environmental Compartment	Dominant ARG Types	Key Influencing Factors
Sediments	Aminoglycoside, Beta-lactamase	Basic properties (λ = 0.32), Heavy metals (λ = 0.27)
Sewage	Multidrug, Beta-lactamase	Antibiotics (λ = 0.12), Basic properties
Aerosols	Aminoglycoside, Multidrug	Bacterial composition (λ = 0.59), α-diversity (λ = 0.46)

This research demonstrated that mobile genetic elements (MGEs) play a crucial role in facilitating the transfer of ARGs among microorganisms across all compartments [9]. The study also highlighted the significant risk of aerosolized ARGs, which may pose direct inhalation exposure threats despite having lower overall abundance compared to sediments and sewage.

Methodological Frameworks for Genomic Prediction

Machine Learning for Phenotypic Prediction

Advances in machine learning have enabled increasingly accurate predictions of bacterial phenotypic traits from genomic data. A recent approach leveraging the BacDive database—the world's largest repository of strain-level phenotypic data—demonstrated the effectiveness of Random Forest algorithms for predicting various physiological properties based on protein family inventories [88].

The methodological workflow for genomic prediction of phenotypic resistance involves several critical stages:

This workflow emphasizes the importance of high-quality, standardized training datasets for reliable phenotype inference. The selection of Pfam protein family annotations as features provides an optimal balance between genomic coverage and biological interpretability, achieving approximately 80% mean annotation coverage compared to only 52% with alternative tools like Prokka [88].

Cross-Environmental Predictive Modeling

The transferability of predictive models across different environments and bacterial populations represents both a challenge and opportunity for resistance surveillance. Research on barley germplasm collections demonstrated that integrated prediction models—combining data from multiple genebanks—can boost prediction abilities up to ninefold compared to models trained on single populations [89].

This approach has significant implications for AMR research, suggesting that combined datasets from diverse reservoirs (human, animal, environmental) may enhance the accuracy of resistance prediction models despite potential genotype-by-environment interactions.

Comparative Experimental Protocols

Metagenomic Resistance Profiling

Protocol: Global WWTP Resistome Analysis [1]

• Sample Collection: Collect activated sludge samples from WWTPs representing diverse geographic regions and operational parameters.

• DNA Extraction and Sequencing:

  • Extract community DNA using standardized protocols (e.g., modified CTAB method)
  • Perform shotgun metagenomic sequencing to obtain minimum 12.3 ± 3.9 Gb per sample
  • Include extraction controls and blank controls to monitor contamination

• Bioinformatic Processing:

  • Assemble sequencing reads into contigs (>1 kb) using metaSPAdes or similar assemblers
  • Predict open reading frames (ORFs) using Prodigal or comparable tools
  • Annotate ARGs using curated databases (CARD, ARDB) with strict alignment thresholds
  • Normalize ARG abundance to copy number per bacterial cell using 16S rRNA gene counts

• Statistical Analysis:

  • Perform rarefaction analysis to confirm sufficient sequencing depth
  • Calculate alpha and beta diversity metrics for resistomes and microbiomes
  • Conduct PERMANOVA to test for significant differences in resistome composition
  • Perform Procrustes analysis to correlate resistome and microbiome structures

High-Throughput Phenotypic Correlation

Protocol: Raw Milk Resistome Analysis [90]

• Sample Collection and Processing:

  • Aseptically collect raw milk samples from representative sources
  • Flash-freeze samples on dry ice within 15 minutes of collection
  • Store at -80°C until DNA extraction

• High-Throughput qPCR for ARG Detection:

  • Utilize WaferGen SmartChip Real-time PCR system with 348 primer pairs
  • Include 330 ARG-targeting primers, 17 MGE-targeting primers, and 16S rRNA reference
  • Set cycle threshold (CT) at 35 with detection requiring amplification in all three technical replicates
  • Calculate relative copy numbers using formula: 10(35 − CT)/(10/3)
  • Normalize ARG abundance per bacterial cell using 16S rRNA gene copies

