BACKGROUND: HIV drug-resistance (DR) surveillance in resource-limited settings can be performed using dried blood spots (DBS) because of ease of collection, transportation and storage. Analysis of pooled specimens on next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based platforms, such as the 454 pyrosequencing, is an efficient sequencing method for determining HIV DR rates. In this study, we conducted HIV DR surveillance on DBS using NGS and identified minority variants in individual patients. METHODS: A total of 48 extracts of DBS from an HIV DR surveillance study in Mexico City were re-amplified using primers tagged with multiplex identifiers, pooled and pyrosequenced. Consensus sequences were generated for each specimen with mixtures identified at positions where >20% of the reads contained a variant. Individual consensus sequences were then analysed for DR mutations and compared with those derived from Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: DBS analysed with tagged pooled pyrosequencing (TPP) were highly concordant with Sanger sequencing genotypes from matching plasma and DBS (99.21% and 99.51%, respectively). An exception was an M184I mutation only detected with TPP of DBS at a frequency of 20.4%. Multiple specimens had minority variant reads below the 20% mixture threshold. CONCLUSIONS: TPP using DBS is an effective method for HIV DR surveillance. TPP for genotyping results in cost savings of 40% over conventional in-house methods. The effect of low-abundance DR mutations, undetectable by conventional methods, remains to be determined. This technology might be applied to any HIV specimen (plasma/serum) and can also be used for other diagnostic assays where DNA sequencing is required.
BACKGROUND: HIV drug-resistance (DR) surveillance in resource-limited settings can be performed using dried blood spots (DBS) because of ease of collection, transportation and storage. Analysis of pooled specimens on next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based platforms, such as the 454 pyrosequencing, is an efficient sequencing method for determining HIV DR rates. In this study, we conducted HIV DR surveillance on DBS using NGS and identified minority variants in individual patients. METHODS: A total of 48 extracts of DBS from an HIV DR surveillance study in Mexico City were re-amplified using primers tagged with multiplex identifiers, pooled and pyrosequenced. Consensus sequences were generated for each specimen with mixtures identified at positions where >20% of the reads contained a variant. Individual consensus sequences were then analysed for DR mutations and compared with those derived from Sanger sequencing. RESULTS:DBS analysed with tagged pooled pyrosequencing (TPP) were highly concordant with Sanger sequencing genotypes from matching plasma and DBS (99.21% and 99.51%, respectively). An exception was an M184I mutation only detected with TPP of DBS at a frequency of 20.4%. Multiple specimens had minority variant reads below the 20% mixture threshold. CONCLUSIONS:TPP using DBS is an effective method for HIV DR surveillance. TPP for genotyping results in cost savings of 40% over conventional in-house methods. The effect of low-abundance DR mutations, undetectable by conventional methods, remains to be determined. This technology might be applied to any HIV specimen (plasma/serum) and can also be used for other diagnostic assays where DNA sequencing is required.
Authors: T Nguyen-Dumont; M Mahmoodi; F Hammet; T Tran; H Tsimiklis; G G Giles; J L Hopper; M C Southey; D J Park Journal: Anal Biochem Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 3.365
Authors: Gert U van Zyl; Lisa M Frenkel; Michael H Chung; Wolfgang Preiser; John W Mellors; Jean B Nachega Journal: AIDS Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Bharat S Parekh; Chin-Yih Ou; Peter N Fonjungo; Mireille B Kalou; Erin Rottinghaus; Adrian Puren; Heather Alexander; Mackenzie Hurlston Cox; John N Nkengasong Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Hezhao Ji; Yang Li; Binhua Liang; Richard Pilon; Paul MacPherson; Michèle Bergeron; John Kim; Morag Graham; Gary Van Domselaar; Paul Sandstrom; James Brooks Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marc Noguera-Julian; Dianna Edgil; P Richard Harrigan; Paul Sandstrom; Catherine Godfrey; Roger Paredes Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Spencer D Polley; David Bell; James Oliver; Frank Tully; Mark D Perkins; Peter L Chiodini; Iveth J González Journal: Malar J Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: James H Resau; Nhan T Ho; Karl Dykema; Matthew S Faber; Julia V Busik; Radoslav Z Nickolov; Kyle A Furge; Nigel Paneth; Scott Jewell; Sok Kean Khoo Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Dawn M Dudley; Emily N Chin; Benjamin N Bimber; Sabri S Sanabani; Leandro F Tarosso; Priscilla R Costa; Mariana M Sauer; Esper G Kallas; David H O'Connor Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 3.240