At GMI16, researchers and public health experts turned their attention to the less glamorous but increasingly urgent questions around genomic surveillance: how data is shared, how systems connect, and how trust is built.
For much of the past decade, the story of pathogen genomics has been one of rapidly expanding technical capacity. Sequencing has become faster, cheaper and more widely available, and public health laboratories around the world are producing more genomic data than ever before.
At GMI16 in Tunis, however, much of the discussion was about what happens next.
The 16th Global Microbial Identifier Conference, held on 24 and 25 September, brought together scientists, public health professionals and data specialists working across human, animal, food and environmental health.
The meeting covered everything from foodborne disease surveillance and antimicrobial resistance to artificial intelligence and data platforms. But a recurring theme was that generating data is only one part of an effective surveillance system.
The more difficult questions concern how that data is structured, shared and used.
PHA4GE Executive Director Prof Alan Christoffels, who attended the meeting, said the discussions had sharpened his understanding of how different countries are approaching these challenges.
Platforms for public health
PHA4GE members were among those presenting during the session “Data platform and sharing for surveillance: Global, Regional and Local.”
Torsten Seemann, Nabil-Fareed Alikhan, Emma Hodcroft, Ruth Timme and Heather Carleton-Romer each brought a different perspective to the question of how genomic data can be made more useful for surveillance.
Alikhan spoke about Pathogenwatch, while Hodcroft discussed Pathoplexus, a platform designed to support the sharing of viral sequence data.
Timme focused on foodborne pathogen surveillance and data held at the US National Center for Biotechnology Information, drawing attention to something that can easily be overlooked in discussions about genomics: metadata.
A genome sequence on its own can tell only part of the story. Information about where and when a sample was collected, how it was processed and what it relates to can determine whether that sequence becomes useful public health information or simply another entry in a database.
For PHA4GE, this is familiar territory.
Much of the organisation’s work has centred on improving standards, interoperability and the way genomic data is described and exchanged. The discussions in Tunis showed how central those issues have become as surveillance systems grow in scale and complexity.
Different countries, familiar problems
Christoffels said one of the most striking aspects of the meeting was how similar many of the challenges sounded across countries.
Discussions with colleagues working in Australia, Germany, Spain and Norway highlighted different surveillance systems and regulatory environments, but also many of the same underlying questions.
How should data move between institutions? Who needs access to it? Which standards make information usable across systems? And how do countries build enough trust for data sharing to work in practice?
These are not questions that can be solved through better software alone.
They depend on relationships between laboratories, governments, researchers and public health agencies, as well as agreement on how information should be handled.
For Christoffels, the meeting was a reminder that the challenges often associated with genomic surveillance in Africa are not uniquely African.
Countries with very different resources and health systems are wrestling with many of the same problems.
Looking beyond the laboratory
Foodborne disease surveillance was another area that stood out.
Christoffels said the meeting had helped refine his understanding of how countries organise surveillance for food pathogens, particularly the relationship between genomic data, regulation and public health decision-making.
That broader perspective was reflected throughout GMI16.
The conference placed genomics within a One Health framework, bringing together work across human health, animals, food systems and the environment.
It was also a reminder of how much the field has changed.
Sequencing technology remains fundamental, but discussions about genomics increasingly involve data standards, digital infrastructure, sustainability, governance and the practical realities of turning laboratory information into public health action.
There is no single platform or technical fix that will solve all of these problems.
Instead, what emerged in Tunis was a picture of genomic surveillance as a network of connected systems: laboratories producing data, standards making that data understandable, platforms allowing it to move, and institutions deciding how it should be used.
For PHA4GE, that is where much of the work now lies.
The challenge is no longer simply to produce more genomic data. It is to make sure that data can travel, be understood and, ultimately, be useful.