• Microbial Community Analysis:

  • Amplify and sequence V3-V4 regions of bacterial 16S rRNA gene
  • Process sequences using FLASH for read merging and quality filtering
  • Perform Procrustes analysis to correlate microbial community and ARG profiles
  • Conduct network analysis to identify ARG-host co-occurrence patterns

• Multivariate Statistics:

  • Apply Variance Partitioning Analysis (VPA) to quantify contributions of different factors
  • Use structural equation modeling to identify direct and indirect drivers of ARG distribution

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Resistance Gene Surveillance

Reagent/Kit	Primary Function	Application Examples	Key Considerations
DNeasy Plant Kit (Qiagen)	DNA extraction from complex matrices	Raw milk, sludge samples [90]	Optimized for difficult-to-lyse cells; includes inhibitors removal
FastDNA SPIN Kit for Soil (MPbio)	DNA purification from environmental samples	WWTP activated sludge, sediments [1] [90]	Effective for humic substances removal; suitable for high-throughput
TruSeq DNA PCR-Free Sample Prep Kit (Illumina)	Library preparation for metagenomic sequencing	Shotgun metagenomics of diverse samples [1]	Minimizes PCR bias; ideal for complex community analysis
WaferGen SmartChip Real-time PCR System	High-throughput ARG quantification	Multiplexed detection of 330+ ARGs [90]	Enables massive parallel screening; requires specialized equipment
Allegro Targeted Genotyping (NuGEN)	Targeted sequencing for SNP genotyping	Bacterial strain typing [91]	Custom probe design; suitable for resistance determinant profiling

Data Integration and Interpretation Frameworks

Correlation Analysis Between Genomic and Phenotypic Data

The relationship between genomic predictions and phenotypic resistance manifests through multiple analytical frameworks. Procrustes analysis of global WWTP samples demonstrated a strong correlation between bacterial community structure and resistome profiles, with matrix-matrix correlation coefficients of 0.74 for metagenome-based bacterial community structure and 0.70 for 16S amplicon-based structure (protest, p < 0.001) [1].

Structural equation modeling of sewer system samples revealed compartment-specific drivers of ARG distribution, with bacterial composition (λ = 0.59) and α-diversity (λ = 0.46) having the most significant effects on aerosol ARGs, while basic properties (λ = 0.32) and heavy metals (λ = 0.27) were more influential for sediment and sewage ARGs [9].

Machine Learning Performance Metrics

The performance of genomic prediction models for phenotypic traits varies significantly based on training data quality and biological complexity. Studies utilizing Pfam annotations with Random Forest classifiers have achieved high confidence values, though performance depends heavily on both the quantity and standardization of training data [88].

The following diagram illustrates the critical factors influencing prediction accuracy in microbial phenotype prediction:

The correlation between genomic predictions and phenotypic resistance data represents a powerful paradigm for addressing the global AMR crisis. Experimental data from diverse environments reveals consistent patterns of ARG distribution driven by bacterial community composition, mobile genetic elements, and environmental selection pressures.

Methodologically, integrated approaches combining high-throughput molecular techniques with machine learning frameworks show significant promise for predicting resistance phenotypes from genomic data. However, challenges remain in model transferability across environments and accounting for the complex interplay between genetic determinants and phenotypic expression.

The reagent solutions and experimental protocols detailed in this comparison guide provide researchers with standardized approaches for generating comparable data across studies and environments. As prediction models continue to improve through larger, more diverse training datasets and enhanced algorithmic approaches, genomic prediction of phenotypic resistance will play an increasingly vital role in clinical decision-making, public health surveillance, and drug development efforts against antimicrobial resistance.

Antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) represent one of the most pressing global health threats of the 21st century, undermining our ability to treat common infectious diseases. However, not all ARGs pose equivalent risks to public health. Their potential hazard is governed by complex interactions between genetic mobility, host pathogenicity, environmental persistence, and human accessibility [92]. This comparative assessment synthesizes current research to evaluate the distribution and burden of high-risk ARGs across diverse environmental, animal, and human niches, providing a framework for prioritizing surveillance and intervention efforts within the broader context of antibiotic resistance research.

The "high-risk" designation applies to ARGs that are not only mobile and capable of horizontal transfer but are also enriched in human-associated environments and found in known pathogens [92]. Understanding where these genes are most prevalent, what drives their emergence, and how they transfer between niches is fundamental to developing effective One Health strategies for antimicrobial resistance mitigation.

Methodological Frameworks for ARG Risk Classification

Quantitative Health Risk Assessment (QHRA) Framework

The QHRA framework provides a comprehensive approach to evaluating ARG risk by integrating four critical indicators: human accessibility, mobility, pathogenicity, and clinical availability [93]. This methodology was applied to 2,561 ARGs detected across 4,572 metagenomic samples from six habitat types (air, aquatic, terrestrial, engineered, humans, and other hosts).

Human accessibility quantifies the potential for ARG transmission from the environment to human microbiota, calculated based on ARG abundance and prevalence in human-associated samples [93]. Mobility assesses the genetic potential for horizontal transfer by evaluating associations with mobile genetic elements (MGEs). Pathogenicity determines whether ARGs are hosted by human pathogens, while clinical availability considers the relevance of ARGs to currently used antibiotics [93].

Application of this framework revealed that only 23.78% of the identified ARGs posed a significant health risk, with multidrug resistance genes disproportionately represented among high-risk ARGs [93].

Omics-Based Decision Tree Framework

An alternative risk classification system employs a decision tree based on three criteria: human-associated enrichment, gene mobility, and presence in pathogens [92]. This framework categorizes ARGs into four distinct risk ranks:

• Rank I (Current Threats): ARGs that are human-associated, mobile, and already present in pathogens (3% of ARGs)
• Rank II (Future Threats): Human-associated, mobile ARGs not yet established in pathogens (0.6%)
• Rank III: Human-associated but non-mobile ARGs
• Rank IV: ARGs not enriched in human-associated environments (lowest risk)

This classification identified 73 Rank I ARG families, 35 of which aligned with high-priority ARGs designated by the World Health Organization [92]. The remaining 38 Rank I ARGs were significantly enriched in hospital plasmids, validating their clinical relevance.

Table 1: Comparison of ARG Risk Classification Frameworks

Feature	QHRA Framework [93]	Omics-Based Decision Tree [92]
Primary Criteria	Human accessibility, mobility, pathogenicity, clinical availability	Human-associated enrichment, gene mobility, presence in pathogens
Risk Categories	Continuous risk score	Four-tier ranking system (Ranks I-IV)
High-Risk Definition	Top 23.78% of ARGs by risk score	Ranks I & II (3.6% of ARGs)
Key Findings	Multidrug resistance genes pose highest health risk	35/73 Rank I ARGs match WHO priority list

Distribution of High-Risk ARGs Across Environmental Niches

Wastewater Treatment Systems

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) represent critical interception points for monitoring ARG dissemination, receiving waste from diverse sources including households, hospitals, and pharmaceutical facilities [1]. A global survey of 226 activated sludge samples from 142 WWTPs across six continents identified a core resistome of 20 ARGs that accounted for 83.8% of total ARG abundance, with tetracycline resistance genes being most prevalent [1].

The rare resistome (ARGs outside the core) demands particular attention despite lower abundance. Recent research revealed that clinically relevant ARG types (β-lactams and quinolones) and human pathogen-associated ARGs demonstrated significantly higher abundance in the rare resistome compared to the core resistome [94]. Furthermore, 65.5%-100% of these rare ARG types were plasmid-originated, dramatically enhancing their mobility potential.

