Tedder R S, Kaye S, Loveday C, Weller I V, Jeffries D, Norman J, Weber J, Bourelly M, Foxall R, Babiker A, Darbyshire J H
Department of Virology, University College London Medical School, United Kingdom.
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Apr;36(4):1056-63. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.4.1056-1063.1998.
Virological assays for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 load and drug resistance can broadly be divided into culture-based and molecular biology-based methods. Culture-based methods give a direct measure of infectious virus load and phenotypic drug resistance, whereas molecular biology-based methods are indirect, assaying nucleic acid levels to determine virus load and point mutations associated with drug resistance. We have compared culture-based and non-culture-based methods for patients enrolled in a placebo-controlled trial of zidovudine (the Concorde Trial). Virus loads were assayed by culture of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) or quantitative PCR, and drug resistance was assayed in culture or in a quantitative, PCR-based point mutation assay. The rates of detection of viremia and drug resistance were higher by PCR than by culture for this population of subjects. Comparison of the virus loads by the two measures showed a good correlation for virus loads in PBMCs but a poor correlation for virus loads in plasma. The latter result probably reflected the inaccuracies of culture in assaying plasma with the low infectious virus titers seen in the study population. The concordance of phenotypic and genotypic drug resistance methods was high, with all phenotypically resistant isolates having at least one resistance-associated mutation and with no mutations being found in a drug-sensitive isolate. Genomic resistance scores (weighted sums of levels of resistance mutations) showed good correlations with the levels of phenotypic resistance, and both resistance measures were observed to increase as the duration of exposure to drug increased. Overall, non-culture-based methods were shown to correlate well with culture-based methods and offer a low-cost, high-throughput alternative. However, culture-based methods remain the final arbiters of infectious virus load and phenotypic drug resistance and are unlikely to be superseded entirely.
用于检测人类免疫缺陷病毒1型载量和耐药性的病毒学检测方法大致可分为基于培养的方法和基于分子生物学的方法。基于培养的方法可直接测量感染性病毒载量和表型耐药性,而基于分子生物学的方法是间接的,通过检测核酸水平来确定病毒载量和与耐药性相关的点突变。我们比较了基于培养的方法和非基于培养的方法,用于齐多夫定安慰剂对照试验(协和试验)中的患者。通过外周血单核细胞(PBMC)培养或定量PCR检测病毒载量,并通过培养或基于定量PCR的点突变检测法检测耐药性。对于该受试人群,PCR检测病毒血症和耐药性的比率高于培养法。两种测量方法对病毒载量的比较显示,PBMC中的病毒载量具有良好的相关性,但血浆中的病毒载量相关性较差。后一结果可能反映了在检测研究人群中低感染性病毒滴度的血浆时培养法的不准确。表型和基因型耐药性检测方法的一致性很高,所有表型耐药菌株至少有一个与耐药相关的突变,而在药物敏感菌株中未发现突变。基因组耐药评分(耐药突变水平的加权总和)与表型耐药水平显示出良好的相关性,并且随着药物暴露时间的延长,两种耐药性测量结果均增加。总体而言,非基于培养的方法与基于培养的方法显示出良好的相关性,并提供了一种低成本、高通量的替代方法。然而,基于培养的方法仍然是感染性病毒载量和表型耐药性的最终判定标准,不太可能被完全取代。