RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 From sequence data to patient result: a solution for HIV drug resistance genotyping with Exatype, end to end software for Pol-HIV-1 Sequence analysis and patient HIV drug resistance result generation
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.01.29.20019448
DO 10.1101/2020.01.29.20019448
A1 Leonard King’wara
A1 Muthoni Karanja
A1 Catherine Ngugi
A1 Geoffrey Kangogo
A1 Kipkerich Bera
A1 Maureen Kimani
A1 Nancy Bowen
A1 Dorcas Abuya
A1 Violet Oramisi
A1 Irene Mukui
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/02/03/2020.01.29.20019448.abstract
AB Introduction With the rapid scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART) to treat HIV infection, there are ongoing concerns regarding probable emergence and transmission of HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) mutations. This scale-up has to lead to an increased need for routine HIVDR testing to inform the clinical decision on a regimen switch. Although the majority of wet laboratory processes are standardized, slow, labor-intensive data transfer and subjective manual sequence interpretation steps are still required to finalize and release patient results. We thus set out to validate the applicability of a software package to generate HIVDR patient results from raw sequence data independently.Methods We assessed the performance characteristics of Hyrax Bioscience’s Exatype (a sequence data to patient result, fully automated sequence analysis software, which consolidates RECall, MEGA X and the Stanford HIV database) against the standard method (RECall and Stanford database). Exatype is a web-based HIV Drug resistance bioinformatic pipeline available at sanger.exatype.com. To validate the exatype, we used a test set of 135 remnant HIV viral load samples at the National HIV Reference Laboratory (NHRL).Result We analyzed, and successfully generated results of 126 sequences out of 135 specimens by both standard and Exatype software. Result production using Exatype required minimal hands-on time in comparison to the standard (6 computation-hours using the standard method versus 1.5 Exatype computation-hours). Concordance between the two systems was 99.8% for 311,227 bases compared. 99.7 % of the 0.2% discordant bases, were attributed to nucleotide mixtures as a result of the sequence editing in Recall. Both methods identified similar (99.1%) critical antiretroviral resistance-associated mutations resulting in a 99.2% concordance of resistance susceptibility interpretations. Base calling comparison between the two methods had Cohen’s kappa (0.97 to 0.99) implying an almost perfect agreement with minimal base calling variation. On a predefined dataset, RECall editing displayed the highest probability to score mixtures accurately one vs. 0.71 and the lowest chance to inaccurately assign mixtures to pure nucleotides (0.002–0.0008). This advantage is attributable to the manual sequence editing in RECall.Conclusion The reduction in hands-on time needed is a benefit when using the Exatype HIV DR sequence analysis platform and result generation tool. There is a minimal difference in base calling between Exatype and standard methods. Although the discrepancy has minimal impact on drug resistance interpretation, allowance of sequence editing in Exatype as RECall can significantly improve its performance.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was receivedAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData will be available upon request