Tisdale M
Clinical Virology and Surrogates Unit, Glaxo Wellcome Research & Development, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage SG1 2NY, UK.
Rev Med Virol. 2000 Jan-Feb;10(1):45-55. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1654(200001/02)10:1<45::aid-rmv265>3.0.co;2-r.
With the clinical development of anti-viral agents, monitoring for the continued susceptibility of wild-type strains has become important in disease management. Various methods have been used to monitor viral susceptibility; the advantages and disadvantages of which depend on the virus, the target and the scale of the research being undertaken. The plaque-reduction assay is valuable for measuring susceptibility of most viruses but is not ideal for large-scale monitoring. Yield-reduction, measuring specific virus antigens, and dye-uptake assays, measuring virus cytopathic effects, are more suitable for high-throughput requirements, but the IC(50) value (the concentration that inhibits 50% of virus) varies with the viral inoculum. Surveillance of influenza susceptibility to rimantadine/amantadine in the clinic has predominantly used EIA-based assays, since plaquing of influenza clinical isolates is variable. With development of the influenza NA inhibitors it became apparent that current cell-based assays were unsuitable for monitoring susceptibility to this new class of drugs. Variability may result from virus spread directly from cell to cell in culture by-passing the NA function. Furthermore, mutations selected in the HA, while not apparently contributing to phenotypic resistance in vivo, may result in cell-culture based resistance, and may mask NA resistance in cell culture by modifying receptor-binding specificity. One important distinction between NA inhibitors and other antiviral enzyme inhibitors is that both target enzyme and inhibitor work extracellularly. NA assays are therefore most representative of the in vivo situation for monitoring susceptibility, supported by HA sequencing. As the clinical use of NA inhibitors escalates, a major change will be required in approaches used to monitor susceptibility of influenza isolates in virology laboratories world-wide.
随着抗病毒药物的临床研发,监测野生型毒株的持续易感性在疾病管理中变得至关重要。已采用多种方法来监测病毒易感性;其优缺点取决于所研究的病毒、靶标及研究规模。蚀斑减少试验对于测定大多数病毒的易感性很有价值,但对于大规模监测并不理想。产量减少试验(测量特定病毒抗原)和染料摄取试验(测量病毒细胞病变效应)更适合高通量需求,但半数抑制浓度(IC50)值(抑制50%病毒的浓度)会随病毒接种量而变化。临床上对流感病毒对金刚乙胺/金刚烷胺易感性的监测主要采用基于酶免疫分析的方法,因为流感临床分离株的蚀斑形成情况不一。随着流感神经氨酸酶抑制剂的研发,很明显目前基于细胞的试验不适用于监测对这类新型药物的易感性。变异性可能源于病毒在培养物中直接从细胞到细胞传播,绕过了神经氨酸酶的功能。此外,在血凝素(HA)中选择的突变虽然在体内显然不会导致表型耐药,但可能导致基于细胞培养的耐药,并可能通过改变受体结合特异性掩盖细胞培养中的神经氨酸酶耐药。神经氨酸酶抑制剂与其他抗病毒酶抑制剂的一个重要区别在于,靶标酶和抑制剂均在细胞外起作用。因此,神经氨酸酶试验对于监测易感性而言最能代表体内情况,血凝素测序也能提供支持。随着神经氨酸酶抑制剂临床应用的增加,全球病毒学实验室监测流感分离株易感性所采用的方法将需要发生重大改变。