| Literature DB >> 28202942 |
Catherine A A Beauchemin1,2, Tomoyuki Miura3, Shingo Iwami4,5.
Abstract
The duration of the eclipse phase, from cell infection to the production and release of the first virion progeny, immediately followed by the virus-production phase, from the first to the last virion progeny, are important steps in a viral infection, by setting the pace of infection progression and modulating the response to antiviral therapy. Using a mathematical model (MM) and data for the infection of HSC-F cells with SHIV in vitro, we reconfirm our earlier finding that the eclipse phase duration follows a fat-tailed distribution, lasting 19 h (18-20 h). Most importantly, for the first time, we show that the virus-producing phase duration, which lasts 11 h (9.8-12 h), follows a normal-like distribution, and not an exponential distribution as is typically assumed. We explore the significance of this finding and its impact on analysis of plasma viral load decays in HIV patients under antiviral therapy. We find that incorrect assumptions about the eclipse and virus-producing phase distributions can lead to an overestimation of antiviral efficacy. Additionally, our predictions for the rate of plasma HIV decay under integrase inhibitor therapy offer an opportunity to confirm whether HIV production duration in vivo also follows a normal distribution, as demonstrated here for SHIV infections in vitro.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28202942 PMCID: PMC5311941 DOI: 10.1038/srep42765
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Effect of the Erlang distribution’s shape parameter.
The Erlang distribution is used herein to describe the cell-to-cell variability in the time spent by SHIV-infected cells in the eclipse and virus-producing phases. As the Erlang shape parameter (n or n in MM (1), for the eclipse and virus-producing phases, respectively) is increased, the distribution of the phase duration shifts from an exponential (n = 1), to a fat-tailed (), to a normal (), to a Dirac delta () distribution. In these graphs, the mean time spent by cells in the phase (τ or τ in MM (1), respectively) is fixed (set to 12 h, chosen arbitrarily) as the shape parameter (n or n) is varied. (Left) Probability density (y-axis) that a cell spend x hours in the (eclipse or infectious) phase. (Right) Fraction of cells (y-axis) which will remain in the phase for at least x hours.
Figure 2Time course of SHIV-KS661 infection of HSC-F cells and MM agreement.
HSC-F cells were infected with SHIV-KS661 at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) or 4.2, 2.1, 1.1, 0.53, or 0.26 TCID50/cell, as indicated. At various times post-inoculation, the total viral load (top row), the fraction of virus-producing (Nef-positive) cells (middle row), and the fraction of dead cells (bottom rows) were determined as described in Methods. The lines correspond to the best-fits of MM (1) to this data set under the assumption that the virus-producing phase follows an exponential (n = 1, black line) or a normal-like (n = 20, coloured line) distribution (see Methods for MM parameter values). We find that a normal-like distribution for the duration of virus production yields a better agreement with the data (smaller SSR) than an exponential distribution.
Figure 3Posterior likelihood distributions of the key SHIV replication parameters.
(a–j) A MCMC method was used to identify the posterior likelihood distributions (PLDs) for the value of MM (1)‘s parameters given the experimental data shown in Fig. 2. The likelihoods (y-axis of the PLDs) have been rescaled by the frequency of the mode. Note that the parameters corresponding to the number of eclipse (n) and virus-producing (n) equations can only take on integer values. Additionally, the PLD for parameter n in panel (j) is not a true PLD because n was constrained to be ∈[1, 100], wherein the upper-limit of 100 was chosen arbitrarily given that values for are statistically equivalently likely. (k) To supplement the MCMC analysis, a best-fit likelihood (BFL) was obtained via a series of nonlinear fits performed while holding parameter n fixed to values ranging from n = 1 to 100. The red dots indicate the best-fits for the exponential (n = 1) and normal-like (n = 20) distributed virus-producing phase shown in Fig. 2. The BFL was rescaled so that the maximum likelihood equals one (see Methods).
Parameters characterizing HSC-F cell infection by SHIV-KS661.
| Parameter | Value [95% CR] |
|---|---|
| Eclipse phase, | 19 [18, 20] |
| Virus-production (infectious) phase, | 11 [9.8, 12] |
| Infected lifespan, | 30 [28, 31] |
| Prod. rate, | 103.7 [3.6, 3.8] |
| Infectiousness, | 10−4.1 [−4.3, −3.9] |
| Base MOI | 0.41 [0.30, 0.58] |
| Infecting time, | 18 [14, 25] |
| Basic repro. num., | 1.7 [0.91, 2.9] |
| Burst size, | 103.4 [3.2, 3.5] |
| # eclipse eqns., | 4 [3, 5] |
| # virus-production eqns., | 12 [6, 97] |
aMode of the PLD and [Bayesian 95% credible region (CR)].
Figure 4Comparison of viral load decays under integrase inhibitor therapy for different eclipse and virus-producing phase distributions.
Using MM (3), we simulated the expected decays in plasma HIV viral load under therapy with an integrase inhibitor. The top three rows explore how four key in vivo viral kinetic parameters — rate of HIV viral clearance, antiviral efficacy, and the durations of the eclipse and virus-producing phases — affect the MM-predicted plasma HIV viral load decay under therapy (red to purple = lowest to highest parameter value), when assuming exponentially distributed eclipse and virus-producing phases (Exp, Exp, n, n = [1, 1]), or a fat-tailed distributed eclipse phase with an exponential (Fat, Exp, n, n = [4, 1]) or normally distributed (Fat, Norm, n, n = [4, 12]) virus-producing phase. Values of the viral clearance rate (cbody) of 1, 2, 3, 5, 20, and 100 h−1, of the antiviral efficacy (εIN) of 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 0.95, 0.99, and 0.999, of the eclipse (τ) or virus-producing (τ) phases of 1, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 h are explored. The bottom row explores the effects of the MM choice on the expected decay of plasma HIV total and infectious virus load, and eclipse and virus-producing cells (cbody = 23 h−1, εIN = 0.97, τ = 19 h, τ = 11 h). The simulated therapy is applied at day one and no pharmacokinetic delay has been added.
Best-fit parameters for exponential vs normal-like virus production phase*.
| Parameters | Virus-production phase distribution | |
|---|---|---|
| Exponential | Normal-like | |
| Eclipse phase, | 17.1 | 19.0 |
| Infectious, virus-production phase, | 14.0 | 11.0 |
| Infected lifespan, | 31.0 | 30.0 |
| Prod. rate, | 103.67 | 103.69 |
| Infectiousness, | 10−4.12 | 10−4.11 |
| Base MOI | 0.429 | 0.410 |
| Infecting time, | 19.4 | 18.7 |
| Basic repro. num., | 1.91 | 1.62 |
| Burst size, | 103.44 | 103.35 |
| # eclipse eqns, | 5 | 4 |
| # virus-production eqns, | 1 | 20 |
| Goodness of fit (SSR) | 135 | 115 |
*Best fits are shown in Fig. 2.