Table 2: High-Risk ARG Prevalence Across Animal Agricultural Niches

Agricultural Niche	Most Prevalent ARG Types	High-Risk ARGs Identified	Key Pathogen Hosts
Duck Farms [95]	Multidrug, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, chloramphenicols, MLS, sulfonamides	floR, sul1, tetM, sul2, tetL	Enterococcus faecium, Acinetobacter baumannii, Staphylococcus aureus
Corn Silage [96]	Tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, lincosamide, fosfomycin, beta-lactam	tetM, bacA, SHV-1, dfrA17, QnrS1	Klebsiella, Lactobacilli
Raw Milk [90]	β-lactams, tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, chloramphenicols	vanXD	Actinobacteria, Firmicutes
Small Ruminant Farms [97]	β-lactams, tetracyclines, sulfonamides, macrolides	tetM, sul1, sul2, blaTEM, ermB	Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae

Livestock Production Environments

Animal agricultural systems represent significant reservoirs of ARGs, with specific high-risk profiles varying by operation type. Duck farms in southeastern China exhibited widespread contamination with 823 ARG subtypes, with floR being most abundant [95]. Critically, human bacterial pathogens including Enterococcus faecium, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Staphylococcus aureus were identified as ARG carriers, creating direct transmission pathways [95].

Corn silage across different climate zones harbored five high-risk ARGs (tetM, bacA, SHV-1, dfrA17, and QnrS1), with tetM being most prevalent [96]. The ensiling process reduced ARG abundance, suggesting potential intervention points. Raw milk from Northwest Xinjiang demonstrated ARG abundance up to 3.70×10⁵ copies/gram, with distribution driven by synergistic interactions between physicochemical properties, microbial communities, and mobile genetic elements [90].

Small ruminant farms in Portugal exhibited ARGs in 83% of environmental samples, with over half containing genes from three or more antibiotic classes [97]. β-lactamase genes demonstrated highest prevalence, followed by tetracycline and sulfonamide resistance genes.

Experimental Protocols for ARG Surveillance

Metagenomic Sequencing and Analysis

Comprehensive ARG profiling typically employs shotgun metagenomic sequencing, which provides untargeted access to the entire genetic material in a sample [93] [1]. The standard workflow includes:

• DNA Extraction: Using modified CTAB protocols optimized for specific sample types (e.g., liquid substrates for milk) [90]
• Library Preparation: Utilizing kits such as the TruSeq DNA PCR-Free Sample Preparation Kit
• Sequencing: Performing on platforms like Illumina NovaSeq6000 with paired-end sequencing
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Assembly of raw reads into contigs using tools like MEGAHIT
  • ORF prediction with Prodigal
  • ARG annotation against databases like CARD (Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database)
  • Host attribution using metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) with strict quality criteria (contigs >10 kb) [93]

This protocol enables simultaneous characterization of ARG diversity, abundance, mobility potential, and host identification [93] [1].

High-Throughput Quantitative PCR (HT-qPCR)

For targeted ARG quantification, HT-qPCR systems like the WaferGen SmartChip provide high-sensitivity detection of hundreds of ARGs simultaneously [90]. The methodology includes:

• Primer Design: 348 primer pairs targeting 330 ARGs, 17 MGEs, and 16S rRNA gene
• Amplification Conditions: Initial denaturation at 95°C for 10 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 30 s and 60°C for 30 s
• Quality Control: Amplification efficiency required within 90%-110%, detection in all three technical replicates required
• Quantification: Using formula 10^(35−CT)/(10/3) for relative copy numbers, normalized to 16S rRNA gene copies

This approach is particularly valuable for longitudinal studies and comparative risk assessment across multiple sample types [90].

