Research Open Access
Like 0



Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly used for pathogen identification and surveillance.


We evaluated costs and benefits of routine WGS through case studies at eight reference laboratories in Europe and the Americas which conduct pathogen surveillance for avian influenza (two laboratories), human influenza (one laboratory) and food-borne pathogens (five laboratories).


The evaluation focused on the institutional perspective, i.e. the ‘investment case’ for implementing WGS compared with conventional methods, based on costs and benefits during a defined reference period, mostly covering at least part of 2017. A break-even analysis estimated the number of cases of illness (for the example of surveillance) that would need to be avoided through WGS in order to ‘break even’ on costs.


On a per-sample basis, WGS was between 1.2 and 4.3 times more expensive than routine conventional methods. However, WGS brought major benefits for pathogen identification and surveillance, substantially changing laboratory workflows, analytical processes and outbreaks detection and control. Between 0.2% and 1.1% (on average 0.7%) of reported salmonellosis cases would need to be prevented to break even with respect to the additional costs of WGS.


Even at cost levels documented here, WGS provides a level of additional information that more than balances the additional costs if used effectively. The substantial cost differences for WGS between reference laboratories were due to economies of scale, degree of automation, sequencing technology used and institutional discounts for equipment and consumables, as well as the extent to which sequencers are used at full capacity.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aarestrup FM, Brown EW, Detter C, Gerner-Smidt P, Gilmour MW, Harmsen D, et al. Integrating genome-based informatics to modernize global disease monitoring, information sharing, and response. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(11):e1.  https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1811.120453  PMID: 23092707 
  2. Alleweldt F, Kara S, Osinski A, Van Baal P, Kellerborg K, Aarestrup FM, et al. Developing a framework to assess the costeffectiveness of COMPARE - a global platform for the exchange of sequence-based pathogen data. Rev Sci Tech. 2017;36(1):311-22.  https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.36.1.2631  PMID: 28926006 
  3. Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, Acharya A, Evens DB, et al. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003, p. 18-9. Available from: https://www.who.int/choice/publications/p_2003_generalised_cea.pdf
  4. World Health Organisation (WHO). Evaluating the costs and benefits of national surveillance and response systems: Methodologies and options. Geneva: WHO: 2005; p. 18. Available from: https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/surveillance/WHO_CDS_EPR_LYO_2005_25.pdf
  5. Buchanan J, Wordsworth S, Schuh A. Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies. Pharmacogenomics. 2013;14(15):1833-47.  https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs.13.183  PMID: 24236483 
  6. Civic Consulting. Study on cost–benefit analysis of reference laboratories for human pathogens. Luxembourg: European Commission (CHAFEA); 2016. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/preparedness_response/docs/2016_laboratorieshumanpathogens_frep_en.pdf
  7. European Commission (EC). Analysis of the costs and benefits of setting a target for the reduction of Salmonella in slaughter pigs – Final report. Brussels: EC: 2010; p. 69-102 Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/biosafety_food-borne-disease_salmonella_fattening-pigs_slaughthouse-analysis-costs.pdf
  8. European Commission (EC). Analysis of the costs and benefits of setting a target for the reduction of Salmonella in breeding pigs – Final report. Brussels: EC: 2011; p. 23-8. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/biosafety_food-borne-disease_salmonella_breeding-pigs_salm-cost-benefit.pdf
  9. Economic Research Service (ERS), US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Cost estimates of foodborne illnesses. Washington: ERS, USDA. [Accessed: 25 Jun 2019]. Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/DataFiles/48464/Salmonella.xlsx?v=3347
  10. Grant K, Jenkins C, Arnold C, Green J, Zambon M. Implementing pathogen genomics. A case study. London: Public Health England; 2018. p. 22. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/731057/implementing_pathogen_genomics_a_case_study.pdf
  11. Dallman TJ, Chattaway MA, Mook P, Godbole G, Crook PD, Jenkins C. Use of whole-genome sequencing for the public health surveillance of Shigella sonnei in England and Wales, 2015. J Med Microbiol. 2016;65(8):882-4.  https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.000296  PMID: 27302408 
  12. Morganti M, Scaltriti E, Cozzolino P, Bolzoni L, Casadei G, Pierantoni M, et al. Processing-dependent and clonal contamination patterns of Listeria monocytogenes in the cured ham food chain revealed by genetic analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;82(3):822-31.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03103-15  PMID: 26590278 
  13. Jansen van Rensburg MJ, Swift C, Cody AJ, Jenkins C, Maiden MC. Exploiting bacterial whole-genome sequencing data for evaluation of diagnostic assays: Campylobacter species identification as a case study. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;54(12):2882-90.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01522-16  PMID: 27733632 
  14. Mook P, Gardiner D, Verlander NQ, McCormick J, Usdin M, Crook P, et al. Operational burden of implementing Salmonella Enteritidis and Typhimurium cluster detection using whole genome sequencing surveillance data in England: a retrospective assessment. Epidemiol Infect. 2018;146(11):1452-60.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268818001589  PMID: 29961436 
  15. Morganti M, Bolzoni L, Scaltriti E, Casadei G, Carra E, Rossi L, et al. Rise and fall of outbreak-specific clone inside endemic pulsotype of Salmonella 4,[5],12:i:-; insights from high-resolution molecular surveillance in Emilia-Romagna, Italy, 2012 to 2015. Euro Surveill. 2018;23(13):17-00375.  https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.13.17-00375  PMID: 29616614 
  16. Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). Public Health Notice - Outbreaks of Salmonella infections linked to raw chicken, including frozen raw breaded chicken products. Ottawa: PHAC; 2019. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/public-health-notices/2018/outbreaks-salmonella-infections-linked-raw-chicken-including-frozen-raw-breaded-chicken-products.html
  17. Kanagarajah S, Waldram A, Dolan G, Jenkins C, Ashton PM, Carrion Martin AI, et al. Whole genome sequencing reveals an outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis associated with reptile feeder mice in the United Kingdom, 2012-2015. Food Microbiol. 2018;71:32-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2017.04.005  PMID: 29366466 
  18. Conraths FJ, Globig A, Sauter-Louis C, Dietze K, Homeier-Bachmann T, Probst C, et al. Making worst case scenarios real: The introduction of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 led to the largest fowl plague outbreak ever recorded in Germany. Lohmann Information. 2017;51(1):36-41. Available from: http://www.ltz.de/de-wAssets/docs/lohmann-information/Conraths_1.pdf
  19. Conraths FJ, Dietze K, Staubach C, Homeier-Bachmann T, Globig A, Probst C, et al. Epidemiologie des aktuellen Geflügelpestgeschehens in Deutschland. [Epidemiology of the current incidence of avian influenza in Germany]. Meeting of the Gesellschaft der Förderer und Freunde für Geflügel- und Kleintierforschung e.V.; 3 May 2017, Celle, Germany. German. Available from: https://www.openagrar.de/receive/openagrar_mods_00026417
  20. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Surveillance atlas of infectious diseases. Stockholm: ECDC. [Accessed: 22 Feb 2021]. Available from: http://atlas.ecdc.europa.eu/public/index.aspx
  21. Helms M, Vastrup P, Gerner-Smidt P, Mølbak K. Short and long term mortality associated with foodborne bacterial gastrointestinal infections: registry based study. BMJ. 2003;326(7385):357.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7385.357  PMID: 12586666 

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary data

Submit comment
Comment moderation successfully completed
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error