Abstract
Evaluation of drug resistance by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genotyping has proven to be useful for the selection of drug combinations with maximum antiretroviral activity. We compared three genotyping methods for identification of mutations known to confer drug resistance in the reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease genes of HIV type 1 (HIV-1). The HIV-GenotypR method (GenotypR; Specialty Laboratories, Inc., Santa Monica, Calif.) with the ABI 377 DNA sequencer (Applied Biosystems Inc.), the HIV PRT GeneChip assay (GeneChip; Affymetrix, Santa Clara, Calif.), and the HIV-1 RT Line Probe Assay (LiPA; Innogenetics, Alpharetta, Ga.) were used to genotype plasma samples from HIV-infected patients attending the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics and the Mayo Clinic. At the time of analysis, patients were failing combination therapy (n = 18) or were treatment naive (n = 6). Forty codons of the RT and protease genes were analyzed by GenotypR and GeneChip for resistance-associated mutations. LiPA analyzed seven RT codons for mutations. Each sample was genotyped by all three assays, and each assay was subjected to pairwise comparisons. At least 92% of the codons tested (by the three assays) in paired comparisons were concordant. GenotypR and GeneChip demonstrated 96.6% concordance over the 40 codons tested. GenotypR identified slightly more mutations than GeneChip and LiPA; GeneChip identified all primary mutations that corresponded to failing treatment regimens. Each assay identified at least 84% of the mutations identified by the other assays. Mutations that were discordant between the assays mainly comprised secondary mutations and natural polymorphisms. The assays had better concordance for mutations that corresponded to current failing regimens, present in the more predominant viral quasispecies. In the treatment-naive patients, GenotypR, GeneChip, and LiPA mainly identified wild-type virus. Only the LiPA identified K70R, a possible transmitted zidovudine resistance mutation, in the RT gene of a treatment-naive patient. We conclude that although discrepancies in results exist between assays, each assay showed a similar capacity to identify potentially clinically relevant mutations related to patient treatment regimens.