Minority Variants of Drug-Resistant HIV

doi:10.1086/655397

J Infect Dis. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 September 1.

Published in final edited form as:

J Infect Dis. 2010 September 1; 202(5): 657–666.

doi: 10.1086/655397

PMCID: PMC2916955

NIHMSID: NIHMS210704

Minority Variants of Drug-Resistant HIV

Sara Gianella¹ and Douglas D. Richman^1,²

¹University of California, San Diego

²Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego

Corresponding author: Douglas Richman, MD, Departments of Pathology and Medicine, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0679, Tel. (858) 552-7439, Fax. (858) 552 7445, Email: drichman/at/ucsd.edu

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available free at J Infect Dis

See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.

Abstract

Minor drug-resistant variants exist in every HIV-infected patient. Since these minority variants are usually present at very low levels, they cannot be detected and quantified using conventional genotypic and phenotypic tests. Recently, several assays have been developed to characterize these low-abundance drug-resistant variants in the large genetically complex population present in every HIV-infected individual. The most important issue is, what results generated by these assays can predict clinical or treatment outcomes and might guide patient management in clinical practice. Cutoff-values for the detection of these low-abundance viral variants that predict increased risk of treatment failure should be determined. These thresholds may be specific for each mutation and treatment regimen.

In this review we summarize the attributes and limitations of the currently available detection assays and review the existing information about both acquired and transmitted drug resistant minority variants.

Keywords: HIV drug resistance, antiretroviral treatment failure, minority mutations, drug resistant variants

Introduction

HIV replicates at high rates with estimates of 10¹⁰–10¹¹ virions being generated daily in untreated patients [1]. RNA-virus polymerases have high error rates that are not subject to host cell proofreading mechanisms. RNA-viruses, including HIV, thus average approximately one mutation per genome per replication cycle[2, 3].HIV genetic diversity is also facilitated by several recombination events per cycle between the diploid genomes in each virion[4, 5]. With this combination of high rates of replication, mutation and recombination, every possible mutation and many double mutations are likely generated in each untreated individual on a daily basis [6–8]. Drug-resistant mutants are thus present in all infected subjects before the initiation of therapy and this fact underlies the basis for the need for combination therapy for HIV. The principle of the need for combination therapy based on population size and mutation rate was first documented in the 1950’s for tuberculosis [9, 10]and has been most thoroughly confirmed with the development of antiviral chemotherapy for HIV-1 infection, hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

The recent interest in minority drug-resistant variants for HIV has been driven by the development of more sensitive and precise assays to detect and quantify minority variants in the large genetically complex population of variants present in HIV-infected subjects. The practical implications of these new assays are not whether they confirm the preexistence of drug-resistance variants, a fact that was already known. The issue is, what results generated by these assays can inform treatment strategies and decisions. For example, is there a threshold level of drug-resistant minority variants that compromises one treatment regimen and dictates another.

In this review we will summarize the attributes and limitations of the various assays to detect drug-resistant variants and the assay measurements that predict clinical or treatment outcomes and might guide patient management.

Methods to detect minority variants

Mutations associated with drug resistance in clinical practice are generally detected by direct sequencing of the pol gene from the population of HIV-RNA in plasma[11]. The interpretation of standard resistance assays is limited by the inability to detect minority viral populations at levels below 20–30%[12–15]. Several assays have been developed to characterize drug-resistant HIV variants of lower abundance, [15].These assays utilize two main approaches to detect minority species: point mutation assays and newer sequencing technologies. Alternative procedures based on phenotypic detection of minority variants have also been developed.

Before describing the specific approaches, it should be stressed that all assays for minority variants are subject to certain common limitations. First, the specimen assayed must have a population size sufficient to permit the representative presence of minority variants. An amplification assay that uses the nucleic acid extract derived from 10 µl of plasma with 5000 copies per ml will not provide informative data about variants present as a few percent. Second, polymorphisms selectively associated with drug resistance may skew the sensitivity of primers and probes. For example, the T215Y reverse transcriptase mutation conferring zidovudine resistance is often associated with variants at codons 210 and 214. Third, primers and probes designed to amplify commonly utilized laboratory strains may not perform as well with patient-derived variants and even less well with the variety of different subtypes circulating globally. Finally, population-sequencing technologies that do not interrogate clones, as do single genome sequencing (SGS) or ultra-deep pyrosequencing (UDPS), cannot determine whether mutations are present on different variants in the population or are co-linear within a given sequence. Table 1 summarizes the most common technologies for detecting minority variants that have been applied to HIV-infection with an indication of their performance characteristics and their potential attributes and limitations. Online supplement 1 describes in detail the different assays.

Table 1

Methods to detect minority variants of drug-resistant HIV-1

Point mutation assays

Point mutation assays are generally highly sensitive and specific for detecting a selected minority drug resistance mutation (DRM) (Table 1). While some of them depend entirely on differential hybridization to alternative viral variants, an additional ligation-step and/or PCR-amplification can improve their specificity and sensitivity. These assays are relatively inexpensive, and moderately labor-intensive. The results are generally easy to interpret. This methodology is especially suitable for epidemiological studies where dynamics and persistence of the most common resistance mutations are analyzed, for example, following the use of nevirapine for the prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT). They cannot completely address the number and complexity of DRMs, following treatment failure for example.

In addition to the limitations common to all assays described above, their major limitations are the ability to detect only a single point mutation at a time and the reduced ability to detect alternative polymorphisms in the codon of interest or relevant mutations in nearby codons. Moreover, point mutation assays may be prone to false positives at very low percent minority readouts; therefore, a careful determination of a biologically relevant lower level of detection is important, and these are likely to be different for different resistance mutations (and may be as high as 2%)[16]. Validating an assay with pure mixtures of wild type and mutant alleles may not reflect the diversity and complexity of polymorphisms in a clinical specimen. In addition, validation profiles established with laboratory strains or clade B patient-strains, may not apply to field studies, for example for PMTCT in sub-Saharan Africa.

Sequencing assays

In contrast to point mutation assays, sequencing methods permit analyses of the entire sequence context, and with sequencing of molecular clones, the genetic linkage of each detected mutation. They are less susceptible to primer and probe polymorphisms and do not need individual cutoff assessment for each mutation to avoid false positive results. On the other hand, for the detection of minority variants, sequencing techniques tend to be more labor and cost intensive than point mutation assays. Sequencing assays like SGS or UDPS represent the “gold standard” by which point mutation assays of minority variants in clinical specimens must be validated.

