BACKGROUND: HIV proviral sequencing overcomes the limit of plasma viral load requirement by detecting all the 'archived mutations', but the clinical relevance remains to be evaluated. METHODS: We included 25 participants with available proviral sequences (both intact and defective sequences available) and utilized the genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) to evaluate the level of resistance in their provirus and plasma virus. Defective sequences were further categorized as sequences with and without hypermutations. Personalized GSS score and total GSS score were calculated to evaluate the level of resistance to a whole panel of antiretroviral therapies and to certain antiretroviral therapy that a participant was using. The rate of sequences with drug resistance mutations (DRMs) within each sequence compartment (intact, defective and plasma viral sequences) was calculated for each participant. RESULTS: Defective proviral sequences harbored more DRMs than other sequence compartments, with a median DRM rate of 0.25 compared with intact sequences (0.0, P = 0.014) and plasma sequences (0.095, P = 0.30). Defective sequences with hypermutations were the major source of DRMs, with a median DRM rate of 1.0 compared with defective sequences without hypermutations (0.042, P < 0.001). Certain Apolipoprotein B Editing Complex 3-related DRMs including reverse transcriptase gene mutations M184I, E138K, M230I, G190E and protease gene mutations M46I, D30N were enriched in hypermutated sequences but not in intact sequences or plasma sequences. All the hypermutated sequences had premature stop codons due to Apolipoprotein B Editing Complex 3. CONCLUSION: Proviral sequencing may overestimate DRMs as a result of hypermutations. Removing hypermutated sequences is essential in the interpretation of proviral drug resistance testing.
BACKGROUND: HIV proviral sequencing overcomes the limit of plasma viral load requirement by detecting all the 'archived mutations', but the clinical relevance remains to be evaluated. METHODS: We included 25 participants with available proviral sequences (both intact and defective sequences available) and utilized the genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) to evaluate the level of resistance in their provirus and plasma virus. Defective sequences were further categorized as sequences with and without hypermutations. Personalized GSS score and total GSS score were calculated to evaluate the level of resistance to a whole panel of antiretroviral therapies and to certain antiretroviral therapy that a participant was using. The rate of sequences with drug resistance mutations (DRMs) within each sequence compartment (intact, defective and plasma viral sequences) was calculated for each participant. RESULTS: Defective proviral sequences harbored more DRMs than other sequence compartments, with a median DRM rate of 0.25 compared with intact sequences (0.0, P = 0.014) and plasma sequences (0.095, P = 0.30). Defective sequences with hypermutations were the major source of DRMs, with a median DRM rate of 1.0 compared with defective sequences without hypermutations (0.042, P < 0.001). Certain Apolipoprotein B Editing Complex 3-related DRMs including reverse transcriptase gene mutations M184I, E138K, M230I, G190E and protease gene mutations M46I, D30N were enriched in hypermutated sequences but not in intact sequences or plasma sequences. All the hypermutated sequences had premature stop codons due to Apolipoprotein B Editing Complex 3. CONCLUSION: Proviral sequencing may overestimate DRMs as a result of hypermutations. Removing hypermutated sequences is essential in the interpretation of proviral drug resistance testing.
Authors: Tara L Kieffer; Patty Kwon; Richard E Nettles; Yefei Han; Stuart C Ray; Robert F Siliciano Journal: J Virol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Jacob D Estes; Cissy Kityo; Francis Ssali; Louise Swainson; Krystelle Nganou Makamdop; Gregory Q Del Prete; Steven G Deeks; Paul A Luciw; Jeffrey G Chipman; Gregory J Beilman; Torfi Hoskuldsson; Alexander Khoruts; Jodi Anderson; Claire Deleage; Jacob Jasurda; Thomas E Schmidt; Michael Hafertepe; Samuel P Callisto; Hope Pearson; Thomas Reimann; Jared Schuster; Jordan Schoephoerster; Peter Southern; Katherine Perkey; Liang Shang; Stephen W Wietgrefe; Courtney V Fletcher; Jeffrey D Lifson; Daniel C Douek; Joseph M McCune; Ashley T Haase; Timothy W Schacker Journal: Nat Med Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Sara Lodi; Huldrych F Günthard; John Gill; Andrew N Phillips; David Dunn; Quang Vu; Reed Siemieniuk; Federico Garcia; Roger Logan; Sophie Jose; Heiner C Bucher; Alexandra U Scherrer; Peter Reiss; Ard van Sighem; T Sonia Boender; Kholoud Porter; Richard Gilson; Dimitrios Paraskevis; Metallidis Simeon; Georgia Vourli; Santiago Moreno; Inmaculada Jarrin; Caroline Sabin; Miguel A Hernán Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Huldrych F Günthard; Vincent Calvez; Roger Paredes; Deenan Pillay; Robert W Shafer; Annemarie M Wensing; Donna M Jacobsen; Douglas D Richman Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Ya-Chi Ho; Liang Shan; Nina N Hosmane; Jeffrey Wang; Sarah B Laskey; Daniel I S Rosenbloom; Jun Lai; Joel N Blankson; Janet D Siliciano; Robert F Siliciano Journal: Cell Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Ujjwal Neogi; Anita Shet; Pravat Nalini Sahoo; Irene Bontell; Maria L Ekstrand; Akhil C Banerjea; Anders Sonnerborg Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Erasmus Smit; Ellen White; Duncan Clark; Duncan Churchill; Hongyi Zhang; Simon Collins; Deenan Pillay; Caroline Sabin; Mark Nelson; Alan Winston; Sophie Jose; Anna Tostevin; David T Dunn Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 5.790