Visualization of ARG Risk Assessment Methodology

The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated approach for identifying and categorizing high-risk antibiotic resistance genes across environmental niches:

High-Risk ARG Identification Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Platforms

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for ARG Surveillance and Risk Assessment

Tool/Reagent	Function	Application Example
Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database (CARD)	Reference database for ARG annotation	Standardized classification of resistance genes [93]
Metagenome-Assembled Genomes (MAGs)	Host attribution of ARGs	Identifying pathogen carriers of high-risk ARGs [93]
High-Throughput qPCR Systems	Targeted ARG quantification	Simultaneous detection of hundreds of ARGs [90]
Mobile Genetic Element Databases	Plasmid, integron, transposon annotation	Assessing horizontal transfer potential [92]
gSpreadComp Workflow	Comparative genomics & risk ranking	Integrated analysis of resistance-virulence potential [98]

This comparative assessment demonstrates that high-risk ARGs represent a small fraction (3.6-23.78%) of the total resistome yet pose disproportionate threats to public health [93] [92]. Their distribution varies significantly across environmental niches, with wastewater systems and livestock operations serving as critical reservoirs and mixing vessels [1] [95] [94]. The convergence of mobility elements, pathogen hosts, and human accessibility creates the conditions for high-risk ARG emergence and dissemination.

Surveillance efforts should prioritize niches with these convergent characteristics, particularly focusing on the rare resistome in wastewater and pathogen-infiltrated livestock environments [95] [94]. Standardized application of the risk assessment frameworks described herein will enable more effective targeting of intervention resources and policy initiatives to mitigate the global threat of antimicrobial resistance.

Conclusion

The fight against antibiotic resistance demands a sophisticated, One Health-informed understanding of how resistance genes move and persist. This synthesis underscores that ARG distribution is non-random, shaped by a complex interplay of bacterial community structure, mobile genetic elements, and environmental factors. While advanced methodologies like ddPCR and machine learning-enhanced genomics are refining our detection and predictive capabilities, critical challenges in standardization and annotation completeness remain. Future research must prioritize the development of unified protocols, the discovery of uncharacterized resistance mechanisms, and the integration of in vivo models to better mimic real-world transmission. For biomedical and clinical research, these insights are pivotal for designing targeted interventions, informing antibiotic stewardship policies, and ultimately, mitigating the global burden of antimicrobial resistance.

