PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

HIV-1 Tropism Determination Using a Phenotypic Env Recombinant Viral Assay Highlights Overestimation of CXCR4-Usage by Genotypic Prediction Algorithms for CRRF01_AE and CRF02_AG

PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 8, Issue: 5, Page: e60566
2013
  • 34
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 33
    Captures
  • 0
    Mentions
  • 0
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

Article Description

Background:Human Immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV) entry into target cells involves binding of the viral envelope (Env) to CD4 and a coreceptor, mainly CCR5 or CXCR4. The only currently licensed HIV entry inhibitor, maraviroc, targets CCR5, and the presence of CXCX4-using strains must be excluded prior to treatment. Co-receptor usage can be assessed by phenotypic assays or through genotypic prediction. Here we compared the performance of a phenotypic Env-Recombinant Viral Assay (RVA) to the two most widely used genotypic prediction algorithms, Geno2Pheno and webPSSM.Methods:Co-receptor tropism of samples from 73 subtype B and 219 non-B infections was measured phenotypically using a luciferase-tagged, NL4-3-based, RVA targeting Env. In parallel, tropism was inferred genotypically from the corresponding V3-loop sequences using Geno2Pheno (5-20% FPR) and webPSSM-R5X4. For discordant samples, phenotypic outcome was retested using co-receptor antagonists or the validated Trofile® Enhanced-Sensitivity-Tropism-Assay.Results:The lower detection limit of the RVA was 2.5% and 5% for X4 and R5 minority variants respectively. A phenotype/genotype result was obtained for 210 samples. Overall, concordance of phenotypic results with Geno2Pheno was 85.2% and concordance with webPSSM was 79.5%. For subtype B, concordance with Geno2pheno was 94.4% and concordance with webPSSM was 79.6%. High concordance of genotypic tools with phenotypic outcome was seen for subtype C (90% for both tools). Main discordances involved CRF01_AE and CRF02_AG for both algorithms (CRF01_AE: 35.9% discordances with Geno2Pheno and 28.2% with webPSSM; CRF02_AG: 20.7% for both algorithms). Genotypic prediction overestimated CXCR4-usage for both CRFs. For webPSSM, 40% discordance was observed for subtype A.Conclusions:Phenotypic assays remain the most accurate for most non-B subtypes and new subtype-specific rules should be developed for non-B subtypes, as research studies more and more draw conclusions from genotypically-inferred tropism, and to avoid unnecessarily precluding patients with limited treatment options from receiving maraviroc or other entry inhibitors. © 2013 Mulinge et al.

Bibliographic Details

http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84877294446&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23667426; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g004; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g004; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g002; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g001; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0060566; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.t001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566.g004; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0060566; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060566&type=printable

Martin Mulinge; Morgane Lemaire; Jean-Yves Servais; Arkadiusz Rybicki; Daniel Struck; Eveline Santos da Silva; Chris Verhofstede; Yolanda Lie; Carole Seguin-Devaux; Jean-Claude Schmit; Danielle Perez Bercoff; Zhiwei Chen

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

Multidisciplinary

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know