ABSTRACT
Arboviruses cycle between, and replicate in, both invertebrate and vertebrate hosts, which for Zika virus (ZIKV) involves Aedes mosquitoes and primates1. The viral determinants required for replication in such obligate hosts are under strong purifying selection during natural virus evolution, making it challenging to resolve which determinants are optimal for viral fitness in each host. Herein we describe a deep mutational scanning (DMS) strategy2-5 whereby a viral cDNA library was constructed containing all codon substitutions in the C-terminal 204 amino acids of ZIKV envelope protein (E). The cDNA library was transfected into C6/36 (Aedes) and Vero (primate) cells, with subsequent deep sequencing and computational analyses of recovered viruses showing that substitutions K316Q and S461G, or Q350L and T397S, conferred substantial replicative advantages in mosquito and primate cells, respectively. A 316Q/461G virus was constructed and shown to be replication-defective in mammalian cells due to severely compromised virus particle formation and secretion. The 316Q/461G virus was also highly attenuated in human brain organoids, and illustrated utility as a vaccine in mice. This approach can thus imitate evolutionary selection in a matter of days and identify amino acids key to the regulation of virus replication in specific host environments.
Subject(s)
DNA Mutational Analysis/methods , Viral Tropism , Zika Virus Infection/virology , Zika Virus/physiology , Aedes/virology , Animals , Biological Evolution , Chlorocebus aethiops , Female , Host Specificity , Humans , Mice , Mice, Inbred C57BL , Models, Molecular , Mosquito Vectors/virology , Mutation , Selection, Genetic , Vero Cells , Viral Envelope Proteins/chemistry , Viral Envelope Proteins/genetics , Viral Envelope Proteins/metabolism , Virus Replication , Zika Virus/chemistry , Zika Virus/geneticsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: With the scale-up of antiretroviral therapy (ART), monitoring programme performance is needed to maximize ART efficacy and limit HIV drug resistance (HIVDR). METHODS: We implemented a WHO HIVDR prospective survey protocol at three treatment centers between 2012 and 2013. Data were abstracted from patient records at ART start (T1) and after 12 months (T2). Genotyping was performed in the HIV pol region at the two time points. RESULTS: Of the 425 patients enrolled, at T2, 20 (4.7%) had died, 66 (15.5%) were lost to follow-up, 313 (73.6%) were still on first-line, 8 (1.9%) had switched to second-line, 17 (4.0%) had transferred out and 1 (0.2%) had stopped treatment. At T2, 272 out of 321 on first and second line (84.7%) suppressed below 1000 copies/ml and the HIV DR prevention rate was 70.1%, just within the WHO threshold of ≥ 70%. The proportion of participants with potential HIVDR was 20.9%, which is higher than the 18.8% based on pooled analyses from African studies. Of the 35 patients with mutations at T2, 80% had M184V/I, 65.7% Y181C, and 48.6% (54.8% excluding those not on Tenofovir) had K65R mutations. 22.9% had Thymidine Analogue Mutations (TAMs). Factors significantly associated with HIVDR prevention at T2 were: baseline viral load (VL) <100,000 copies/ml [Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 3.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.36-7.19] and facility. Independent baseline predictors for HIVDR mutations at T2 were: CD4 count < 250 cells/µl (AOR 2.80, 95% CI: 1.08-7.29) and viral load ≥ 100,000 copies/ml (AOR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.00-6.14). CONCLUSION: Strengthening defaulter tracing, intensified follow-up for patients with low CD4 counts and/or high VL at ART initiation together with early treatment initiation above 250 CD4 cells/ul and adequate patient counselling would improve ART efficacy and HIVDR prevention. The high rate of K65R and TAMs could compromise second line regimens including NRTIs.