References

• 1. Global diversity and distribution of antibiotic resistance ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59019-3]
• 2. Core and variable antimicrobial resistance genes in the gut ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10839664/]
• 3. Comparative analysis of antibiotic-administered vs. ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740002025001571]
• 4. Comparative analysis of characteristics of antibiotic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389424005223]
• 5. Microbial signatures and ARGs profiles in two coastal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12355585/]
• 6. Recent advances in environmental antibiotic resistance ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024005750]
• 7. Distribution of antimicrobial resistance genes and virulence ... [https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-025-11632-9]
• 8. The structure and diversity of human, animal and ... - Microbiome [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-016-0199-5]
• 9. Bacterial hosts, distribution patterns, and risk burden of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389425030663]
• 10. Global soil antibiotic resistance genes are associated with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61606-3]
• 11. Assessment of seasonal variations in antibiotic resistance ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749125007407]
• 12. From farms to homes: navigating antimicrobial resistance ... [https://onehealthadv.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s44280-025-00084-0]
• 13. Antibiotic resistance genes from livestock waste - Nature [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-020-0051-0]
• 14. Analysis of Antibiotic Resistance Genes, Environmental ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8264556/]
• 15. Global quantification and distribution of antibiotic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969724069225]
• 16. Isolation, characterization, and abundance of filamentous members of... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20571943/]
• 17. The transfer of antibiotic resistance genes between ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12188727/]
• 18. Transmission of antibiotic resistance at the wildlife-livestock ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9200806/]
• 19. Distribution and occurrence of antibiotic resistance genes ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405665025000848]
• 20. Tuning up microbiome analysis to monitor WWTPs ’ biological reactors... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61092-1?error=cookies_not_supported&code=934253c5-bd88-46f6-b40b-dfbeb59e0818]
• 21. Antibiotic resistome from the One-Health perspective: understanding... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8080597/]
• 22. Mobile Genetic Elements Associated with Antimicrobial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6148190/]
• 23. Unraveling the role of mobile genetic elements in antibiotic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/systems-biology/articles/10.3389/fsysb.2025.1557413/full]
• 24. A Host's Genes Likely Influence the Spread of Antibiotic ... [https://asm.org/press-releases/2020/a-host-s-genes-likely-influence-the-spread-of-anti]
• 25. Comparative resistome, mobilome, and microbial ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579123005217]
• 26. Comprehensive genome catalog analysis of the resistome ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-025-00746-2]
• 27. Deciphering the profiles and hosts of antibiotic resistance ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749125006864]
• 28. 环境“抗生素耐药性”大揭秘：高通量qPCR芯片与宏基因组谁更 ... [http://www.personalbio.cn/AboutUs_NewsCenterDetail.aspx?id=1156]
• 29. 水性抗生素耐药细菌的分离和鉴定及其 ... [https://www.jove.com/cn/t/63934/isolation-identification-waterborne-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria]
• 30. 基于萃取和超高效液相色谱–串联质谱法的贝类抗生素快速 ... [https://xbna.pku.edu.cn/fileup/0479-8023/HTML/2018-5-1060.html]
• 31. Competitiveness of Quantitative Polymerase Chain ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8007/1/3/28]
• 32. dPCR vs qPCR [https://www.qiagen.com/us/applications/digital-pcr/beginners/dpcr-vs-qpcr]
• 33. Comparison of Real-Time PCR and Droplet Digital PCR for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9105557/]
• 34. Comparative Study Between Droplet Digital PCR and Real ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/13/11/2426]
• 35. Droplet Digital PCR versus qPCR for gene expression ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02217-x]
• 36. Highly accurate and sensitive of bacterial... absolute quantification [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-024-01881-2]
• 37. Comparing the precision of two digital PCR applications for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13143-8]
• 38. dPCR vs. ddPCR: Why Precision Matters in Cell and Gene ... [https://www.roslinct.com/insights/dpcr-vs-ddpcr/]
• 39. Quantitative or digital PCR? A comparative analysis for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165993624001584]
• 40. Review and Comparison of Antimicrobial Resistance Gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8944830/]
• 41. AMRFinderPlus and the Reference Gene Catalog facilitate ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91456-0]
• 42. ResFinder – an open online resource for identification of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8914360/]
• 43. The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3697360/]
• 44. AMRFinderPlus - Pathogen Detection - NCBI - NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pathogens/antimicrobial-resistance/AMRFinder/]
• 45. The Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database [https://card.mcmaster.ca/]
• 46. Comparative assessment of annotation tools reveals ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24333-9]
• 47. ResFinder - Center for Genomic Epidemiology - DTU [https://genepi.food.dtu.dk/resfinder]
• 48. An ISO-certified genomics workflow for identification and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35713-4]
• 49. ncbi/amr: AMRFinderPlus [https://github.com/ncbi/amr]