Phenotypic assays

Phenotypic assays assess drug susceptibility by determining the effect of different inhibitors on the replication of viral isolates or recombinant vectors carrying patient-derived viral domains. In routine practice their ability to detect minor drug-resistant variants is limited[58]. Recently, highly sensitive phenotyping assays were developed to detect relevant, low frequency drug-resistant virus variants in clinical specimens[59, 60]. These methods provides phenotypic selection of drug-resistant variants, which can be further characterized by DNA sequencing, leading the opportunity to discover new resistance mutations, but do not provide quantification of minority variants.

Chemokine receptor utilization provides a unique situation in which the detection of any variants utilizing X4 can predict treatment failure with CCR5 inhibitors like maraviroc[61]. A phenotypic assay that can detect the presence of X4 utilizing variants down to 0.3% of the population with 100% sensitivity has proven as sensitive and specific as any approach for the prediction of the utility of this class of drugs [61–64].

Natural history of drug resistance mutations in the absence of therapy

The existence of minority variants with DRMs in the absence of drug exposure is a common theme in microbiology. Luria and Delbruck first described the rare generation of resistant variants in bacteria in 1943 [66]. The clinical relevance of rare drug-resistant populations of M.tuberculosis formed the rationale for combination therapy in the 1950’s[9, 10].A very high population size[1],characterized by massive viral turnover and subsequent rapid evolution[67], characterizes HIV-1 infection in vivo. The extraordinary genetic diversity gives rise to the coexistence within one infected individual of numerous genetic variants derived from a clonal or closely related oligoconal inoculum[6]. This population of genetic variants within an individual was designated a “quasispecies” by Manfred Eigen [68].

The diversity of this quasispecies in a patient increases over time [69] suggesting that the complexity of resistant viral variants expands over time in untreated patients [8]. Variants carrying any possible DRM are likely to coexist in untreated patients [6, 7].Most DRMs, however, confer a fitness cost [70] and remain minority species because of the superior replication capacity of wild type virus in the absence of the selective pressure of drug therapy [6]. The presence of low-frequency mutations conferring drug resistance has been well documented in drug naïve patients who were originally infected with wild type virus[8, 21, 44, 71]. The dynamics of the decay of wild type virus and the emergence of resistant HIV-variants during nevirapine monotherapy in previously untreated patients was used to calculate the prevalence of Y181C mutations before treatment[72]. The prevalence of the resistance mutation Y181C before any NNRTI treatment was calculated to be as high as 0.1–1%[72].Low levels of DRMs confer the primary rationale for combination therapy of chronic viral infections.

Acquired drug resistance mutations

Acquired drug resistance is generated from a background of transmitted drug susceptible virus. The wild type virus and the progressively more resistant viruses that evolve under the ongoing selective pressure of drug treatment are archived in the latent reservoir[73, 74]. The discontinuation of ART by patients in whom viral suppression was not achieved results in the rapid replacement of the drug-resistant population by wild type virus over a period of weeks [75–78]. The better fitness of the wild type virus, which can be measured by assays of replication capacity, accounts for this rapid replacement and is often reflected by a higher level of plasma HIV RNA after the replacement of the drug-resistant virus with wild type virus [79].

The strategy to interrupt ineffective treatment to permit the reemergence of wild type virus has proven to be ineffective to address drug resistance [80]. Persistence of drug-resistant virus has been well documented not only in long-lived cellular reservoirs [73, 74], but also in blood plasma as minority species several months up to years after treatment discontinuation when conventional sequencing reports a complete reversion to wild type virus[20, 21, 47, 81–84].

Long-term persistence of resistant variants at low levels is potentially important in patients stopping and restarting ART or in women and infants using limited doses of nevirapine to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 in resource-limited countries. Using ultra-sensitive assays, nevirapine resistance mutations were identified in 65 to 87% of women and infants between 6 and 36 weeks even after single dose nevirapine administration [85–87]. These data confirm that emergence of nevirapine-resistant variants after single dose nevirapine administration is underestimated using conventional population sequence analyses.

These DRMs decline rapidly over time but can persist at low levels in blood plasma of some women and infected children up to 12 to 24 months after exposure before returning to basal background levels[39, 85, 86, 88–90].Any of three nevirapine-resistance mutations (K103N, Y181C, and G190A) was found even in the latent cellular reservoir [Wind-Rotolo et al, CROI 2008, Abstract 634]. DRMs in cellular DNA declined in one study from 52% at 6 weeks to 4% at 12 months post partum [86]. The short duration of nevirapine-exposure during PMTCT may limit the accumulation of additional DRMs that arise with more prolonged exposure [91].

Minority resistant subpopulations can be also found in subjects undergoing structured treatment interruption (STI) of successful ART regimens[19, 92, 93]. Resistant variants are most likely selected during periods of increasing HIV-replication (viral rebound) while components of combination regimens are decaying with different half-lives and drug levels may be suboptimal. Persistence of lamivudine-sensitive virus despite high drug concentrations in patients receiving zidovudine/lamivudine dual therapy suggests that residual low-level replication may occur also in patients under ART because of the impaired fitness of M184V and M184I [94].

Transmitted drug resistance mutations

Since the first report of primary infection with a zidovudine resistant virus in 1993 [95], numerous reports have described transmission of drug-resistant viral variants[96, 97]. In contrast to acquired drug resistance, transmitted DRMs are usually not associated with a reduced viral replication capacity[98, 99]. Transmission of drug-resistant virus generally appears to be less efficient than of wild type virus, perhaps due to its diminished fitness in the absence of the antiretroviral drugs [99]. The drug-resistant virus that does get transmitted tends to be the subset of drug-resistant virus that is as fit as most wild type virus [98, 100, 101]. In the absence of drug pressure the stability of transmitted resistance mutations varies markedly [102], and transmitted M184V mutation, which significantly impairs viral fitness, can quickly revert back to wild type [103].

