Improvement in detecting cytomegalovirus drug resistance mutations in solid organ transplant recipients with suspected resistance using next generation sequencing.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
20
02
2019
accepted:
07
05
2019
entrez:
19
7
2019
pubmed:
19
7
2019
medline:
3
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to identify CMV drug resistance mutations (DRM) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with suspected resistance comparing next-generation sequencing (NGS) with Sanger sequencing and assessing risk factors and the clinical impact of resistance. Using Sanger sequencing as the reference method, we prospectively assessed the ability of NGS to detect CMV DRM in the UL97 and UL54 genes in a nationwide observational study from September 2013 to August 2016. Among 44 patients recruited, 14 DRM were detected by Sanger in 12 patients (27%) and 20 DRM were detected by NGS, in 16 (36%). NGS confirmed all the DRM detected by Sanger. The additional six mutations detected by NGS were present in <20% of the sequenced population, being located in the UL97 gene and conferring high-level resistance to ganciclovir. The presence of DRM by NGS was associated with lung transplantation (p = 0.050), the administration of prophylaxis (p = 0.039), a higher mean time between transplantation and suspicion of resistance (p = 0.038) and longer antiviral treatment duration before suspicion (p = 0.024). However, the latter was the only factor independently associated with the presence of DRM by NGS in the multivariate analysis (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.87). NGS showed a higher yield than Sanger sequencing for detecting CMV resistance mutations in SOT recipients. The presence of DRM detected by NGS was independently associated with longer antiviral treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31318908
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219701
pii: PONE-D-19-05017
pmc: PMC6638921
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0219701Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Bioinformatics. 2009 Jul 15;25(14):1754-60
pubmed: 19451168
J Infect Dis. 2002 Jan 15;185(2):162-9
pubmed: 11807689
Clin Infect Dis. 2002 Oct 1;35(7):866-72
pubmed: 12228824
J Clin Virol. 2017 May;90:57-63
pubmed: 28359845
Genome Res. 2010 Sep;20(9):1297-303
pubmed: 20644199
Am J Transplant. 2012 Jan;12(1):202-9
pubmed: 21967659
Infect Chemother. 2013 Sep;45(3):260-71
pubmed: 24396627
J Infect Dis. 2017 Jun 1;215(11):1673-1683
pubmed: 28368496
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010 Oct;23(4):689-712
pubmed: 20930070
Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2016 Jul;30(3):119-43
pubmed: 27132815
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Apr;56(7):1018-29
pubmed: 23243176
Transpl Infect Dis. 2002 Dec;4(4):189-94
pubmed: 12535261
J Clin Virol. 2016 Jul;80:74-81
pubmed: 27214758
Transplantation. 2018 Jun;102(6):900-931
pubmed: 29596116
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Dec;54(12):5234-41
pubmed: 20876379
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 1;65(1):57-63
pubmed: 28369203
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2002 Dec;21(12):1274-82
pubmed: 12490272
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2011 Dec;24(6):605-11
pubmed: 22001948
Fly (Austin). 2012 Apr-Jun;6(2):80-92
pubmed: 22728672
J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Nov;51(11):3700-10
pubmed: 23985916
J Infect Dis. 1997 Jul;176(1):69-77
pubmed: 9207351
Transpl Infect Dis. 2014 Aug;16(4):561-7
pubmed: 24903568
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2015 Aug;28(4):293-9
pubmed: 26098499
Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2013;43:11.10.1-11.10.33
pubmed: 25431634
Nat Methods. 2015 Feb;12(2):115-21
pubmed: 25633503
Front Microbiol. 2016 Sep 09;7:1317
pubmed: 27667983
Bioinformatics. 2015 Jun 15;31(12):2032-4
pubmed: 25697820