• 50. Genome-centric analyses of 165 metagenomes show ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10913551/]
• 51. Microbiome, resistome, and potential transfer of antibiotic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12224677/]
• 52. 废水排放对近海环境中抗生素抗性基因和微生物群落的影响 [https://www.hjkx.ac.cn/hjkx/ch/html/20220921.htm]
• 53. Evaluation of PCR-enhancing approaches to reduce ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724069250]
• 54. Evaluation of Inhibitor-Resistant Real-Time PCR Methods for ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073845]
• 55. PCR inhibition in qPCR, dPCR and MPS—mechanisms and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7072044/]
• 56. Improving eDNA yield and inhibitor reduction through ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40977-w]
• 57. Comparative Analysis of RT-qPCR Assay Sensitivity and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016609342500165X]
• 58. Predicting antimicrobial resistance phenotypes across ... [https://research.arcadiascience.com/pub/result-ecoli-amr-popgen-genomic-prediction/release/3/]
• 59. Predicting antibiotic resistance genes and bacterial ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1628952/full]
• 60. Predicting antibiotic resistance genes and bacterial ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40988849/]
• 61. Towards an interpretable machine learning model for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221371652500195X]
• 62. Prediction of antibiotic resistance from ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-14078-w]
• 63. Identification of antibiotic resistance genes from whole ... [https://onehealthadv.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s44280-025-00079-x]
• 64. NCRD: A non-redundant comprehensive database ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10590964/]
• 65. ARGs: Detection, Database, and Bioinformatics Tools [https://www.cd-genomics.com/microbioseq/resource-args-detection-database-bioinformatics-tools.html]
• 66. Three Distinct Annotation Platforms Differ in Detection of ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/10/1400]
• 67. Application to 10 Distinct Outcomes Studies of Preventive ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9935745/]
• 68. Approaches to protocol standardization and data ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-024-03039-0]
• 69. Best practices for clinical trials data harmonization and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12083401/]
• 70. Distribution Patterns of Antibiotic Resistance Genes and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9692488/]
• 71. Metagenomic Analysis Reveals the Distribution of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2020.590018/full]
• 72. Global study reveals widespread latent antimicrobial ... [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20251127/Global-study-reveals-widespread-latent-antimicrobial-resistance-in-wastewater.aspx]
• 73. WHO warns of widespread resistance to common ... [https://www.who.int/news/item/13-10-2025-who-warns-of-widespread-resistance-to-common-antibiotics-worldwide]
• 74. Artificial intelligence tools for the identification of antibiotic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11272472/]
• 75. The 5 Best Data Annotation Tools of 2025 [https://medium.com/@ideacvr2024/the-5-best-data-annotation-tools-of-2025-3f08d21e4a44]
• 76. Top 5 Text Annotation Tools in 2025 - Unitlab Blogs [https://blog.unitlab.ai/top-5-text-annotation-tools-in-2025/]
• 77. The Ultimate Guide to Evaluation and Selection of Models ... [https://neptune.ai/blog/ml-model-evaluation-and-selection]
• 78. Evaluation metrics and statistical tests for machine learning [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-56706-x]
• 79. Estimation of minimal data sets sizes for machine learning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11655521/]
• 80. Comparison of three source attribution methods applied to ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1393824/full]
• 81. Data-Driven Approaches in Antimicrobial Resistance [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11590962/]
• 82. Diagnostic Innovations to Combat Antibiotic Resistance in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12428289/]
• 83. A Practical Framework for Environmental Antibiotic ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/14/8/840]
• 84. Towards the integration of antibiotic resistance gene ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44259-025-00154-8]
• 85. Comparison of Source Attribution Methodologies for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10303420/]
• 86. Systematic comparison of published host gene expression ... [https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-022-01025-x]
• 87. Antimicrobial resistance [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance]
• 88. Predicting bacterial phenotypic traits through improved ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08313-3]
• 89. Genomic predictions to leverage phenotypic data across ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1227656/full]
• 90. Prevalence of antibiotic resistance genes its association ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1595051/full]
• 91. A comparative analysis of genomic and phenomic predictions ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9434219/]
• 92. An omics-based framework for assessing the health risk ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8346589/]
• 93. Assessment of global health risk of antibiotic resistance ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29283-8]
• 94. Presence of high-risk ARGs with greater diversity and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389425003474]
• 95. Distribution of antibiotic resistance genes and their ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38229327/]
• 96. Hazardous risk of antibiotic resistance genes [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749123016731]
• 97. The Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/14/6/576]
• 98. Integrating comparative genomics and risk classification by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12199706/]