↓ Skip to main content

Use of Four Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms to Determine HIV-1 Coreceptor Tropism

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of Four Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms to Determine HIV-1 Coreceptor Tropism
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049602
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Archer, Jan Weber, Kenneth Henry, Dane Winner, Richard Gibson, Lawrence Lee, Ellen Paxinos, Eric J. Arts, David L. Robertson, Larry Mimms, Miguel E. Quiñones-Mateu

Abstract

HIV-1 coreceptor tropism assays are required to rule out the presence of CXCR4-tropic (non-R5) viruses prior treatment with CCR5 antagonists. Phenotypic (e.g., Trofile™, Monogram Biosciences) and genotypic (e.g., population sequencing linked to bioinformatic algorithms) assays are the most widely used. Although several next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms are available, to date all published deep sequencing HIV-1 tropism studies have used the 454™ Life Sciences/Roche platform. In this study, HIV-1 co-receptor usage was predicted for twelve patients scheduled to start a maraviroc-based antiretroviral regimen. The V3 region of the HIV-1 env gene was sequenced using four NGS platforms: 454™, PacBio® RS (Pacific Biosciences), Illumina®, and Ion Torrent™ (Life Technologies). Cross-platform variation was evaluated, including number of reads, read length and error rates. HIV-1 tropism was inferred using Geno2Pheno, Web PSSM, and the 11/24/25 rule and compared with Trofile™ and virologic response to antiretroviral therapy. Error rates related to insertions/deletions (indels) and nucleotide substitutions introduced by the four NGS platforms were low compared to the actual HIV-1 sequence variation. Each platform detected all major virus variants within the HIV-1 population with similar frequencies. Identification of non-R5 viruses was comparable among the four platforms, with minor differences attributable to the algorithms used to infer HIV-1 tropism. All NGS platforms showed similar concordance with virologic response to the maraviroc-based regimen (75% to 80% range depending on the algorithm used), compared to Trofile (80%) and population sequencing (70%). In conclusion, all four NGS platforms were able to detect minority non-R5 variants at comparable levels suggesting that any NGS-based method can be used to predict HIV-1 coreceptor usage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 148 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 20%
Student > Master 28 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 17%
Other 15 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 8%
Other 33 21%
Unknown 12 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 69 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 6%
Computer Science 6 4%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 15 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2016.
All research outputs
#3,033,524
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#39,656
of 203,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,502
of 180,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#704
of 4,727 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 203,812 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,727 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.