2009
DOI: 10.1128/jcm.00673-09
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multisite Comparison of Anti-Human Immunodeficiency Virus Microbicide Activity in Explant Assays Using a Novel Endpoint Analysis

Abstract: Microbicide candidates with promising in vitro activity are often advanced for evaluations using human primary tissue explants relevant to the in vivo mucosal transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), such as tonsil, cervical, or rectal tissue. To compare virus growth or the anti-HIV-1 efficacies of candidate microbicides in tissue explants, a novel soft-endpoint method was evaluated to provide a single, objective measurement of virus growth. The applicability of the soft endpoint is shown a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
50
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…38,39 Of the over 1,200 Boolean categorical comparisons generated, less than 1% showed statistically significant differences between FOL and LUT phases. Table 2 demonstrates that there were no significant differences in vaginal immune cell populations, vaginal histology, vaginal pH, vaginal Nugent score, antimicrobial activity of the CVL, or p24 antigen production from vaginal or ectocervical tissues obtained in the FOL phase versus the LUT phase, adjusting for patient race, contraceptive/sexual prac- Comparison of gene expression profiles in vaginal tissues at FOL and LUT phases revealed only one gene to be differentially expressed (FDR-corrected p-value <.05, fold change ‡2 as described in the Methods section) (heat map for 2,295 genes shown in Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…38,39 Of the over 1,200 Boolean categorical comparisons generated, less than 1% showed statistically significant differences between FOL and LUT phases. Table 2 demonstrates that there were no significant differences in vaginal immune cell populations, vaginal histology, vaginal pH, vaginal Nugent score, antimicrobial activity of the CVL, or p24 antigen production from vaginal or ectocervical tissues obtained in the FOL phase versus the LUT phase, adjusting for patient race, contraceptive/sexual prac- Comparison of gene expression profiles in vaginal tissues at FOL and LUT phases revealed only one gene to be differentially expressed (FDR-corrected p-value <.05, fold change ‡2 as described in the Methods section) (heat map for 2,295 genes shown in Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To achieve normality, data were log transformed, as indicated, for the analyses of p24 production and immune cell types as has been previously done. 38,39 For the analyses of p24 antigen production, categorization of infected versus not infected samples was done using 0.1 log steps and a Boolean method, followed by comparison of infected versus not infected samples by Fisher's exact test or McNemar's statistic as appropriate. 40 Log transformation of the antimicrobial data could not be performed because some of the data points were negative numbers.…”
Section: Hiv-1 P24 Antigen Production From Ectocervical or Vaginal Timentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Infection (individual replicate wells) was monitored with the RETROtek SIV p27 antigen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit (ZeptoMetrix, Buffalo, NY) with a detection limit of 62.5 pg/ml. p27 cumulative (CUM) and soft (SOFT) endpoint analyses (23,24) were performed from 3 days to 14 days of culture because day 0 data represent carryover input virus.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The soft (SOFT) and cumulative (CUM) analyses were performed as described previously in references 33, 39, and 40 using a template from Alpha StatConsult LLC. Briefly, SOFT is a cross-sectional index from a growth curve that is reflective of the virus growth achieved in the assay (39,40). CUM is the cumulative readout of infection (days 3 to 14) (39).…”
Section: Macaquesmentioning
confidence: 99%