| Literature DB >> 23762297 |
Georges Teto1, Georgette D Kanmogne, Judith N Torimiro, George Alemnji, Flore N Nguemaim, Désiré Takou, Aubin Nanfack, Asonganyi Tazoacha.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV infection has commonly been found to affect lipid profile and antioxidant defense.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23762297 PMCID: PMC3676401 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Phylogenetic tree of the different subtypes of HIV-1 group M included in the study (460 bp encoding amino acid 132 of p24 to amino acid 40 of p7 from the gag gene).
Cons = reference sequences; G = sample.
Demographics and clinical characteristics of participants.
| Characteristics | HIV+ Patients | HIV-Controls | P |
| Total number | (N = 151) | (N = 134) | |
| Sex (% female) | 63.6 | 45.5 | 0.0001 |
| Age (mean ± SD) | 35.58±9.32 | 27.65±7.70 | 0.0001 |
| Age range | 16–56 | 16–56 | |
| Education (mean years ± SD) | 12.20±1.68 | 12.50±1.57 | 0.71 |
| AIDS (%) | 38.41 |
Biochemical parameters in HIV-infected patients, stratified according to CD4 cell count, compared with control subjects.
| Parameters | HIV-Controls | HIV+ | Patients | (Cell/µL) | P |
| ≥500 | 200–499 | <200 | |||
| (A1) | (B2) | (C3) | |||
| N = 134 | N = 15 | N = 78 | N = 58 | ||
| TC (g/l) | 1,96±0,54 | 1,18±0,55 | 1,07±0,38 | 0,97±0,36 | 0.0001 |
| LDLC (g/l) | 0, 67±0, 46 | 0,29±0,21 | 0,50±0,42 | 0,37±0,26 | 0.0001 |
| HDLC (mg/dl) | 105, 51±28, 10 | 46,91±25,22 | 46,51±21,56 | 45,27±26,45 | 0.0001 |
| TAA (mM) | 0, 63±0, 17 | 0,27±0,26 | 0,17±0,14 | 0,13±0,13 | 0.0001 |
| MDA (µM) | 0, 20±0, 07 | 0,39±0,10 | 0,41±0,11 | 0,42±0,10 | 0.0001 |
| LPI | 0, 34±0, 14 | 17,53±32,83 | 30,83±96,87 | 31,41±90,51 | 0.0001 |
Every value is the mean ± standard deviation. P value: statistically significant difference between each clinical category and HIV-controls group for each biochemical marker mean value. (A1), (B2), (C3): Clinical categories.
Biochemical parameters in HIV-infected patients, correlated with CD4 using Pearson correlation coefficient.
| CD4 | TC | HDLC | LDLC | TAA | MDA | LPI | |
| CD4 | 1 | ||||||
| TC | 0,037 | 1 | |||||
| HDLC | 0,274 | 0,583 | 1 | ||||
| LDLC | 0, 065 | 0,530 | 0,142 | 1 | |||
| TAA | 0,199 | 0,042 | 0,032 | 0,018 | 1 | ||
| MDA | −0,059 | −0,035 | −0,035 | −0,022 | 0,074 | 1 | |
| LPI | −0,166 | −0,079 | −0,066 | −0,030 | −0,968 | 0,125 | 1 |
Significant Pearson correlation (P<0, 05 at a bilateral level).
Significant Pearson correlation (p<0, 01 at a bilateral level).
Distribution of HIV-1 subtypes in patients by sex and CD4 cell counts.
| Men | Women | Total (%) | ||||||
| CD4 cells count/µl | CD4 cellscount/µl | |||||||
| ≥500 | 200–499 | <200 | ≥500 | 200–499 | <200 | |||
| SUBTYPES | CRF01_AE | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6 (20.0%) |
| CRF02_AG | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 13(43.3%) | ||
| A1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 (23.3%) | |
| G | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 (6.7%) | |
| H | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 (6.7%) | |
| CRFs | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 2 | 19(63.3%) | |
| Pure | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 11(36.6%) | |
| Total number of subjects | 1 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 11 | 3 | ||
Comparison of different biochemical parameters between patients and controls.
| Parameters | Controls±SD | Patients±SD | P |
| TC (g/l) | 1.96±0.54 | 1. 12±0. 48 | 0.0001 |
| LDLC (g/l) | 0. 67±0. 46 | 0. 43±0. 36 | 0.0002 |
| HDLC (mg/dl) | 105. 51±28. 10 | 46. 54±23. 36 | 0.0001 |
| TAA (mM) | 0. 63±0. 17 | 0. 16±0. 16 | 0.0001 |
| MDA (µM) | 0. 20±0. 07 | 0. 41±0. 10 | 0.0002 |
| LPI | 0. 34±0. 14 | 26. 02±74. 40 | 0.0001 |
Every value is the mean ± standard deviation. SD = Standard deviation.
Comparison of different biochemical parameters between patients infected with CRF CRF01_AE, CRF02_AG and pure HIV1 subtypes (G, H, and A1).
| Parameters | Subtypes | Mean ± SD | P | Subtypes | Mean ± SD | P |
| TC (g/l) | (CRF) | 0.87±0.27 | 0.017 | CRF01 _AE | 1.74±0.97 | 0.69 |
| (G, H and A1) | 1.32±0.68 | CRF02 _AG | 1.13±0.41 | |||
| HDLC (mg/dl) | (CRF) | 41.18±22.76 | 0.68 | CRF01 _AE | 54.17±22.57 | 0.22 |
| (G, H and A1) | 44.74±22.57 | CRF02 _AG | 40.38±22.07 | |||
| LDLC (g/l) | (CRF) | 0.33±0.18 | 0.059 | CRF01 _AE | 0.88±0.81 | 0.11 |
| (G, H and A1) | 0.60±0.53 | CRF02 _AG | 0.47±0.27 | |||
| TAA (mM) | (CRF) | 0.09±0.07 | 0.169 | CRF01 _AE | 0.10±0.11 | 0.61 |
| (G, H and A1) | 0.13±0.12 | CRF02 _AG | 0.14±0.12 | |||
| MDA (µM) | (CRF) | 0.44±0.12 | 0.51 | CRF01 _AE | 0.50±0.10 | 0.018 |
| (G, H and A1) | 0.41±0.10 | CRF02 _AG | 0.38±0.08 | |||
| LPI | (CRF) | 23.92±52.31 | 0.92 | CRF01 _AE | 59.22±123.09 | 0.16 |
| (G, H and A1) | 25.99±69.74 | CRF02 _AG | 10.65±13.29 |
Every value is the mean ± standard deviation.
Comparison of plasma MDA, TC, HDLC, LDLC concentrations by sex in controls and patients group.
| Parameters | Groups | Men | women | P |
| MDA (µM) | Patients | 0,43±0,10 | 0,39±0,10 | 0.68 |
| Controls | 0,26±0,04 | 0,14±0,03 | 0.019 | |
| HDLC (mg/dl) | Patients | 42,12±22,66 | 49,07±23,5 | 0.001 |
| Controls | 101,99±28,69 | 109,72±27,01 | 0.001 | |
| LDLC (g/l) | Patients | 0,38±0,25 | 0,46±0,40 | 0.60 |
| Controls | 0,63±0,42 | 0,72±0,51 | 0.061 | |
| TC (g/l) | Patients | 1,02±0,41 | 1,17±0,51 | 0.021 |
| Controls | 1,89±0,48 | 2,05±0,59 | 0.024 |
Every value, except P values, is the mean ± standard deviation.