4.6 Article

SHIV-162P3 Infection of Rhesus Macaques Given Maraviroc Gel Vaginally Does Not Involve Resistant Viruses

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 6, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028047

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center [UL1 RR025758]
  2. Pfizer
  3. [K08 AI081547]
  4. [R37 AI055357]
  5. [U19 AI076982]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Maraviroc (MVC) gels are effective at protecting rhesus macaques from vaginal SHIV transmission, but breakthrough infections can occur. To determine the effects of a vaginal MVC gel on infecting SHIV populations in a macaque model, we analyzed plasma samples from three rhesus macaques that received a MVC vaginal gel (day 0) but became infected after high-dose SHIV-162P3 vaginal challenge. Two infected macaques that received a placebo gel served as controls. The infecting SHIV-162P3 stock had an overall mean genetic distance of 0.294 +/- 0.027%; limited entropy changes were noted across the envelope (gp160). No envelope mutations were observed consistently in viruses isolated from infected macaques at days 14-21, the time of first detectable viremia, nor selected at later time points, days 42-70. No statistically significant differences in MVC susceptibilities were observed between the SHIV inoculum (50% inhibitory concentration [IC50] 1.87 nM) and virus isolated from the three MVC-treated macaques (MVC IC50 1.18 nM, 1.69 nM, and 1.53 nM, respectively). Highlighter plot analyses suggested that infection was established in each MVC-treated animal by one founder virus genotype. The expected Poisson distribution of pairwise Hamming Distance frequency counts was observed and a phylogenetic analysis did not identify infections with distinct lineages from the challenge stock. These data suggest that breakthrough infections most likely result from incomplete viral inhibition and not the selection of MVC-resistant variants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available