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.
Armenia, D., Carioti, L., Micheli, V., Bon, I., Allice, T., Bonura, C., et al. (2024). Comparison of Different HIV-1 Resistance Interpretation Tools for Next-Generation Sequencing in Italy. VIRUSES, 16(9) [10.3390/v16091422].
Comparison of Different HIV-1 Resistance Interpretation Tools for Next-Generation Sequencing in Italy
Vicenti I.;Saladini F.;Zazzi M.;
2024-01-01
Abstract
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.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Comparison of Different HIV-1 Resistance Interpretation Tools for Next-Generation Sequencing in Italy.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
PDF editoriale
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
4.46 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
4.46 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1277296