This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Armstrong, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Essex, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Armstrong, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Essex, M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Virology, May 2009, p. 4051-4059, Vol. 83, No. 9
0022-538X/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JVI.02645-08
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Replicative Capacity Differences of Thymidine Analog Resistance Mutations in Subtype B and C Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1{triangledown}

Kimberly L. Armstrong,1 Tun-Hou Lee,1 and M. Essex1,2*

Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases,1 Harvard School of Public Health AIDS Initiative, Harvard School of Public Health, 651 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 021152

Received 23 December 2008/ Accepted 5 February 2009

In order to understand the impact of zidovudine resistance and thymidine analog mutations (TAMs) on subtype C human immunodeficiency virus type 1, we created mutants in subtype C reverse transcriptase (RT). The subtype B RT was placed in a subtype C backbone to act as a control. Mutants and wild-type (WT) virus were competed in a head-to-head competition assay to determine how different clones grew in the same culture. Different viruses were distinguished by sequence tags in nef and a quantitative-PCR assay. The 67N and 70R accessory mutations gave an advantage over the WT in subtype C, but these mutations in subtype B had replication capacities similar to that of the WT. Of the triple mutants examined, the TAM-1 types, 41L210W215Y, were the most fit in both subtypes, but only in subtype C was the replication capacity the same as that of the WT. The TAM-2 mutants, 67N70R215F, had the slowest replication in both clones. The mixed TAM pathway mutant, 67N70R215Y, in subtype C had a significant advantage over the TAM-2 mutant, but this was not seen in subtype B. When the WT viruses were competed with each other, the subtype B RT had enhanced replication relative to subtype C. The increased capacities of the 67N and 70R mutations may indicate that there will be greater transmitted resistance and persistence in a subtype C setting than what is known for subtype B.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Harvard School of Public Health AIDS Initiative, FXB 402, 651 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115. Phone: (617) 432-2334. Fax: (617) 739-8348. E-mail: messex{at}hsph.harvard.edu

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 18 February 2009.

Journal of Virology, May 2009, p. 4051-4059, Vol. 83, No. 9
0022-538X/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JVI.02645-08
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.





Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»