Servais J, Lambert C, Fontaine E, Plesséria J M, Robert I, Arendt V, Staub T, Schneider F, Hemmer R, Burtonboy G, Schmit J C
Laboratoire de Rétrovirologie, Centre de Recherche Public-Santé, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Feb;39(2):454-9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.39.2.454-459.2001.
The resistance of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) to drugs is a major cause of antiretroviral treatment failure. We have compared direct sequencing to a line probe assay (LiPA) for the detection of drug resistance-related mutations in 197 clinical samples, and we have investigated the sequential appearance of mutations under drug pressure. For 26 patients with virological failure despite the use of two nucleoside analogues and one protease inhibitor (indinavir [n = 6], ritonavir [n = 10], and saquinavir [n = 10]), genotypic resistance assays were carried out retrospectively every 3 months for up to 2 years by using direct sequencing (TruGene; Visible Genetics) and a LiPA for detection of mutations in the reverse transcriptase (INNO-LiPA HIV-1 RT; Innogenetics) and the protease (INNO-LiPA HIV Protease, prototype version; Innogenetics) genes. Comparison of the results from both assays found rare major discrepancies (<1% of codons analyzed). INNO-LiPA detected more wild-type-mutant mixtures than sequencing but suffered from a high rate of codon hybridization failures for the reverse transcriptase. LiPA detected earlier and more frequently than sequencing the transient mixed virus population that contained I84V, which appears before V82A in the protease sequence. Mutations M461, G48V, and L90M were often transient and drug pressure related. In conclusion, direct sequencing and LiPAs give concordant results for most clinical isolates. LiPAs are more sensitive for the detection of mixed virus populations. Mutation I84V appears in minor populations in the early steps of the pathways of resistance to indinavir and ritonavir. The fact that some mutations can be found only transiently and in minor virus populations highlights the importance of a low detection limit for resistance assays.
1型人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV-1)对药物的耐药性是抗逆转录病毒治疗失败的主要原因。我们比较了直接测序法和线性探针分析(LiPA)在197份临床样本中检测耐药相关突变的情况,并研究了药物压力下突变的相继出现情况。对于26例尽管使用了两种核苷类似物和一种蛋白酶抑制剂(茚地那韦[n = 6]、利托那韦[n = 10]和沙奎那韦[n = 10])仍出现病毒学失败的患者,通过直接测序法(TruGene;Visible Genetics)和用于检测逆转录酶(INNO-LiPA HIV-1 RT;Innogenetics)及蛋白酶(INNO-LiPA HIV蛋白酶,原型版本;Innogenetics)基因中突变的LiPA,每3个月进行一次回顾性基因分型耐药性检测,持续长达2年。两种检测方法结果的比较发现罕见的重大差异(<1%的分析密码子)。INNO-LiPA检测到的野生型-突变体混合物比测序法多,但逆转录酶的密码子杂交失败率较高。LiPA比测序法更早且更频繁地检测到含有蛋白酶序列中在V82A之前出现的I84V的瞬时混合病毒群体。M461、G48V和L90M突变通常是瞬时的且与药物压力相关。总之,直接测序法和LiPA对大多数临床分离株给出一致的结果。LiPA对混合病毒群体的检测更敏感。I84V突变出现在对茚地那韦和利托那韦耐药途径早期的少数群体中。一些突变仅在瞬时且在少数病毒群体中被发现,这一事实凸显了耐药性检测低检测限的重要性。