Wilson J W, Bean P, Robins T, Graziano F, Persing D H
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Aug;38(8):3022-8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.38.8.3022-3028.2000.
Evaluation of drug resistance by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genotyping has proven to be useful for the selection of drug combinations with maximum antiretroviral activity. We compared three genotyping methods for identification of mutations known to confer drug resistance in the reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease genes of HIV type 1 (HIV-1). The HIV-GenotypR method (GenotypR; Specialty Laboratories, Inc., Santa Monica, Calif.) with the ABI 377 DNA sequencer (Applied Biosystems Inc.), the HIV PRT GeneChip assay (GeneChip; Affymetrix, Santa Clara, Calif.), and the HIV-1 RT Line Probe Assay (LiPA; Innogenetics, Alpharetta, Ga.) were used to genotype plasma samples from HIV-infected patients attending the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics and the Mayo Clinic. At the time of analysis, patients were failing combination therapy (n = 18) or were treatment naive (n = 6). Forty codons of the RT and protease genes were analyzed by GenotypR and GeneChip for resistance-associated mutations. LiPA analyzed seven RT codons for mutations. Each sample was genotyped by all three assays, and each assay was subjected to pairwise comparisons. At least 92% of the codons tested (by the three assays) in paired comparisons were concordant. GenotypR and GeneChip demonstrated 96.6% concordance over the 40 codons tested. GenotypR identified slightly more mutations than GeneChip and LiPA; GeneChip identified all primary mutations that corresponded to failing treatment regimens. Each assay identified at least 84% of the mutations identified by the other assays. Mutations that were discordant between the assays mainly comprised secondary mutations and natural polymorphisms. The assays had better concordance for mutations that corresponded to current failing regimens, present in the more predominant viral quasispecies. In the treatment-naive patients, GenotypR, GeneChip, and LiPA mainly identified wild-type virus. Only the LiPA identified K70R, a possible transmitted zidovudine resistance mutation, in the RT gene of a treatment-naive patient. We conclude that although discrepancies in results exist between assays, each assay showed a similar capacity to identify potentially clinically relevant mutations related to patient treatment regimens.
通过人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)基因分型评估耐药性已被证明有助于选择具有最大抗逆转录病毒活性的药物组合。我们比较了三种基因分型方法,以鉴定已知在1型HIV(HIV-1)逆转录酶(RT)和蛋白酶基因中赋予耐药性的突变。使用配备ABI 377 DNA测序仪(应用生物系统公司)的HIV-GenotypR方法(GenotypR;专业实验室公司,加利福尼亚州圣莫尼卡)、HIV PRT基因芯片检测法(基因芯片;Affymetrix公司,加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉)和HIV-1 RT线性探针检测法(LiPA;Innogenetics公司,佐治亚州阿尔法利塔)对来自威斯康星大学医院和诊所以及梅奥诊所的HIV感染患者的血浆样本进行基因分型。在分析时,患者的联合治疗失败(n = 18)或未接受过治疗(n = 6)。GenotypR和基因芯片分析了RT和蛋白酶基因的40个密码子以检测耐药相关突变。LiPA分析了7个RT密码子的突变情况。每个样本都通过这三种检测方法进行基因分型,并且对每种检测方法进行两两比较。在配对比较中,至少92%(通过三种检测方法)检测的密码子结果一致。在检测的40个密码子上,GenotypR和基因芯片的一致性为96.6%。GenotypR鉴定出的突变略多于基因芯片和LiPA;基因芯片鉴定出了所有与治疗失败方案相对应的主要突变。每种检测方法鉴定出的突变至少占其他检测方法鉴定出突变的84%。检测方法之间不一致的突变主要包括次要突变和自然多态性。对于与当前治疗失败方案相对应、存在于更主要的病毒准种中的突变,这些检测方法具有更好的一致性。在未接受过治疗的患者中,GenotypR、基因芯片和LiPA主要鉴定出野生型病毒。只有LiPA在一名未接受过治疗患者的RT基因中鉴定出K70R,这是一种可能的传播性齐多夫定耐药突变。我们得出结论,尽管检测方法之间存在结果差异,但每种检测方法在识别与患者治疗方案相关的潜在临床相关突变方面都显示出相似的能力。