2011
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1103764108
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Role of donor genital tract HIV-1 diversity in the transmission bottleneck

Abstract: The predominant mode of HIV-1 infection is heterosexual transmission, where a genetic bottleneck is imposed on the virus quasispecies. To probe whether limited genetic diversity in the genital tract (GT) of the transmitting partner drives this bottleneck, viral envelope sequences from the blood and genital fluids of eight transmission pairs from Rwanda and Zambia were analyzed. The chronically infected transmitting partner's virus population was heterogeneous with distinct genital subpopulations, and the virus… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

5
98
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 106 publications
(103 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
5
98
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While the fact that HIV-1-infected females present lower VLs than their male counterparts may in part act as a confounder in the VL correlation between TSPs and SCs, it seems unlikely that this completely explains the difference. The other possible difference between these studies is that in the studies of heterosexual transmission pairs, the transmitting partner was already identified as HIV positive prior to inclusion of the couple in discordant couple prevention studies, and in most linked transmission pairs we have studied phylogenetically, the diversity of the TSP virus population is consistent with chronic infection (42)(43)(44). In a study by Hecht et al (21), the majority of TSPs were identified posttransmission, and 9 of the 24 TSPs represented individuals with recent infection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the fact that HIV-1-infected females present lower VLs than their male counterparts may in part act as a confounder in the VL correlation between TSPs and SCs, it seems unlikely that this completely explains the difference. The other possible difference between these studies is that in the studies of heterosexual transmission pairs, the transmitting partner was already identified as HIV positive prior to inclusion of the couple in discordant couple prevention studies, and in most linked transmission pairs we have studied phylogenetically, the diversity of the TSP virus population is consistent with chronic infection (42)(43)(44). In a study by Hecht et al (21), the majority of TSPs were identified posttransmission, and 9 of the 24 TSPs represented individuals with recent infection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The VH2000 env gene sequences exhibited a maximum pairwise distance of 2% (Fig. S1), which is lower in diversity than what is generally present in an HIV-1-infected transmitting partner (24)(25)(26). Fig.…”
Section: A Single Variant From the Sivsme660 Challenge Stock Establismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…T/F virus variant in the vast majority of individuals (24)(25)(26). In each case of breakthrough, an env gene amplicon representative of the T/F sequence, or the predominant env gene sequence in the case of RJn11, was cloned to assess neutralization sensitivity.…”
Section: A Single Variant From the Sivsme660 Challenge Stock Establismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This inefficiency is exemplified by a stringent population bottleneck, in which only one or a limited number of variants from the diverse quasispecies of the transmitting donor establish the new infection (9). Transmitted viruses are not usually the most abundant strains in the genital secretions of infected donors (10), and analyses of viral sequences from 137 matched donor and recipient pairs indicated that viruses with a more ancestral genotype are preferentially transmitted (11). These data suggested that mucosal transmission selects for variants with enhanced transmission fitness (11).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%