Also in contrast to acquired drug resistance the monoclonal or oligoclonal transmission of drug-resistant virus results in a pure population without an archived population of wild type virus that can readily emerge in the absence of treatment. With a transmitted virus with high replication capacity and without an archived population of wild type virus, transmitted drug resistance is likely to persist for long durations in blood [98] and in semen [104] of infected individuals, providing a prolonged “window of opportunity” for secondary transmission.

While the impact of transmission of drug resistance on the natural course of disease is still a matter of debate [105], responsiveness to initial ART in patients infected with drug-resistant virus is suboptimal [96, 106].

The development of more sensitive assays to detect drug-resistant viruses as minority variants has resulted in the identification of these in a proportion of acutely and recently infected individuals [25, 107–109]. These reports raise a fundamental question of whether transmission of drug-resistant HIV variants has been underestimated when measured by standard genotypic assays[110, 111].

The conundrum raised by these observations is the incompatibility of these reports of the presence of minority drug-resistant variants transmitted in pol with the very detailed descriptions of numerous clones of env as measured by SGS and UDPS in acutely infected patients [43]. These latter studies strongly argue that monoclonal and oligoclonal populations in acutely infected individuals are not consistent with the observations with the allele specific assays that describe a proportion of individuals with minority drug-resistant variants. These apparently conflicting observations require reconciliation. Several potential explanations can be generated: 1.) The allele specific assays generate levels of false positive values with wild type sequences, 2.) A process involving recombination between env and pol could be occurring during acute infection but requires documentation, 3.) Occasionally DRM soccur early after infection and expand as a relatively substantial proportion of the population,4.) Infection with a drug-resistant virus occurs in which there is reversion in some of the progeny early in the course of infection, causing the initial resistance mutation to decline to a minority. This last hypothesis, however, would be unlikely because transmitted viruses (with exception of M184V) are generally not associated with lower replicative fitness. Other explanations for the reports of transmission of minority variants and monoclonal or oligoclonal env transmission might be hypothesized. Confirmation of these reports of transmitted minority drug-resistant variants will require SGS or UDPS.

Therapeutic consequences of minority variants

Therapy-experienced patients

Several studies demonstrated that drug-resistant HIV-variants are present at low frequencies in therapy-experienced patients for prolonged durations not only after viral failure [20, 21, 42, 47, 81–83],but also after discontinuation of suppressive ART in patients originally infected with wild type virus[19, 92, 93]. These drug-resistant strains, stored as minority populations and often missed by standard genotyping may be the cause of viral failure[82, 83, 112–114].

A higher proportion of minor NNRTI-resistant variants was detected in NNRTI-experienced patients compared to NNRTI-naïve patients using two different methods, SGS and AS-PCR[114]. A reduced response to an efavirenz-containing regimen was significantly associated with low-level K103N variants at frequencies of 0.5%–1%, but interestingly, not if the frequency was below 0.5%. In contrast, no association with virologic failure was found for Y181C minority variants.

In 7 of 20 NNRTI-experienced patients who developed a K103Nmutation, UDPS has revealed additional mutations in minority populations that were predicted to confer resistance to the new-generation NNRTI etravirine [50]. In contrast, in13 treatment-naïve patients with transmitted K103N, UDPS could not detect additional major NNRTI mutations.

NNRTI-based combination therapy is recommended as the first-line regimen for adults in resource-limited settings; however, a major concern has been raised by the use of nevirapine in PMTCT. Because of the long half-life of nevirapine, which can be found in sub-therapeutic plasma levels three weeks after a single dose [115],the selective pressure conferred by this short regimen is prolonged. Thus, the fast development and persistence of resistance has been well documented and has been associated with reduced efficacy of subsequent treatment [116, 117]. Some studies, however, have found that the likelihood of viral suppression and the clinical outcome are not compromised if nevirapine-based regimen is started more than 12 months after delivery [116–121].

A significantly higher rate of virologic failure with nevirapine-based therapy was also found in infants exposed to nevirapine peripartum[116]. This is most likely explained by the longer half-life of nevirapine in infants[122].

In contrast to NNRTI, where a single point mutation can confer high-level drug resistance, substantial resistance to protease inhibitors (PI) requires the progressive accumulation of multiple mutations. Some studies [83, 112] suggest that minority variants may play a role in evolution of resistance also with PI-based regimen. The selection of these variants, however, may occur slowly, depending on the context in which they arise.

Therapy-naïve patients

The clinical importance of minority DRMs in the setting of drug-naïve patients is not clearly defined. Several distinct situations occur, including an inaccurate or denied history of treatment. Cases of super infection with both wild type and drug-resistant virus have been reported [123–125].

Several studies have suggested that pre-existing minor DRMs can rapidly emerge with treatment in treatment-naïve patients[16, 52, 126–131].

More than twice as many subjects with DRMs were detected in a cohort of chronically infected, ART-naïve patients, using UDPS compared to standard genotyping[52].Detection of pre-existing, minor NNRTI-resistant variants was associated with increased risk of virological failure in subjects starting an NNRTI-based first-line regimen. Similarly, four subjects with PI-resistant minority variants experienced virological failure with PI-containing regimen.

Using a modified AS-PCR, the percentage of chronically infected patients with resistant strains nearly doubled compared to conventional bulk-sequence analysis [16].In this study, an individual resistance mutation assay cutoff for qPCR was established, that ranged from a lower level of 0.4% up to 2% for mutation K70R.

Since low viral load diminishes the discriminatory ability of detection assays, the limit of detection for minority variants is defined by the virus load for each sample [19, 126].A rapid selection of the pre-existent low frequency DRMs (frequency range 0.07–2%) in plasma samples before and during early virological failure in 4 patients was observed despite good adherence and adequate drug plasma level [126].

In contrast, no significant difference between the outcomes of first-line therapy in acutely and recently infected patients carrying minority variants has been reported [132, 133]. These last studies detected M184V mutation as the most common DRM. M184V is known to confer a high fitness-cost to the virus, reducing its replicative capacity. Most of the patients received ART-regimen with high genetic resistance barriers, including two NRTI and one boostered PI, possibly masking the putative effect of this DRM on the virological response.

