| Literature DB >> 34301904 |
Matthijs Meijers1, Kanika Vanshylla2,3, Henning Gruell2,3, Florian Klein2,3,4,5, Michael Lässig6.
Abstract
Broadly neutralizing antibodies are promising candidates for treatment and prevention of HIV-1 infections. Such antibodies can temporarily suppress viral load in infected individuals; however, the virus often rebounds by escape mutants that have evolved resistance. In this paper, we map a fitness model of HIV-1 interacting with broadly neutralizing antibodies using in vivo data from a recent clinical trial. We identify two fitness factors, antibody dosage and viral load, that determine viral reproduction rates reproducibly across different hosts. The model successfully predicts the escape dynamics of HIV-1 in the course of an antibody treatment, including a characteristic frequency turnover between sensitive and resistant strains. This turnover is governed by a dosage-dependent fitness ranking, resulting from an evolutionary trade-off between antibody resistance and its collateral cost in drug-free growth. Our analysis suggests resistance-cost trade-off curves as a measure of antibody performance in the presence of resistance evolution.Entities:
Keywords: HIV-1; broadly neutralizing antibodies; escape dynamics; evolution
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34301904 PMCID: PMC8325275 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2104651118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.Viral load trajectories have universal growth parameters. (A) Observed time series of the viral load in 11 individuals (RNA copies per milliliter; red dots) are shown together with the load trajectory of the maximum-likelihood fitness model. (B) Collapse plot of the initial load decline. Individual hosts are indicated by color. Measured relative load (solid lines) and universal (host-independent) exponential fit with inferred clearance rate (dashed line). (C) Collapse plot of the load rebound. Measured relative load plotted against the time from a common initial value (solid lines), universal fit curve (dotted line), and exponential fit to the initial rebound with inferred mutant growth rate (dashed line). (D) Inference of the initial mutant frequency. The measured relative load is plotted against the time from the start of treatment at (solid lines). Extrapolation of the exponential rebound back to (dashed lines) provides estimates of the initial frequencies (intercept with the vertical axis).
Fig. 3.Prediction of escape evolution. (A) Observed time series of strain frequencies (dots; bars indicate sampling errors) are shown together with predicted frequency trajectories for 11 validation protocols (lines). The host indicator of each trajectory is displayed directly above each axis. Fitness parameters used for predictions are obtained from complementary training sets. The first data point for each strain (open circles) is used as the initial condition, and the subsequent points (filled dots) are to be compared with predictions. When mt2 is first observed, the normalization of the predicted trajectories is updated. (B) Model predictions of strain frequency changes, , are plotted against the corresponding observed changes, . Frequency ratios with () below the sampling threshold are evaluated with pseudocounts. Frequency increase is correctly predicted in 22 of 28 instances (first quadrant), and frequency decline is correctly predicted in 21 of 28 instances (third quadrant).
Fig. 2.Resistance–cost trade-off and dosage-dependent fitness ranking of viral strains. (A) The inferred drug-free growth rate, , is plotted against the antibody resistance of the viral strains = wt, mt1, mt2 (maximum-likelihood values; error bars indicate 95% CIs). (B) Michaelis–Menten growth profiles of the strains = wt, mt1, mt2 interpolate between the basic growth rate and the clearance rate with an IC50 concentration (solid lines). The maximum-growth rate (dashed line) is the envelope of the growth profiles of individual strains. (C) Dosage-dependent selection between resistance mutants. Estimates of the selection coefficient obtained from relative frequency changes (dots; bars indicate sampling errors, and large bars indicate inequalities involving frequencies below the sampling threshold) are compared with the predicted Michaelis–Menten form (yellow line).