BACKGROUND: Current genotypic algorithms suggest that the HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PI) lopinavir (LPV) and amprenavir (APV) have distinct resistance profiles. However, phenotypic data indicate that cross-resistance is more common than expected. METHODS: Protease genotype (GT) and phenotype (PT) from 1418 patient viruses with reduced PI susceptibility and/or resistance-associated mutations (training data) were analyzed. Samples were classified as LPV resistant by GT (GT-R) if six or more LPV mutations were present, and by PT (PT-R) if the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC(50)) fold-change (FC) was over 10. RESULTS: There were 182 samples (13%) that were GT-S but PT-R for LPV. A comparison of the mutation prevalence in PT-R/GT-S samples with that in PT-S/GT-S samples identified mutations associated with LPV PT-R. Several previously defined LPV mutations were found to have a stronger than average effect (e.g., M46I/L, I54V/T, V82A/F), and new variants at known positions (e.g., I54A/M/S, V82S) were identified. Other mutations, including known APV resistance mutations, were found to contribute to reduced LPV susceptibility. A new LPV genotypic interpretation algorithm was constructed that improved overall genotypic/phenotypic concordance from 80% to 91%. The algorithm demonstrated a concordance rate of 90% when tested on 523 new samples. Cross-resistance between APV and LPV was greater in samples with primary APV resistance mutations than in those lacking them. CONCLUSIONS: The current LPV mutation score does not fully account for many resistant viruses. Consequently, cross-resistance between LPV and APV is underappreciated. Phenotypic results from large and diverse patient virus populations should be used to guide the development of more accurate GT interpretation algorithms.
BACKGROUND: Current genotypic algorithms suggest that the HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PI) lopinavir (LPV) and amprenavir (APV) have distinct resistance profiles. However, phenotypic data indicate that cross-resistance is more common than expected. METHODS: Protease genotype (GT) and phenotype (PT) from 1418 patient viruses with reduced PI susceptibility and/or resistance-associated mutations (training data) were analyzed. Samples were classified as LPV resistant by GT (GT-R) if six or more LPV mutations were present, and by PT (PT-R) if the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC(50)) fold-change (FC) was over 10. RESULTS: There were 182 samples (13%) that were GT-S but PT-R for LPV. A comparison of the mutation prevalence in PT-R/GT-S samples with that in PT-S/GT-S samples identified mutations associated with LPV PT-R. Several previously defined LPV mutations were found to have a stronger than average effect (e.g., M46I/L, I54V/T, V82A/F), and new variants at known positions (e.g., I54A/M/S, V82S) were identified. Other mutations, including known APV resistance mutations, were found to contribute to reduced LPV susceptibility. A new LPV genotypic interpretation algorithm was constructed that improved overall genotypic/phenotypic concordance from 80% to 91%. The algorithm demonstrated a concordance rate of 90% when tested on 523 new samples. Cross-resistance between APV and LPV was greater in samples with primary APV resistance mutations than in those lacking them. CONCLUSIONS: The current LPV mutation score does not fully account for many resistant viruses. Consequently, cross-resistance between LPV and APV is underappreciated. Phenotypic results from large and diverse patient virus populations should be used to guide the development of more accurate GT interpretation algorithms.
Authors: Soo-Yon Rhee; Jonathan Taylor; W Jeffrey Fessel; David Kaufman; William Towner; Paolo Troia; Peter Ruane; James Hellinger; Vivian Shirvani; Andrew Zolopa; Robert W Shafer Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2010-07-26 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Soo-Yon Rhee; W Jeffrey Fessel; Andrew R Zolopa; Leo Hurley; Tommy Liu; Jonathan Taylor; Dong Phuong Nguyen; Sally Slome; Daniel Klein; Michael Horberg; Jason Flamm; Stephen Follansbee; Jonathan M Schapiro; Robert W Shafer Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2005-07-05 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Joke Snoeck; Rami Kantor; Robert W Shafer; Kristel Van Laethem; Koen Deforche; Ana Patricia Carvalho; Brian Wynhoven; Marcelo A Soares; Patricia Cane; John Clarke; Candice Pillay; Sunee Sirivichayakul; Koya Ariyoshi; Africa Holguin; Hagit Rudich; Rosangela Rodrigues; Maria Belen Bouzas; Françoise Brun-Vézinet; Caroline Reid; Pedro Cahn; Luis Fernando Brigido; Zehava Grossman; Vincent Soriano; Wataru Sugiura; Praphan Phanuphak; Lynn Morris; Jonathan Weber; Deenan Pillay; Amilcar Tanuri; Richard P Harrigan; Ricardo Camacho; Jonathan M Schapiro; David Katzenstein; Anne-Mieke Vandamme Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Philip Grant; Eric C Wong; Richard Rode; Robert Shafer; Andrea De Luca; Jeffrey Nadler; Trevor Hawkins; Calvin Cohen; Robert Harrington; Dale Kempf; Andrew Zolopa Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2008-08-18 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Halina Krowicka; James E Robinson; Rebecca Clark; Shannon Hager; Stephanie Broyles; Seth H Pincus Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Klára Grantz Sasková; Milan Kozísek; Martin Lepsík; Jirí Brynda; Pavlína Rezácová; Jana Václavíková; Ron M Kagan; Ladislav Machala; Jan Konvalinka Journal: Protein Sci Date: 2008-06-17 Impact factor: 6.725