Comparison of Different HIV-1 Resistance Interpretation Tools for Next-Generation Sequencing in Italy
Rattachement africain : it. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is gradually replacing Sanger sequencing for HIV genotypic drug resistance testing (GRT). This work evaluated the concordance among different NGS-GRT interpretation tools in a real-life setting. METHODS: Routine NGS-GRT data were generated from viral RNA at 11 Italian laboratories with the AD4SEQ HIV-1 Solution v2 commercial kit. NGS results were interpreted by the SmartVir system provided by the kit and by two online tools (HyDRA Web and Stanford HIVdb). NGS-GRT was considered valid when the coverage was >100 reads (100×) at each PR/RT/IN resistance-associated position listed in the HIVdb 9.5.1 algorithm. RESULTS: Among 629 NGS-GRT, 75.2%, 74.2%, and 70.9% were valid according to SmartVir, HyDRA Web, and HIVdb. Considering at least two interpretation tools, 463 (73.6%) NGS-GRT had a valid coverage for resistance analyses. The proportion of valid samples was affected by viremia <10,000-1000 copies/mL and non-B subtypes. Mutations at an NGS frequency >10% showed fair concordance among different interpretation tools. CONCLUSION: This Italian survey on NGS resistance testing suggests that viremia levels and HIV subtype affect NGS-GRT coverage. Within the current routine method for NGS-GRT, only mutations with frequency >10% seem reliably detected across different interpretation tools.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Comparison of Different HIV-1 Resistance Interpretation Tools for Next-Generation Sequencing in Italy
- Date Crossref
- 06/09/2024
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.