4.4 Article

Replicative fitness of historical and recent HIV-1 isolates suggests HIV-1 attenuation over time

期刊

AIDS
卷 19, 期 15, 页码 1555-1564

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.aids.0000185989.16477.91

关键词

replication capacity; fitness; evolution; attenuation; HIV-1 epidemic

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI57005, AI43645-02, AI49170] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [HD-0-3310-502-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Changes in virulence during an epidemic are common among pathogens, but still unexplored in the case of HIV-1. Here we used primary human cells to study the replicative fitness of primary HIV-1 isolates from untreated patients, comparing historical (1986-1989) and recent samples (2002-2003). Methods: Head-to-head dual virus infection/competition assays were performed in both peripheral blood mononuclear cells and human dendritic cell/T-cell co-cultures with pairs of 12 carefully matched historical and recent HIV-1 isolates from untreated patients. Sensitivity to inhibition by lamivudine (3TC) and TAK-779 of historical and recent R5 HIV-1 isolates was measured in a subset of samples. Results: Overall, the historical HIV-1 out-competed the recent HIV-1 isolates in 176 of 238 competitions and in 9 of 12 competitions carefully matched for CD4 cell count. The mean relative replicative fitness (W) of all historical HIV-1 strains was significantly greater than that of recent HIV-1 isolates (W1986-1989 = 1.395 and W2002-2003 = 0.545, P < 0.001 (t test)). The more fit viruses (mean W > 1) from 1986-1989 appeared less sensitive to TAK-779 and 3TC than did the less fit (mean W < 1) 2002-2003 viruses. Conclusions: These findings suggest that HIV-1 replicative fitness may have decreased in the human population since the start of the pandemic. This 'attenuation' could be the consequence of serial bottlenecks during transmission and result in adaptation of HIV-1 to the human host. (c) 2005 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.4
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