Suppr超能文献

用于HIV-1基因分型的九种耐药性解读系统的比较。

Comparison of nine resistance interpretation systems for HIV-1 genotyping.

作者信息

Stürmer Martin, Doerr Hans Wilhelm, Staszewski Schlomo, Preiser Wolfgang

机构信息

Institut für Medizinische Virologie, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

出版信息

Antivir Ther. 2003 Jun;8(3):239-44.

Abstract

HIV-1 genotyping has become a widely accepted tool for monitoring antiretroviral therapy. However, the benefit of genotyping is limited by the need to interpret the mutation pattern in order to obtain a prediction regarding susceptibility to each antiretroviral drug. Several different interpretation systems are currently available, commercially or free of charge; some are in combination with the genotyping test system used. In this study, we compared the results obtained on patient samples, using nine different resistance interpretation systems for HIV-1 genotype, and identified mutation patterns responsible for discordances between these systems. HIV-1 genotypes from 26 patients were obtained using the ViroSeq HIV-1 Genotyping System (Applied Biosystems). Nine resistance interpretation systems were used: the 'virtual phenotype' systems VirtualPhenotype (Virco) and Geno2Pheno (http://cartan.gmd.de/geno2pheno.html), the rule-based resistance algorithms Antiretroviral Drug Resistance Report (Applied Biosystems), Stanford HIV-SEQ program (http://hivdb.stanford.edu/) and the ViroScorer system (ABL; including ANRS AC11, Detroit Medical Center, Grupo de Aconselhamento Virológico, CHL, and Rega). Discordance was defined as the same sequence being interpreted as resistant and sensitive to a substance by different systems, with intermediate scores being regarded as neutral. Results for lopinavir were not available from some interpretation systems. None of the 26 patient samples had concordant results for all drugs. The highest degree of concordance was found for the resistance scoring of lamivudine (25/26), followed by nelfinavir (23/26), indinavir, ritonavir, saquinavir (all 22/26), zidovudine, nevirapine (all 21/26), lopinavir, efavirenz (all 18/26), amprenavir, delavirdine (all 17/26), stavudine, abacavir (all 13/26), zalcitabine (7/26) and didanosine (5/26). In most cases, it was only one interpretation system that gave an interpretation different from the others. If this interpretation system was omitted, the overall discordance rate decreased by a statistically significant degree. There exists, therefore, an urgent need for standardization of interpretation algorithms for HIV-1 genotyping.

摘要

HIV-1基因分型已成为监测抗逆转录病毒疗法广泛认可的工具。然而,基因分型的益处因需解读突变模式以预测对每种抗逆转录病毒药物的敏感性而受到限制。目前有几种不同的解读系统可供使用,有商业的也有免费的;有些与所使用的基因分型检测系统结合。在本研究中,我们使用九种不同的HIV-1基因型耐药性解读系统比较了患者样本的结果,并确定了导致这些系统之间出现不一致的突变模式。使用ViroSeq HIV-1基因分型系统(应用生物系统公司)获得了26名患者的HIV-1基因型。使用了九种耐药性解读系统:“虚拟表型”系统VirtualPhenotype(Virco公司)和Geno2Pheno(http://cartan.gmd.de/geno2pheno.html)、基于规则的耐药性算法抗逆转录病毒药物耐药性报告(应用生物系统公司)、斯坦福HIV-SEQ程序(http://hivdb.stanford.edu/)以及ViroScorer系统(ABL公司;包括法国国家艾滋病研究机构AC11、底特律医疗中心、病毒学咨询小组、CHL和雷加研究所)。不一致定义为同一序列被不同系统解读为对一种物质耐药和敏感,则中间分数视为中性。一些解读系统没有洛匹那韦的结果。26个患者样本中没有一个对所有药物的结果都一致。拉米夫定耐药性评分的一致性程度最高(25/26),其次是奈非那韦(23/2)、茚地那韦、利托那韦、沙奎那韦(均为22/26)、齐多夫定、奈韦拉平(均为21/26)、洛匹那韦、依非韦伦(均为18/26)、安普那韦、地拉韦啶(均为17/26)、司他夫定、阿巴卡韦(均为13/26)、扎西他滨(7/26)和去羟肌苷(5/26)。在大多数情况下,只有一个解读系统给出与其他系统不同的解读。如果省略这个解读系统,总体不一致率会有统计学意义的下降。因此,迫切需要对HIV-1基因分型的解读算法进行标准化。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验