...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Medical Virology >Comparison of genotypic and virtual phenotypic drug resistance interpretations with laboratory-based phenotypes among CRF01_AE and subtype B HIV-infected individuals
【24h】

Comparison of genotypic and virtual phenotypic drug resistance interpretations with laboratory-based phenotypes among CRF01_AE and subtype B HIV-infected individuals

机译:CRF01_AE和B亚型HIV感染者中基于实验室表型的基因型和虚拟表型耐药性解释的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

HIV drug resistance assessments and interpretations can be obtained from genotyping (GT), virtual phenotyping (VP) and laboratory-based phenotyping (PT). We compared resistance calls obtained from GT and VP with those from PT (GT-PT and VP-PT) among CRF01_AE and subtype B HIV-1 infected patients. GT predictions were obtained from the Stanford HIV database. VP and PT were obtained from Janssen Diagnostics BVBA's vircoType(TM) HIV-1 and Antivirogram (R), respectively. With PT assumed as the gold standard, the area under the curve (AUC) and the Bland-Altman plot were used to assess the level of agreement in resistance interpretations. A total of 80 CRF01_AE samples from Asia and 100 subtype B from Janssen Diagnostics BVBA's database were analysed. CRF01_AE showed discordances ranging from 3 to 27 samples for GT-PT and 1 to 20 samples for VP-PT. The GT-PT and VP-PT AUCs were 0.76-0.97 and 0.81-0.99, respectively. Subtype B showed 3-61 discordances for GT-PT and 2-75 discordances for VP-PT. The AUCs ranged from 0.55 to 0.95 for GT-PT and 0.55 to 0.97 for VP-PT. Didanosine had the highest proportion of discordances and/or AUC in all comparisons. The patient with the largest didanosine FC difference in each subtype harboured Q151M mutation. Overall, GT and VP predictions for CRF01_AE performed significantly better than subtype B for three NRTIs. Although discrepancies exist, GT and VP resistance interpretations in HIV-1 CRF01_AE strains were highly robust in comparison with the gold-standard PT. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
机译:可以从基因分型(GT),虚拟表型(VP)和基于实验室的表型(PT)中获得HIV耐药性评估和解释。我们比较了在CRF01_AE和B亚型HIV-1感染患者中,从GT和VP获得的抗性电话与从PT获得的抗性电话(GT-PT和VP-PT)。 GT预测是从斯坦福大学HIV数据库获得的。 VP和PT分别从Janssen Diagnostics BVBA的vircoType TM HIV-1和Antivirogram(R)获得。以PT为金标准,曲线下面积(AUC)和Bland-Altman图用于评估电阻解释中的一致性水平。总共分析了来自亚洲的80个CRF01_AE样本和来自Janssen Diagnostics BVBA的数据库的100个B型。 CRF01_AE对于GT-PT显示的不一致性范围为3到27个样本,对于VP-PT显示的不一致性为1到20个样本。 GT-PT和VP-PT AUC分别为0.76-0.97和0.81-0.99。 B型对GT-PT显示3-61不一致,对VP-PT显示2-75不一致。 GT-PT的AUC范围从0.55至0.95,VP-PT的AUC范围从0.55至0.97。在所有比较中,去羟肌苷的不一致和/或AUC比例最高。每个亚型中双羟肌苷FC差异最大的患者具有Q151M突变。总体而言,对于三个NRTI,CRF01_AE的GT和VP预测的性能明显优于B型。尽管存在差异,但与金标准PT相比,HIV-1 CRF01_AE菌株中的GT和VP耐药性解释非常可靠。 (c)2015年威利期刊有限公司

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号