4.6 Article

Sequence Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Novel Assays for Intact Proviral HIV-1 DNA

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
Volume 95, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01986-20

Keywords

HIV cure; HIV latent reservoir; human immunodeficiency virus

Categories

Funding

  1. Robert S. Wennett postdoctoral fellowship
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award program) [UL1 TR001866]
  3. Shapiro-Silverberg Fund for the Advancement of Translational Research
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation [P1ZHP3_188135]
  5. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1092074]
  6. National Institutes of Health [UM1 AI100663, R01AI129795, 1U01AI129825, UM1AI126619, R01AI134363, F30AI145588]
  7. Einstein-Rockefeller-CUNY Center for AIDS Research [1P30AI124414-01A1]
  8. BEAT-HIV Delaney [UM1 AI126620]
  9. Robertson Fund
  10. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [P1ZHP3_188135] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
  11. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1092074] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared two novel assays, IPDA and Q4PCR, for measuring intact HIV proviral DNA in samples from 39 ART-suppressed people living with HIV, showing a 19-fold difference in frequencies of intact proviral DNA. This disparity may be partially due to inefficiencies in long-distance PCR amplification and the presence of intact proviruses with defects in other parts of the genome. The head-to-head comparison provides context for interpreting the results of the assays and highlights the importance of both methods in accurately quantifying the replication-competent HIV reservoir.
The HIV proviral reservoir is the major barrier to cure. The predominantly replication-defective proviral landscape makes the measurement of virus that is likely to cause rebound upon antiretroviral therapy (ART)-cessation challenging. To address this issue, novel assays to measure intact HIV proviruses have been developed. The intact proviral DNA assay (IPDA) is a high-throughput assay that uses two probes to exclude the majority of defective proviruses and determine the frequency of intact proviruses, albeit without sequence confirmation. Quadruplex PCR with four probes (Q4PCR) is a lower-throughput assay that uses limiting dilution long-distance PCR amplification followed by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and near-full-length genome sequencing (nFGS) to estimate the frequency of sequence-confirmed intact proviruses and provide insight into their clonal composition. To explore the advantages and limitations of these assays, we compared IPDA and Q4PCR measurements from 39 ART-suppressed people living with HIV. We found that IPDA and Q4PCR measurements correlated with one another, but frequencies of intact proviral DNA differed by approximately 19-fold. This difference may be in part due to inefficiencies in long-distance PCR amplification of proviruses in Q4PCR, leading to underestimates of intact proviral frequencies. In addition, nFGS analysis within Q4PCR explained that some of this difference is explained by proviruses that are classified as intact by IPDA but carry defects elsewhere in the genome. Taken together, this head-to-head comparison of novel intact proviral DNA assays provides important context for their interpretation in studies to deplete the HIV reservoir and shows that together the assays bracket true reservoir size. IMPORTANCE The intact proviral DNA assay (IPDA) and quadruplex PCR (Q4PCR) represent major advances in accurately quantifying and characterizing the replication-competent HIV reservoir. This study compares the two novel approaches for measuring intact HIV proviral DNA in samples from 39 antiretroviral therapy (ART) suppressed people living with HIV, thereby informing ongoing efforts to deplete the HIV reservoir in cure-related trials.

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