An almost 9-fold increase in the detection of primary NNRTI-resistance(44% versus 5%)was observed using AS-PCR compared with standard genotypingin pre-treatment plasma samples from drug-naïve chronically infected patients with and without virological failure[130].In this study a low interpretation threshold was used for Y181C (0.03%) and K103N (0.001%–0.003%) and the level of detected mutants were all <1%.The detection of pre-existing minority Y181C variants significantly increased the risk of failure to an initial efavirenz-based regimen in patients with optimal compliance to ART. This increased risk has been observed in subjects with HIV-RNA levels >100,000 copies/ml but also in patients with lower viral load. Interestingly only 7% of the patients with baseline Y181C showed emergence of Y181C at failure and 38% eventually failed with K103N.

By multiplying the proportion of virus with K103N in reverse transcriptase and the viral load, a threshold of >2000 copies/ml of DRMs was associated with an increased risk of viral failure after administration of efavirenz-based treatment (Goodman, HIV Drug Resistance Workshop 2009, Abstract). The copy number of DRMs correlated with failure better than the proportion. This raises the critical question of whether viral load of DRM is a better predictor of treatment failure. Treatment failure has been frequently shown to correlate with viral load, a precedent well documented with the chemotherapy for tuberculosis.

Conclusions and future perspectives

Drug-resistant minority variants exist in every patient. They are more prevalent in patients with prior drug exposure. The practical question is what assay and what result can guide a management decision to improve treatment outcome, since we know that the major rationale for combination antiretroviral therapy is to contend with pre-existing drug-resistant variants.

Several assays have been developed to detect minor mutants at levels as low as 0.5 to 0.01%. The results generated by these highly sensitive assays then raise a series of additional questions: 1.) What is the true sensitivity and specificity of this assay result for the clinical specimen being tested? 2.) What result predicts diminished response to a particular regimen?

One issue that has been inadequately considered is the distinction between the proportion of drug-resistant mutants in the population and the magnitude of the drug-resistant mutants in a population. Studies have shown that many regimens are less successful with higher viral loads, which may be the result of a higher load of drug-resistant virus[63, 134]. Even the trial of the dual nucleoside regimen of zidovudine/lamivudine showed a substantial proportion of undetectable viral loads in subjects with low baseline levels of HIVRNA[135].

We need to understand at what point a minority resistant viral population may become clinically relevant. More studies are needed in order to determine a cutoff-value for the detection of these low-abundance viral variants, below which the risk of failure declines. This threshold may be specific for each mutation and treatment regimen.

Supplementary Material

Click here to view.^{(103K, pdf)}

Acknowledgments

A funding statement

This work was supported by grants AI69432 (ACTG), MH62512 (HNRC), AI077304, AI36214 (UCSD Center for AIDS Research), AI047745, AI074621, AI080193 from the National Institutes of Health, and a Swiss National Science Foundation grant (PBZHP3-125533) to SG.

We gratefully acknowledge George Hanna and Marek Fischer for critical review of our manuscript.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement

DR has served as a consultant for Theraclone Sciences, Myriad Genetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Merck & Co, Monogram Biosciences, Biota, Chimerix, Gen-Probe, and Idenix Pharmaceuticals.

SG does not have any commercial or other associations that might pose a conflict of interest.

Bibliography

1. Perelson AS, Neumann AU, Markowitz M, Leonard JM, Ho DD. HIV-1 dynamics in vivo: virion clearance rate, infected cell life-span, and viral generation time. Science. 1996;271:1582–1586. [PubMed]

2. Drake JW, Holland JJ. Mutation rates among RNA viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:13910–13913. [PubMed]

3. Duffy S, Shackelton LA, Holmes EC. Rates of evolutionary change in viruses: patterns and determinants. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:267–276. [PubMed]

4. Onafuwa-Nuga A, Telesnitsky A. The remarkable frequency of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 genetic recombination. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2009;73:451–480. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

5. Ramirez BC, Simon-Loriere E, Galetto R, Negroni M. Implications of recombination for HIV diversity. Virus Res. 2008;134:64–73. [PubMed]

6. Coffin JM. HIV population dynamics in vivo: implications for genetic variation, pathogenesis, and therapy. Science. 1995;267:483–489. [PubMed]

7. Ribeiro RM, Bonhoeffer S, Nowak MA. The frequency of resistant mutant virus before antiviral therapy. AIDS. 1998;12:461–465. [PubMed]

8. Kearney M, Palmer S, Maldarelli F, et al. Frequent polymorphism at drug resistance sites in HIV-1 protease and reverse transcriptase. AIDS. 2008;22:497–501. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

9. Coates EO, Jr, Meade GM, Steenken W, Jr, Wolinsky E, Brinkman GL. The clinical significance of the emergence of drug-resistant organisms during the therapy of chronic pulmonary tuberculosis with hydrazides of isonicotinic acid. N Engl J Med. 1953;248:1081–1087. [PubMed]

10. Cohn ML, Middlebrook G, Russell WF., Jr Combined drug treatment of tuberculosis. I. Prevention of emergence of mutant populations of tubercle bacilli resistant to both streptomycin and isoniazid in vitro. J Clin Invest. 1959;38:1349–1355. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

11. Hirsch MS, Gunthard HF, Schapiro JM, et al. Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adult HIV-1 infection: 2008 recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA panel. Top HIV Med. 2008;16:266–285. [PubMed]

12. Leitner T, Halapi E, Scarlatti G, et al. Analysis of heterogeneous viral populations by direct DNA sequencing. Biotechniques. 1993;15:120–127. [PubMed]

13. Gunthard HF, Wong JK, Ignacio CC, Havlir DV, Richman DD. Comparative performance of high-density oligonucleotide sequencing and dideoxynucleotide sequencing of HIV type 1 pol from clinical samples. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1998;14:869–876. [PubMed]

14. Schuurman R, Brambilla D, de Groot T, et al. Underestimation of HIV type 1 drug resistance mutations: results from the ENVA-2 genotyping proficiency program. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2002;18:243–248. [PubMed]

15. Halvas EK, Aldrovandi GM, Balfe P, et al. Blinded, multicenter comparison of methods to detect a drug-resistant mutant of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 at low frequency. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:2612–2614. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

16. Johnson JA, Li JF, Wei X, et al. Minority HIV-1 drug resistance mutations are present in antiretroviral treatment-naive populations and associate with reduced treatment efficacy. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e158. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

17. Tsongalis GJ, Gleeson T, Rodina M, et al. Comparative performance evaluation of the HIV-1 LiPA protease and reverse transcriptase resistance assay on clinical isolates. J Clin Virol. 2005;34:268–271. [PubMed]

