Institute of Virology, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany.
Institute of Virology, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany.
J Clin Virol. 2017 Aug;93:53-56. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2017.06.002. Epub 2017 Jun 10.
Quality Assurance (QA) programs are essential to evaluate performance in diagnostics laboratories.
We present the results from the first QA for HIV-1 genotypic tropism testing, organized and coordinated by the Institute of Virology at the University of Cologne.
12 cell culture-derived viral strains of different HIV-1 clades from the NIH AIDS Reagent Program were sent to the participants to be processed with their standard diagnostic methods Fasta files containing the V3 region sequence were centrally analyzed at the Institute of Virology, Cologne. All samples were sent in parallel for phenotypic testing.
36 laboratories from 16 countries reported genotypic results. The sequence-generation efficacy was 95.1%, while the phenotypic assays ESTA and PhenXR only achieved results for 58.3% of the samples. All four X4 samples were identified by 31/36 laboratories, two laboratories amplified 3/4×4 samples, and three detected 2/4×4 samples. There was high concordance among the genotypic and phenotypic results, although differences in FPR values were detected. Most deficiencies in sequence editing did not result in wrong classification of X4 viruses as R5, with the exception of sample NRZ05 by laboratory 38, but in an overestimation of CXCR4 use.
This demonstrates that genotypic tropism prediction is a safe procedure for clinical purposes. As we used homogeneous cell culture samples and all sequence fasta files were centrally analyzed, variations in FPR values can only be attributed to sample preparation, RT-PCR or sequence editing protocols.
质量保证(QA)程序对于评估诊断实验室的性能至关重要。
我们展示了由科隆大学病毒学研究所组织和协调的首次 HIV-1 基因型嗜性检测 QA 的结果。
从 NIH AIDS 试剂计划获得的 12 株不同 HIV-1 株系的细胞培养衍生病毒株被送到参与者手中,用他们的标准诊断方法进行处理。包含 V3 区序列的 Fasta 文件在科隆病毒学研究所进行集中分析。所有样本均平行进行表型检测。
来自 16 个国家的 36 个实验室报告了基因型结果。序列生成效率为 95.1%,而表型测定 ESTA 和 PhenXR 仅对 58.3%的样本获得了结果。所有 4 个 X4 样本均被 31/36 个实验室识别,2 个实验室扩增了 3/4×4 样本,3 个实验室检测到 2/4×4 样本。基因型和表型结果之间具有高度一致性,尽管检测到 FPR 值的差异。序列编辑中的大多数缺陷并未导致将 X4 病毒错误分类为 R5,除了实验室 38 对样本 NRZ05 的情况,但会导致对 CXCR4 使用的高估。
这表明基因型嗜性预测对于临床目的是一种安全的程序。由于我们使用了同质的细胞培养样本,并且所有序列的 fasta 文件都进行了集中分析,因此 FPR 值的差异只能归因于样本制备、RT-PCR 或序列编辑方案。