ArticleVirology journal2005
Comparison of amplification enzymes for Hepatitis C Virus quasispecies analysis.
Article in Virology journal, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Processes to manage analyses and publications in a phase III multicenter randomized clinical trial.Trials · 2014Trial
- Article
- Functional characterization of core genes from patients with acute hepatitis C virus infection.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2010Article
- Separation of Hepatitis C genotype 4a into IgG-depleted and IgG-enriched fractions reveals a unique quasispecies profile.Virology journal · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHepatitis C virus (HCV) circulates as quasispecies (QS), whose evolution is associated with pathogenesis. Previous studies have suggested that the use of thermostable polymerases without proofreading function may contribute to inaccurate assessment of HCV QS. In this report, we compared non-proofreading (Taq) with proofreading (Advantage High Fidelity-2; HF-2) polymerases in the sensitivity, robustness, and HCV QS diversity and complexity in the second envelope glycoprotein gene hypervariable region 1 (E2-HVR1) on baseline specimens from 20 patients in the HALT-C trial and in a small cohort of 12 HCV/HIV co-infected patients. QS diversity and complexity were quantified using heteroduplex mobility assays (HMA).
resultsThe sensitivities of both enzymes were comparable at 50 IU/ml, although HF-2 was more robust and slightly more sensitive than Taq. Both enzymes generated QS diversity and complexity scores that were correlated (r = 0.68; p < 0.0001, and r = 0.47; p < 0.01; Spearman's rank correlation). QS diversity was similar for both Taq and HF-2 enzymes, although there was a trend for higher diversity in samples amplified by Taq (p = 0.126). Taq amplified samples yielded complexity scores that were significantly higher than HF-2 samples (p = 0.033). HALT-C patients who were HCV positive or negative following 20 weeks of pegylated IFN plus ribavirin therapy had similar QS diversity scores for Taq and HF-2 samples, and there was a trend for higher complexity scores from Taq as compared with HF-2 samples. Among patients with HCV and HIV co-infection, HAART increased HCV QS diversity and complexity as compared with patients not receiving therapy, suggesting that immune reconstitution drives HCV QS evolution. However, diversity and complexity scores were similar for both HF-2 and Taq amplified specimens.
conclusionThe data suggest that while Taq may overestimate HCV QS complexity, its use does not significantly affect results in cohort-based studies of HCV QS analyzed by HMA. However, the use of proofreading enzymes such as HF-2 is recommended for more accurate characterization of HCV QS in vivo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.