Nathan Osman1, Thibault Mesplède2, Peter K Quashie1, Maureen Oliveira2, Veronica Zanichelli2, Mark A Wainberg3. 1. McGill University AIDS Centre, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. McGill University AIDS Centre, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. McGill University AIDS Centre, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada mark.wainberg@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Of the currently approved HIV integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs), dolutegravir has shown greater efficacy than raltegravir at suppressing HIV-1 replication in treatment-experienced individuals. Biochemical experiments have also shown that dolutegravir has a longer dissociative half-life when bound to HIV integrase than does raltegravir. In order to study the intracellular efficacy of various INSTIs, we asked whether drug removal from INSTI-treated HIV-1-infected cells would result in different times to viral rebound. In addition, we assessed the role of the R263K substitution within the integrase ORF that is associated with low-level resistance to dolutegravir. METHODS: HIV-infected MT-2 cells were treated with dolutegravir, raltegravir or a third experimental INSTI (MK-2048) and the drugs were washed out after varying times. Viral replication was monitored by measuring reverse transcriptase (RT) activity in the culture fluids. RESULTS: We observed a significantly slower increase in RT activity after the removal of dolutegravir compared with raltegravir or MK-2048. The incubation time before the drug was removed also had an impact on the level of RT activity independently of the drug and virus used. The R263K substitution did not significantly impact on levels of RT activity after drug washout, suggesting that dolutegravir remained tightly bound to the integrase enzyme despite the presence of this mutation. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the residency time of INSTIs on integrase is a key factor in the activity of these drugs and that the anti-HIV activity of dolutegravir persists more effectively than that of other INSTIs after drug washout.
OBJECTIVES: Of the currently approved HIV integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs), dolutegravir has shown greater efficacy than raltegravir at suppressing HIV-1 replication in treatment-experienced individuals. Biochemical experiments have also shown that dolutegravir has a longer dissociative half-life when bound to HIV integrase than does raltegravir. In order to study the intracellular efficacy of various INSTIs, we asked whether drug removal from INSTI-treated HIV-1-infected cells would result in different times to viral rebound. In addition, we assessed the role of the R263K substitution within the integrase ORF that is associated with low-level resistance to dolutegravir. METHODS:HIV-infected MT-2 cells were treated with dolutegravir, raltegravir or a third experimental INSTI (MK-2048) and the drugs were washed out after varying times. Viral replication was monitored by measuring reverse transcriptase (RT) activity in the culture fluids. RESULTS: We observed a significantly slower increase in RT activity after the removal of dolutegravir compared with raltegravir or MK-2048. The incubation time before the drug was removed also had an impact on the level of RT activity independently of the drug and virus used. The R263K substitution did not significantly impact on levels of RT activity after drug washout, suggesting that dolutegravir remained tightly bound to the integrase enzyme despite the presence of this mutation. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the residency time of INSTIs on integrase is a key factor in the activity of these drugs and that the anti-HIV activity of dolutegravir persists more effectively than that of other INSTIs after drug washout.
Authors: Pedro Cahn; Anton L Pozniak; Horacio Mingrone; Andrey Shuldyakov; Carlos Brites; Jaime F Andrade-Villanueva; Gary Richmond; Carlos Beltran Buendia; Jan Fourie; Moti Ramgopal; Debbie Hagins; Franco Felizarta; Jose Madruga; Tania Reuter; Tamara Newman; Catherine B Small; John Lombaard; Beatriz Grinsztejn; David Dorey; Mark Underwood; Sandy Griffith; Sherene Min Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kendra E Hightower; Ruolan Wang; Felix Deanda; Brian A Johns; Kurt Weaver; Yingnian Shen; Ginger H Tomberlin; H Luke Carter; Timothy Broderick; Scott Sigethy; Takahiro Seki; Masanori Kobayashi; Mark R Underwood Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jean-Michel Molina; Bonaventura Clotet; Jan van Lunzen; Adriano Lazzarin; Matthias Cavassini; Keith Henry; Valeriv Kulagin; Naomi Givens; Clare Brennan; Carlos Fernando de Oliveira Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2014-11-02 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Eugene L Asahchop; Oussama Meziane; Manmeet K Mamik; Wing F Chan; William G Branton; Lothar Resch; M John Gill; Elie Haddad; Jean V Guimond; Mark A Wainberg; Glen B Baker; Eric A Cohen; Christopher Power Journal: Retrovirology Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 4.602
Authors: James G Hakim; Jennifer Thompson; Cissy Kityo; Anne Hoppe; Andrew Kambugu; Joep J van Oosterhout; Abbas Lugemwa; Abraham Siika; Raymond Mwebaze; Aggrey Mweemba; George Abongomera; Margaret J Thomason; Philippa Easterbrook; Peter Mugyenyi; A Sarah Walker; Nicholas I Paton Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 25.071