18. Stuyver L, Wyseur A, Rombout A, et al. Line probe assay for rapid detection of drug-selected mutations in the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase gene. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41:284–291. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

19. Metzner KJ, Bonhoeffer S, Fischer M, et al. Emergence of minor populations of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 carrying the M184V and L90M mutations in subjects undergoing structured treatment interruptions. J Infect Dis. 2003;188:1433–1443. [PubMed]

20. Hance AJ, Lemiale V, Izopet J, et al. Changes in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 populations after treatment interruption in patients failing antiretroviral therapy. J Virol. 2001;75:6410–6417. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

21. Palmer S, Boltz V, Maldarelli F, et al. Selection and persistence of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistant HIV-1 in patients starting and stopping non-nucleoside therapy. AIDS. 2006;20:701–710. [PubMed]

22. Johnson JA, Li JF, Wei X, et al. Simple PCR assays improve the sensitivity of HIV-1 subtype B drug resistance testing and allow linking of resistance mutations. PLoS One. 2007;2:e638. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

23. Paredes R, Marconi VC, Campbell TB, Kuritzkes DR. Systematic evaluation of allele-specific real-time PCR for the detection of minor HIV-1 variants with pol and env resistance mutations. J Virol Methods. 2007;146:136–146. [PubMed]

24. Bergroth T, Sonnerborg A, Yun Z. Discrimination of lamivudine resistant minor HIV-1 variants by selective real-time PCR. J Virol Methods. 2005;127:100–107. [PubMed]

25. Ellis GM, Page LC, Burman BE, Buskin S, Frenkel LM. Increased detection of HIV-1 drug resistance at time of diagnosis by testing viral DNA with a sensitive assay. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;51:283–289. [PubMed]

26. Eastman PS, Urdea M, Besemer D, Stempien M, Kolberg J. Comparison of selective polymerase chain reaction primers and differential probe hybridization of polymerase chain reaction products for determination of relative amounts of codon 215 mutant and wild-type HIV-1 populations. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1995;9:264–273. [PubMed]

27. Paredes R, Lalama CM, Ribaudo HJ, et al. Pre-existing Minority Drug-Resistant HIV-1 Variants, Adherence, and Risk of Antiretroviral Failure. J Infect Dis. 2010;201:662–671. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

28. Newton CR, Graham A, Heptinstall LE, et al. Analysis of any point mutation in DNA. The amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) Nucleic Acids Res. 1989;17:2503–2516. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

29. Larder BA, Kellam P, Kemp SD. Zidovudine resistance predicted by direct detection of mutations in DNA from HIV-infected lymphocytes. AIDS. 1991;5:137–144. [PubMed]

30. Moser MJ, Ruckstuhl M, Larsen CA, et al. Quantifying mixed populations of drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:3334–3340. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

31. Sherrill CB, Marshall DJ, Moser MJ, et al. Nucleic acid analysis using an expanded genetic alphabet to quench fluorescence. J Am Chem Soc. 2004;126:4550–4556. [PubMed]

32. Beck IA, Crowell C, Kittoe R, et al. Optimization of the oligonucleotide ligation assay, a rapid and inexpensive test for detection of HIV-1 drug resistance mutations, for non-North American variants. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;48:418–427. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

33. Beck IA, Mahalanabis M, Pepper G, et al. Rapid and sensitive oligonucleotide ligation assay for detection of mutations in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 associated with high-level resistance to protease inhibitors. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:1413–1419. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

34. Villahermosa ML, Beck I, Perez-Alvarez L, et al. Detection and quantification of multiple drug resistance mutations in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase by an oligonucleotide ligation assay. J Hum Virol. 2001;4:238–248. [PubMed]

35. Landegren U, Kaiser R, Sanders J, Hood L. A ligase-mediated gene detection technique. Science. 1988;241:1077–1080. [PubMed]

36. Tobe VO, Taylor SL, Nickerson DA. Single-well genotyping of diallelic sequence variations by a two-color ELISA-based oligonucleotide ligation assay. Nucleic Acids Res. 1996;24:3728–3732. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

37. Lalonde MS, Troyer RM, Syed AR, et al. Sensitive oligonucleotide ligation assay for low-level detection of nevirapine resistance mutations in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 quasispecies. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:2604–2615. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

38. Shi C, Eshleman SH, Jones D, et al. LigAmp for sensitive detection of single-nucleotide differences. Nat Methods. 2004;1:141–147. [PubMed]

39. Flys T, Nissley DV, Claasen CW, et al. Sensitive drug-resistance assays reveal long-term persistence of HIV-1 variants with the K103N nevirapine (NVP) resistance mutation in some women and infants after the administration of single-dose NVP: HIVNET 012. J Infect Dis. 2005;192:24–29. [PubMed]

40. Wang B, Dwyer DE, Chew CB, et al. Sensitive detection of the K103N non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutation in treatment-naive HIV-1 infected individuals by rolling circle amplification. J Virol Methods. 2009;161:128–135. [PubMed]

41. Faruqi AF, Hosono S, Driscoll MD, et al. High-throughput genotyping of single nucleotide polymorphisms with rolling circle amplification. BMC Genomics. 2001;2:4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

42. Palmer S, Kearney M, Maldarelli F, et al. Multiple, linked human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance mutations in treatment-experienced patients are missed by standard genotype analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:406–413. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

43. Keele BF, Giorgi EE, Salazar-Gonzalez JF, et al. Identification and characterization of transmitted and early founder virus envelopes in primary HIV-1 infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:7552–7557. [PubMed]

44. Najera I, Holguin A, Quinones-Mateu ME, et al. Pol gene quasispecies of human immunodeficiency virus: mutations associated with drug resistance in virus from patients undergoing no drug therapy. J Virol. 1995;69:23–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

45. Nettles RE, Kieffer TL, Simmons RP, et al. Genotypic resistance in HIV-1-infected patients with persistently detectable low-level viremia while receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1030–1037. [PubMed]

46. Moutouh L, Corbeil J, Richman DD. Recombination leads to the rapid emergence of HIV-1 dually resistant mutants under selective drug pressure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93:6106–6111. [PubMed]

