3.8 Article

Molecular genotypes of gag sequences in HIV-1 infected children treated with antiretroviral therapy in Vietnam

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2049936120958536

关键词

ART; CD4 T cell counts; gag mutation; HIV-1; HIV viral load; treatment failure

资金

  1. Nafosted, National Foundation for Science and Technology Development, Training and Research Academic Collaboration (TRAC) -Sweden -Vietnam

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Gag protein of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been reported to play a crucial role in establishing infection, viral replication, and disease progression; thus, gag might be related to treatment response. The objective of this study was to investigate molecular genotypes of the gag gene, particularly the important functional binding domains in relation to treatment outcomes. Methods: HIV-infected children enrolled and treated at Vietnam National Children's Hospital were recruited in the study. A total of 25 gag sequences were generated and used to construct phylogenetic trees and aligned with a reference sequence comparing 17 functional domains. Results: We found that all patients in a treatment failure (TF) group belonged to one cluster of the phylogenetic tree. In addition, the rate of mutations was significantly higher in TF compared with a treatment success (TS) group, specifically the PIP2 recognition motif, and the nucleocapsid basic and zinc motif 2 domains [median and (interquartile range (IQR): 12.5 (6.25-12.5) versus 50 (25-50), p < 0.01; 0 (0-0) versus 0 (0-21.43), p = 0.03 and 0 (0-7.14) versus 7.14 (7.14-7.14), p = 0.04, respectively]. When analyzing gag sequences at different time points in seven patients, we did not observe a consistent mutation pattern related to treatment response. Conclusion: Gag mutations in certain domains might be associated with increased viral load; therefore, studying the molecular genotype of thegaggene might be beneficial in monitoring treatment response in HIV-infected children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据