Assessing intra-lab precision and inter-lab repeatability of outgrowth assays of HIV-1 latent reservoir size

Daniel I S Rosenbloom, Peter Bacchetti, Mars Stone, Xutao Deng, Ronald J Bosch, Douglas D Richman, Janet D Siliciano, John W Mellors, Steven G Deeks, Roger G Ptak, Rebecca Hoh, Sheila M Keating, Melanie Dimapasoc, Marta Massanella, Jun Lai, Michele D Sobolewski, Deanna A Kulpa, Michael P Busch and for the Reservoir Assay Validation and Evaluation Network (RAVEN) Study Group

PLOS Computational Biology, 2019, vol. 15, issue 4, 1-24

Abstract: Quantitative viral outgrowth assays (QVOA) use limiting dilutions of CD4+ T cells to measure the size of the latent HIV-1 reservoir, a major obstacle to curing HIV-1. Efforts to reduce the reservoir require assays that can reliably quantify its size in blood and tissues. Although QVOA is regarded as a “gold standard” for reservoir measurement, little is known about its accuracy and precision or about how cell storage conditions or laboratory-specific practices affect results. Owing to this lack of knowledge, confidence intervals around reservoir size estimates—as well as judgments of the ability of therapeutic interventions to alter the size of the replication-competent but transcriptionally inactive latent reservoir—rely on theoretical statistical assumptions about dilution assays. To address this gap, we have carried out a Bayesian statistical analysis of QVOA reliability on 75 split samples of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from 5 antiretroviral therapy (ART)-suppressed participants, measured using four different QVOAs at separate labs, estimating assay precision and the effect of frozen cell storage on estimated reservoir size. We found that typical assay results are expected to differ from the true value by a factor of 1.6 to 1.9 up or down. Systematic assay differences comprised a 24-fold range between the assays with highest and lowest scales, likely reflecting differences in viral outgrowth readout and input cell stimulation protocols. We also found that controlled-rate freezing and storage of samples did not cause substantial differences in QVOA compared to use of fresh cells (95% probability of

Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006849 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/fil ... 06849&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1006849

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006849

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Computational Biology from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ploscompbiol (ploscompbiol@plos.org).