These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of eight different bioinformatics tools to predict viral tropism in different human immunodeficiency virus type 1 subtypes.
    Author: Garrido C, Roulet V, Chueca N, Poveda E, Aguilera A, Skrabal K, Zahonero N, Carlos S, García F, Faudon JL, Soriano V, de Mendoza C.
    Journal: J Clin Microbiol; 2008 Mar; 46(3):887-91. PubMed ID: 18199789.
    Abstract:
    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) tropism can be assessed using phenotypic assays, but this is quite laborious, expensive, and time-consuming and can be made only in sophisticated laboratories. More accessible albeit reliable tools for testing of HIV-1 tropism are needed in view of the prompt introduction of CCR5 antagonists in clinical practice. Bioinformatics tools based on V3 sequences might help to predict HIV-1 tropism; however, most of these methods have been designed by taking only genetic information derived from HIV-1 subtype B into consideration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of several genotypic tools to predict HIV-1 tropism in non-B subtypes, as data on this issue are scarce. Plasma samples were tested using a new phenotypic tropism assay (Phenoscript-tropism; Eurofins), and results were compared with estimates of coreceptor usage using eight different genotypic predictor softwares (Support Vector Machine [SVM], C4.5, C4.5 with positions 8 to 12 only, PART, Charge Rule, geno2pheno coreceptor, Position-Specific Scoring Matrix X4R5 [PSSM(X4R5)], and PSSM(sinsi)). A total of 150 samples were tested, with 115 belonging to patients infected with non-B subtypes and 35 drawn from subtype B-infected patients, which were taken as controls. When non-B subtypes were tested, the concordances between the results obtained using the phenotypic assay and distinct genotypic tools were as follows: 78.8% for SVM, 77.5% for C4.5, 82.5% for C4.5 with positions 8 to 12 only, 82.5% for PART, 82.5% for Charge Rule, 82.5% for PSSM(X4R5), 83.8% for PSSM(sinsi), and 71.3% for geno2pheno. When clade B viruses were tested, the best concordances were seen for PSSM(X4R5) (91.4%), PSSM(sinsi) (88.6%), and geno2pheno (88.6%). The sensitivity for detecting X4 variants was lower for non-B than for B viruses, especially in the case of PSSM(sinsi) (38.4% versus 100%, respectively), SVM(wetcat) (46% versus 100%, respectively), and PART (30% versus 90%, respectively). In summary, while inferences of HIV-1 coreceptor usage using genotypic tools seem to be reliable for clade B viruses, their performances are poor for non-B subtypes, in which they particularly fail to detect X4 variants.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]