47. Kapoor A, Jones M, Shafer RW, Rhee SY, Kazanjian P, Delwart EL. Sequencing-based detection of low-frequency human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug-resistant mutants by an RNA/DNA heteroduplex generator-tracking assay. J Virol. 2004;78:7112–7123. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

48. Resch W, Parkin N, Stuelke EL, Watkins T, Swanstrom R. A multiple-site-specific heteroduplex tracking assay as a tool for the study of viral population dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:176–181. [PubMed]

49. Garcia-Arriaza J, Domingo E, Briones C. Characterization of minority subpopulations in the mutant spectrum of HIV-1 quasispecies by successive specific amplifications. Virus Res. 2007;129:123–134. [PubMed]

50. Varghese V, Shahriar R, Rhee SY, et al. Minority variants associated with transmitted and acquired HIV-1 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance: implications for the use of second-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;52:309–315. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

51. Margulies M, Egholm M, Altman WE, et al. Genome sequencing in micro fabricated high-density picolitre reactors. Nature. 2005;437:376–380. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

52. Simen BB, Simons JF, Hullsiek KH, et al. Low-abundance drug-resistant viral variants in chronically HIV-infected, antiretroviral treatment-naive patients significantly impact treatment outcomes. J Infect Dis. 2009;199:693–701. [PubMed]

53. O'Meara D, Wilbe K, Leitner T, Hejdeman B, Albert J, Lundeberg J. Monitoring resistance to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitors by pyrosequencing. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39:464–473. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

54. Wang C, Mitsuya Y, Gharizadeh B, Ronaghi M, Shafer RW. Characterization of mutation spectra with ultra-deep pyrosequencing: application to HIV-1 drug resistance. Genome Res. 2007;17:1195–1201. [PubMed]

55. Mitsuya Y, Varghese V, Wang C, et al. Minority human immunodeficiency virus type 1 variants in antiretroviral-naive persons with reverse transcriptase codon 215 revertant mutations. J Virol. 2008;82:10747–10755. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

56. Kozal MJ, Shah N, Shen N, et al. Extensive polymorphisms observed in HIV-1 clade B protease gene using high-density oligonucleotide arrays. Nat Med. 1996;2:753–759. [PubMed]

57. Cai J, Shin S, Wright L, et al. Massively parallel signature sequencing profiling of fetal human neural precursor cells. Stem Cells Dev. 2006;15:232–244. [PubMed]

58. Petropoulos CJ, Parkin NT, Limoli KL, et al. A novel phenotypic drug susceptibility assay for human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44:920–928. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

59. Louvel S, Battegay M, Vernazza P, Bregenzer T, Klimkait T, Hamy F. Detection of drug-resistant HIV minorities in clinical specimens and therapy failure. HIV Med. 2008;9:133–141. [PubMed]

60. Nissley DV, Halvas EK, Hoppman NL, Garfinkel DJ, Mellors JW, Strathern JN. Sensitive phenotypic detection of minor drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase variants. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:5696–5704. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

61. Su Z, Gulick RM, Krambrink A, et al. Response to vicriviroc in treatment-experienced subjects, as determined by an enhanced-sensitivity coreceptor tropism assay: reanalysis of AIDS clinical trials group A5211. J Infect Dis. 2009;200:1724–1728. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

62. Reeves JD, Coakley E, Petropoulos CJW, JM An Enhanced-Sensitivity Trofile HIV Coreceptor Tropism Assay for Selecting Patients for Therapy with Entry Inhibitors Targeting CCR5: A Review of Analytical and Clinical Studies. J Viral Entry. 2009;3:94–102.

63. Sax PE, Tierney C, Collier AC, et al. Abacavir-lamivudine versus tenofovir-emtricitabine for initial HIV-1 therapy. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2230–2240. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

64. Whitcomb JM, Huang W, Fransen S, et al. Development and characterization of a novel single-cycle recombinant-virus assay to determine human immunodeficiency virus type 1 coreceptor tropism. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:566–575. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

65. Nissley DV, Boyer PL, Garfinkel DJ, Hughes SH, Strathern JN. Hybrid Ty1/HIV-1 elements used to detect inhibitors and monitor the activity of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:13905–13910. [PubMed]

66. Luria SE, Delbruck M. Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance. Genetics. 1943;28:491–511. [PubMed]

67. Mansky LM, Temin HM. Lower in vivo mutation rate of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 than that predicted from the fidelity of purified reverse transcriptase. J Virol. 1995;69:5087–5094. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

68. Eigen M. Viral quasispecies. Sci Am. 1993;269:42–49. [PubMed]

69. Shankarappa R, Margolick JB, Gange SJ, et al. Consistent viral evolutionary changes associated with the progression of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. J Virol. 1999;73:10489–10502. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

70. Barbour JD, Wrin T, Grant RM, et al. Evolution of phenotypic drug susceptibility and viral replication capacity during long-term virologic failure of protease inhibitor therapy in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults. J Virol. 2002;76:11104–11112. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

71. Najera I, Richman DD, Olivares I, et al. Natural occurrence of drug resistance mutations in the reverse transcriptase of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1994;10:1479–1488. [PubMed]

72. Havlir DV, Eastman S, Gamst A, Richman DD. Nevirapine-resistant human immunodeficiency virus: kinetics of replication and estimated prevalence in untreated patients. J Virol. 1996;70:7894–7899. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

73. Finzi D, Blankson J, Siliciano JD, et al. Latent infection of CD4+ T cells provides a mechanism for lifelong persistence of HIV-1, even in patients on effective combination therapy. Nat Med. 1999;5:512–517. [PubMed]

74. Wong JK, Hezareh M, Gunthard HF, et al. Recovery of replication-competent HIV despite prolonged suppression of plasma viremia. Science. 1997;278:1291–1295. [PubMed]

75. Devereux HL, Youle M, Johnson MA, Loveday C. Rapid decline in detectability of HIV-1 drug resistance mutations after stopping therapy. AIDS. 1999;13:F123–F127. [PubMed]

76. Miller V, Sabin C, Hertogs K, et al. Virological and immunological effects of treatment interruptions in HIV-1 infected patients with treatment failure. AIDS. 2000;14:2857–2867. [PubMed]

77. Izopet J, Massip P, Souyris C, et al. Shift in HIV resistance genotype after treatment interruption and short-term antiviral effect following a new salvage regimen. AIDS. 2000;14:2247–2255. [PubMed]

