Suppr超能文献

乌干达感染HIV-1 A和D亚型的女性对HIV感染的抗体反应比较。

Comparison of antibody responses to HIV infection in Ugandan women infected with HIV subtypes A and D.

作者信息

Longosz Andrew F, Morrison Charles S, Chen Pai-Lien, Brand Hilmarie H, Arts Eric, Nankya Immaculate, Salata Robert A, Quinn Thomas C, Eshleman Susan H, Laeyendecker Oliver

机构信息

1 Laboratory of Immunoregulation, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , NIH, Baltimore, Maryland.

出版信息

AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2015 Apr;31(4):421-7. doi: 10.1089/AID.2014.0081. Epub 2014 Nov 19.

Abstract

We compared the serologic response to HIV infection in Ugandan women with HIV subtype A (N=82) and D (N=32) infection using a limiting antigen avidity assay (LAg-Avidity assay); 2,614 samples were analyzed. Study participants were followed a median of 6.6 years after HIV seroconversion. Samples were classified as assay positive if they had a LAg-Avidity assay result <1.5 normalized optical density units (OD-n). Women with subtype D infection were more likely to have delayed antibody maturation. During the first 2 years after seroconversion, the mean time that women had an assay-positive result (mean duration of recent infection, MDRI) was longer for women with subtype D infection than women with subtype A infection (267.9 days, 95% CI: 231.2-308.2 vs. 167.3 days, 95% CI: 151.8-185.9 days, p<0.01). The MDRI was also longer for women with subtype D infection after excluding low viral load samples and samples from women on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Women infected for >2 years were also more likely to be misclassified as recently infected in they had subtype D infection. Women with subtype D infection were also more likely to have antibody waning compared to women with subtype A infection. These findings may be related to the higher pathogenicity of subtype D HIV infection and are relevant to use of the LAg-Avidity assay for cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation in populations where subtype D infection is prevalent.

摘要

我们使用限量抗原亲和力测定法(LAg-亲和力测定法)比较了乌干达感染HIV-1 A亚型(N = 82)和D亚型(N = 32)的女性对HIV感染的血清学反应;共分析了2614份样本。研究参与者在HIV血清转化后中位随访6.6年。如果样本的LAg-亲和力测定结果<1.5标准化光密度单位(OD-n),则分类为检测阳性。感染D亚型的女性抗体成熟延迟的可能性更大。在血清转化后的头2年,感染D亚型的女性检测呈阳性结果的平均时间(近期感染的平均持续时间,MDRI)比感染A亚型的女性更长(267.9天,95%CI:231.2 - 308.2天 vs. 167.3天,95%CI:151.8 - 185.9天,p<0.01)。排除低病毒载量样本和接受抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)女性的样本后,感染D亚型的女性的MDRI也更长。感染超过2年的感染D亚型的女性也更有可能被误分类为近期感染。与感染A亚型的女性相比,感染D亚型的女性抗体减弱的可能性也更大。这些发现可能与D亚型HIV感染的更高致病性有关,并且与在D亚型感染流行的人群中使用LAg-亲和力测定法进行横断面HIV发病率估计相关。

相似文献

1
Comparison of antibody responses to HIV infection in Ugandan women infected with HIV subtypes A and D.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2015 Apr;31(4):421-7. doi: 10.1089/AID.2014.0081. Epub 2014 Nov 19.
4
Validation of the Limiting Antigen Avidity Assay to Estimate Level and Trends in HIV Incidence in an A/D Epidemic in Rakai, Uganda.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2019 Apr;35(4):364-367. doi: 10.1089/AID.2018.0207. Epub 2019 Jan 29.
9
Short Communication: Low False Recent Rate of Limiting-Antigen Avidity Assay Among Long-Term Infected Subjects from Guangxi, China.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2015 Dec;31(12):1247-9. doi: 10.1089/aid.2015.0097. Epub 2015 Sep 2.
10
Impact of Early Antiretroviral Treatment Initiation on Performance of Cross-Sectional Incidence Assays.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2020 Jul;36(7):583-589. doi: 10.1089/AID.2019.0286. Epub 2020 May 27.

引用本文的文献

2
Use of HIV Recency Assays for HIV Incidence Estimation and Other Surveillance Use Cases: Systematic Review.
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2022 Mar 11;8(3):e34410. doi: 10.2196/34410.
3
Impact of Early Antiretroviral Treatment Initiation on Performance of Cross-Sectional Incidence Assays.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2020 Jul;36(7):583-589. doi: 10.1089/AID.2019.0286. Epub 2020 May 27.
4
The concordance of the limiting antigen and the Bio-Rad avidity assays in persons from Estonia infected mainly with HIV-1 CRF06_cpx.
PLoS One. 2019 May 24;14(5):e0217048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217048. eCollection 2019.
5
Cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation in an evolving epidemic.
Stat Med. 2019 Aug 30;38(19):3614-3627. doi: 10.1002/sim.8196. Epub 2019 May 21.
6
Comprehensive Profiling of HIV Antibody Evolution.
Cell Rep. 2019 Apr 30;27(5):1422-1433.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.03.097.
7
Validation of the Limiting Antigen Avidity Assay to Estimate Level and Trends in HIV Incidence in an A/D Epidemic in Rakai, Uganda.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2019 Apr;35(4):364-367. doi: 10.1089/AID.2018.0207. Epub 2019 Jan 29.
9
Computational analysis of antibody dynamics identifies recent HIV-1 infection.
JCI Insight. 2017 Dec 21;2(24):94355. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.94355.

本文引用的文献

1
Independent assessment of candidate HIV incidence assays on specimens in the CEPHIA repository.
AIDS. 2014 Oct 23;28(16):2439-49. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000000429.
3
Development of methods for cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation in a large, community randomized trial.
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 13;8(11):e78818. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078818. eCollection 2013.
4
Short Communication: Defining optimality of a test for recent infection for HIV incidence surveillance.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2014 Jan;30(1):45-9. doi: 10.1089/aid.2013.0113. Epub 2013 Oct 26.
6
Evaluation of the false recent classification rates of multiassay algorithms in estimating HIV type 1 subtype C incidence.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2014 Jan;30(1):29-36. doi: 10.1089/aid.2013.0055. Epub 2013 Sep 6.
7
Cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation in HIV prevention research.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013 Jul;63 Suppl 2(0 2):S233-9. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182986fdf.
8
Differential specificity of HIV incidence assays in HIV subtypes A and D-infected individuals from Rakai, Uganda.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2013 Aug;29(8):1146-50. doi: 10.1089/aid.2012.0105. Epub 2013 May 29.
9
A new general biomarker-based incidence estimator.
Epidemiology. 2012 Sep;23(5):721-8. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182576c07.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验