Published in

American Society for Microbiology, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1(46), p. 89-94, 2002

DOI: 10.1128/aac.46.1.89-94.2002

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Prediction of Abacavir Resistance from Genotypic Data: Impact of Zidovudine and Lamivudine Resistance In Vitro and In Vivo

Journal article published in 2002 by Hauke Walter, Barbara Schmidt, Marianne Werwein, Eva Schwingel, Klaus Korn ORCID
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Published version: archiving restricted
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

ABSTRACT Abacavir is frequently used in antiretroviral combination therapies as a potent nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI). Four mutations are selected for by abacavir in vitro and in vivo: K65R, L74V, Y115F, and M184V. Abacavir resistance has also been observed in NRTI multidrug-resistant samples. Furthermore, abacavir resistance has been described in the context of zidovudine resistance. To evaluate the genetic basis of abacavir resistance, the viral genotype and phenotypic resistance were analyzed for 307 patient samples. Low- and high-level resistances were defined as 2.5- to 5.5-fold- and >5.5-fold-reduced susceptibility, respectively. If all samples with abacavir-selected and NRTI multidrug resistance-associated mutations were scored as resistant, 27.6% of the samples were misclassified, mainly due to samples falsely scored as susceptible. Therefore, the relative frequencies of other mutations were evaluated. Mutations at codons 44 and 118 were rarely detected in abacavir-susceptible samples but were overrepresented in resistant samples. Site-directed mutagenesis of E44D, V118I, and M184V resulted in low-level resistance for the double mutant 44/184 and the triple mutant. Low-level abacavir resistance was also detected for a viral clone carrying zidovudine mutations only. Additional insertion of M184V into the zidovudine background doubled the resistance, whereas 44/118 did not lead to a further increase. Incorporating combinations of zidovudine mutations and M184V into the scoring system markedly reduced the number of misclassified samples, whereas 44/118 did not improve the prediction. In conclusion, the combination of M184V with zidovudine mutations gives rise to high-level abacavir resistance, which may be clinically relevant. Thus, options for useful sequential combinations of NRTI are limited.