78. Birk M, Svedhem V, Sonnerborg A. Kinetics of HIV-1 RNA and resistance-associated mutations after cessation of antiretroviral combination therapy. AIDS. 2001;15:1359–1368. [PubMed]

79. Deeks SG, Wrin T, Liegler T, et al. Virologic and immunologic consequences of discontinuing combination antiretroviral-drug therapy in HIV-infected patients with detectable viremia. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:472–480. [PubMed]

80. Lawrence J, Mayers DL, Hullsiek KH, et al. Structured treatment interruption in patients with multidrug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:837–846. [PubMed]

81. Charpentier C, Dwyer DE, Mammano F, Lecossier D, Clavel F, Hance AJ. Role of minority populations of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in the evolution of viral resistance to protease inhibitors. J Virol. 2004;78:4234–4247. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

82. Lecossier D, Shulman NS, Morand-Joubert L, et al. Detection of minority populations of HIV-1 expressing the K103N resistance mutation in patients failing nevirapine. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;38:37–42. [PubMed]

83. Dykes C, Najjar J, Bosch RJ, et al. Detection of drug-resistant minority variants of HIV-1 during virologic failure of indinavir, lamivudine, and zidovudine. J Infect Dis. 2004;189:1091–1096. [PubMed]

84. Le T, Chiarella J, Simen BB, et al. Low-abundance HIV drug-resistant viral variants in treatment-experienced persons correlate with historical antiretroviral use. PLoS One. 2009;4:e6079. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

85. Johnson JA, Li JF, Morris L, et al. Emergence of drug-resistant HIV-1 after intrapartum administration of single-dose nevirapine is substantially underestimated. J Infect Dis. 2005;192:16–23. [PubMed]

86. Loubser S, Balfe P, Sherman G, Hammer S, Kuhn L, Morris L. Decay of K103N mutants in cellular DNA and plasma RNA after single-dose nevirapine to reduce mother-to-child HIV transmission. AIDS. 2006;20:995–1002. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

87. Eshleman SH, Hoover DR, Chen S, et al. Resistance after single-dose nevirapine prophylaxis emerges in a high proportion of Malawian newborns. AIDS. 2005;19:2167–2169. [PubMed]

88. Flys TS, Chen S, Jones DC, et al. Quantitative analysis of HIV-1 variants with the K103N resistance mutation after single-dose nevirapine in women with HIV-1 subtypes A, C, and D. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;42:610–613. [PubMed]

89. Palmer S, Boltz V, Martinson N, et al. Persistence of nevirapine-resistant HIV-1 in women after single-dose nevirapine therapy for prevention of maternal-to-fetal HIV-1 transmission. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:7094–7099. [PubMed]

90. Lehman DA, Chung MH, Mabuka JM, et al. Lower risk of resistance after short-course HAART compared with zidovudine/single-dose nevirapine used for prevention of HIV-1 mother-to-child transmission. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;51:522–529. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

91. Richman DD, Havlir D, Corbeil J, et al. Nevirapine resistance mutations of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 selected during therapy. J Virol. 1994;68:1660–1666. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

92. Hare CB, Mellors J, Krambrink A, et al. Detection of nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-resistant HIV-1 after discontinuation of virologically suppressive antiretroviral therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47:421–424. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

93. Martinez-Picado J, Morales-Lopetegi K, Wrin T, et al. Selection of drug-resistant HIV-1 mutants in response to repeated structured treatment interruptions. AIDS. 2002;16:895–899. [PubMed]

94. Allers K, Knoepfel SA, Rauch P, et al. Persistence of lamivudine-sensitive HIV-1 quasispecies in the presence of lamivudine in vitro and in vivo. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;44:377–385. [PubMed]

95. Erice A, Mayers DL, Strike DG, et al. Brief report: primary infection with zidovudine-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1163–1165. [PubMed]

96. Little SJ, Holte S, Routy JP, et al. Antiretroviral-drug resistance among patients recently infected with HIV. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:385–394. [PubMed]

97. Wensing AM, van de Vijver DA, Angarano G, et al. Prevalence of drug-resistant HIV-1 variants in untreated individuals in Europe: implications for clinical management. J Infect Dis. 2005;192:958–966. [PubMed]

98. Little SJ, Frost SD, Wong JK, et al. Persistence of transmitted drug resistance among subjects with primary human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Virol. 2008;82:5510–5518. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

99. Leigh Brown AJ, Frost SDW, Mathews WC, et al. Transmission Fitness of Drug Resistant Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Prevalence of Resistance in the Antiretroviral Treated Population. J Infect Dis. 2003;187:683–686. [PubMed]

100. Barbour JD, Hecht FM, Wrin T, et al. Persistence of primary drug resistance among recently HIV-1 infected adults. AIDS. 2004;18:1683–1689. [PubMed]

101. Simon V, Padte N, Murray D, et al. Infectivity and replication capacity of drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 variants isolated during primary infection. J Virol. 2003;77:7736–7745. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

102. Bezemer D, de Ronde A, Prins M, et al. Evolution of transmitted HIV-1 with drug-resistance mutations in the absence of therapy: effects on CD4+ T-cell count and HIV-1 RNA load. Antivir Ther. 2006;11:173–178. [PubMed]

103. Brenner B, Routy JP, Quan Y, et al. Persistence of multidrug-resistant HIV-1 in primary infection leading to superinfection. AIDS. 2004;18:1653–1660. [PubMed]

104. Smith DM, Wong JK, Shao H, et al. Long-term persistence of transmitted HIV drug resistance in male genital tract secretions: implications for secondary transmission. J Infect Dis. 2007;196:356–360. [PubMed]

105. Pillay D, Bhaskaran K, Jurriaans S, et al. The impact of transmitted drug resistance on the natural history of HIV infection and response to first-line therapy. AIDS. 2006;20:21–28. [PubMed]

106. Ghosn J, Pellegrin I, Goujard C, et al. HIV-1 resistant strains acquired at the time of primary infection massively fuel the cellular reservoir and persist for lengthy periods of time. AIDS. 2006;20:159–170. [PubMed]

107. Metzner KJ, Rauch P, Walter H, et al. Detection of minor populations of drug-resistant HIV-1 in acute seroconverters. AIDS. 2005;19:1819–1825. [PubMed]

