Subtype-specific sequence variation of the HIV type 1 long terminal repeat and primer-binding site.

We studied sequence differences in regulatory elements of the long terminal repeat (LTR) and primer-binding site (PBS) among various human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) subtypes. Phylogenetic sequence analysis of a fragment of 729 base pairs (bp) covering the Gag-coding region for half of p24 and all of p17 revealed the gag subtype of all 60 viruses included in the study: A (n = 20), B (n = 12), C (n = 7), D (n = 10), E (n = 3), F (n = 4), G (n = 3), and H (n = 1). The subtype was also determined by analysis of a 689-bp fragment comprising the LTR and the PBS motif. Comparison of the LTR versus gag sequences showed a mosaic genome for seven isolates. After analysis of all sequences, we could describe subtype-specific differences in sequences encompassing the regulatory elements of the LTR and the PBS motif.

Design and evaluation of a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA assay using nucleic acid sequence-based amplification technology able to quantify both group M and O viruses by using the long terminal repeat as target.

Currently available human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA quantification assays can detect most viruses of the group M subtypes, but a substantial number are missed or not quantified reliably. Viruses of HIV-1 group O cannot be detected by any commercially available assay. We developed and evaluated a quantitative assay based on nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) technology, with primers and probes located in the conserved long terminal repeat (LTR) region of the HIV-1 genome. In 68 of 72 serum samples from individuals infected with HIV-1 subtypes A to H of group M, viruses could be detected and quantified. In serum samples from two patients infected with HIV-1 group O viruses, these viruses as well could be detected and quantified. In contrast, the currently used gag-based assay underestimated the presence of subtype A viruses and could not detect subtype G and group O viruses. The discrepancy between the results of the two assays may be explained by the number of mismatches found within and among the probe and primer regions of the subtype isolates. These data indicate that LTR-based assays, including the NASBA format chosen here, are better suited to monitoring HIV-1 therapy than are gag-based assays in an era in which multiple HIV-1 subtypes and groups are spreading worldwide.