Genotypic tropism testing methods are emerging as the first step before prescription of the CCR5 antagonist maraviroc (MVC) to HIV-infected patients in Europe. Studies validating genotypic tests have included other active drugs that could have potentially convoluted the effects of MVC. The maraviroc clinical test (MCT) is an in vivo drug sensitivity test based on the virological response to a short-term exposure to MVC monotherapy. Thus, our aim was to compare the results of genotypic tropism testing methods with the short-term virological response to MVC monotherapy. A virological response in the MCT was defined as a >1-log 10 decrease in HIV RNA or undetectability after 8 days of drug exposure. Seventy-three patients undergoing the MCT were included in this study. We used both standard genotypic methods (n ؍ 73) and deep sequencing (n ؍ 27) on MCT samples at baseline. For the standard methods, the most widely used genotypic algorithms for analyzing the V3 loop sequence, geno2pheno and PSSM, were used. For deep sequencing, the geno2pheno algorithm was used with a false-positive rate cutoff of 3.5. The discordance rates between the standard genotypic methods and the virological response were approximately 20% (including mostly patients without a virological response). Interestingly, these discordance rates were similar to that obtained from deep sequencing (18.5%). The discordance rates between the genotypic methods (tropism assays predictive of the use of the CCR5 coreceptor) and the MCT (in vivo MVC sensitivity assay) indicate that the algorithms used by genotypic methods are still not sufficiently optimized.T he first coreceptor antagonist approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection by inhibiting the entry of CCR5 (R5) viruses is maraviroc (MVC) (1, 5). Determining HIV coreceptor usage is essential before prescribing R5 antagonists (17). Currently, the most widely used coreceptor tropism test is the recombinant phenotypic Trofile assay (Monogram Biosciences) (39) or its newer version, the enhanced-sensitivity Trofile assay (ESTA) (26). However, this phenotypic assay has some limitations, including an approximately 20% rate of nonreportable results, and specimens must be shipped to the unique reference laboratory in the United States. For these reasons, other clinical (8), phenotypic (10, 11, 23), or genotypic (12) alternatives for determining viral tropism have been examined.Genotypic methods based on analysis of the third variable region (V3) of the HIV envelope are emerging in Europe as widely available alternatives for determining HIV tropism (13). The reliability of genotypic tools to determine HIV tropism in clinical samples has been compared with that of phenotypic studies and reveals the low sensitivity of genotypic assays for detection of CXCR4-using (X4) variants (15,25,30). Improving this low sensitivity has been attempted through simple modifications in the interpretation of the algorithms or by combining the results given by different algorithms (2, 29). Another genotypic approach is ultrade...