108. Toni TA, Asahchop EL, Moisi D, et al. Detection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 M184V and K103N minority variants in patients with primary HIV infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53:1670–1672. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

109. Salazar-Gonzalez JF, Salazar MG, Keele BF, et al. Genetic identity, biological phenotype, and evolutionary pathways of transmitted/founder viruses in acute and early HIV-1 infection. J Exp Med. 2009;206:1273–1289. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

110. Vercauteren J, Wensing AM, van de Vijver DA, et al. Transmission of drug-resistant HIV-1 is stabilizing in Europe. J Infect Dis. 2009;200:1503–1508. [PubMed]

111. Yerly S, von Wyl V, Ledergerber B, et al. Transmission of HIV-1 drug resistance in Switzerland: a 10-year molecular epidemiology survey. AIDS. 2007;21:2223–2229. [PubMed]

112. Roquebert B, Malet I, Wirden M, et al. Role of HIV-1 minority populations on resistance mutational pattern evolution and susceptibility to protease inhibitors. AIDS. 2006;20:287–289. [PubMed]

113. Svarovskaia ES, Margot NA, Bae AS, et al. Low-level K65R mutation in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase of treatment-experienced patients exposed to abacavir or didanosine. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;46:174–180. [PubMed]

114. Halvas EK, Wiegand A, Boltz VF, et al. Low Frequency Nonnucleoside Reverse-Transcriptase Inhibitor-Resistant Variants Contribute to Failure of Efavirenz-Containing Regiment in Treatment-Experienced Patients. J Infect Dis. 2010;201:672–680. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

115. Cressey TR, Jourdain G, Lallemant MJ, et al. Persistence of nevirapine exposure during the postpartum period after intrapartum single-dose nevirapine in addition to zidovudine prophylaxis for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;38:283–288. [PubMed]

116. Lockman S, Shapiro RL, Smeaton LM, et al. Response to antiretroviral therapy after a single, peripartum dose of nevirapine. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:135–147. [PubMed]

117. Jourdain G, Ngo-Giang-Huong N, Le Coeur S, et al. Intrapartum exposure to nevirapine and subsequent maternal responses to nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:229–240. [PubMed]

118. Coovadia A, Hunt G, Abrams EJ, et al. Persistent minority K103N mutations among women exposed to single-dose nevirapine and virologic response to nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-based therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:462–472. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

119. Chi BH, Sinkala M, Stringer EM, et al. Early clinical and immune response to NNRTI-based antiretroviral therapy among women with prior exposure to single-dose nevirapine. AIDS. 2007;21:957–964. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

120. Coffie PA, Ekouevi DK, Chaix ML, et al. Maternal 12-month response to antiretroviral therapy following prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV type 1, Ivory Coast, 2003–2006. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46:611–621. [PubMed]

121. Stringer JSA, McConnell MS, Kiarie J, et al. Effectiveness of Non-nucleoside Reverse-Transcriptase Inhibitor-Based Antiretroviral Therapy in Women Previously Exposed to a Single Intrapartum Dose of Nevirapine: A Multi-country, Prospective Cohort Study. PLoS Med. 2010;7:1–13. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

122. Mirochnick M, Fenton T, Gagnier P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of nevirapine in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected pregnant women and their neonates. Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 250 Team. J Infect Dis. 1998;178:368–374. [PubMed]

123. Koelsch KK, Smith DM, Little SJ, et al. Clade B HIV-1 superinfection with wild-type virus after primary infection with drug-resistant clade B virus. AIDS. 2003;17:F11–F16. [PubMed]

124. Yang OO, Daar ES, Jamieson BD, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 clade B superinfection: evidence for differential immune containment of distinct clade B strains. J Virol. 2005;79:860–868. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

125. Smith DM, Wong JK, Hightower GK, et al. HIV drug resistance acquired through superinfection. AIDS. 2005;19:1251–1256. [PubMed]

126. Metzner KJ, Giulieri SG, Knoepfel SA, et al. Minority quasispecies of drug-resistant HIV-1 that lead to early therapy failure in treatment-naive and -adherent patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:239–247. [PubMed]

127. Van Laethem K, De Munter P, Schrooten Y, et al. No response to first-line tenofovir+lamivudine+efavirenz despite optimization according to baseline resistance testing: impact of resistant minority variants on efficacy of low genetic barrier drugs. J Clin Virol. 2007;39:43–47. [PubMed]

128. Geretti AM, Fox ZV, Booth CL, et al. Low-frequency K103N strengthens the impact of transmitted drug resistance on virologic responses to first-line efavirenz or nevirapine-based highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;52:569–573. [PubMed]

129. Balduin M, Oette M, Daumer MP, Hoffmann D, Pfister HJ, Kaiser R. Prevalence of minor variants of HIV strains at reverse transcriptase position 103 in therapy-naive patients and their impact on the virological failure. J Clin Virol. 2009;45:34–38. [PubMed]

130. Peredes R, Lalama CM, Ribaudo HJ, et al. Pre-existing Minority Drug-Resistant HIV-1 Variants, Adherence, and Risk of Antiretroviral Failure. J Infect Dis. 2010;201:662–671. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

131. Violin M, Cozzi-Lepri A, Velleca R, et al. Risk of failure in patients with 215 HIV-1 revertants starting their first thymidine analog-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy. AIDS. 2004;18:227–235. [PubMed]

132. Peuchant O, Thiebaut R, Capdepont S, et al. Transmission of HIV-1 minority-resistant variants and response to first-line antiretroviral therapy. AIDS. 2008;22:1417–1423. [PubMed]

133. Metzner KJ, Rauch P, von Wyl V, et al. Efficient suppression of minority quasispecies of drug-resistant viruses present at primary HIV-1 infection by RTV-boostered protease inhibitor containing ART. J Infect Dis. In press. [PubMed]

134. Walmsley S, Bernstein B, King M, et al. Lopinavir-ritonavir versus nelfinavir for the initial treatment of HIV infection. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:2039–2046. [PubMed]

135. Opravil M, Hill AM, DeMasi R, Dawson D. Prediction of HIV-1 RNA suppression and its durability during treatment with zidovudine/lamivudine. Antivir Ther. 1998;3:169–176. [PubMed]