A Comparison of Parallel Pyrosequencing and Sanger Clone-Based Sequencing and Its Impact on the Characterization of the Genetic Diversity of HIV-1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pyrosequencing technology has the potential to rapidly sequence HIV-1 viral quasispecies without requiring the traditional approach of cloning. In this study, we investigated the utility of ultra-deep pyrosequencing to characterize genetic diversity of the HIV-1 gag quasispecies and assessed the possible contribution of pyrosequencing technology in studying HIV-1 biology and evolution. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: HIV-1 gag gene was amplified from 96 patients using nested PCR. The PCR products were cloned and sequenced using capillary based Sanger fluorescent dideoxy termination sequencing. The same PCR products were also directly sequenced using the 454 pyrosequencing technology. The two sequencing methods were evaluated for their ability to characterize quasispecies variation, and to reveal sites under host immune pressure for their putative functional significance. A total of 14,034 variations were identified by 454 pyrosequencing versus 3,632 variations by Sanger clone-based (SCB) sequencing. 11,050 of these variations were detected only by pyrosequencing. These undetected variations were located in the HIV-1 Gag region which is known to contain putative cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) and neutralizing antibody epitopes, and sites related to virus assembly and packaging. Analysis of the positively selected sites derived by the two sequencing methods identified several differences. All of them were located within the CTL epitope regions. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Ultra-deep pyrosequencing has proven to be a powerful tool for characterization of HIV-1 genetic diversity with enhanced sensitivity, efficiency, and accuracy. It also improved reliability of downstream evolutionary and functional analysis of HIV-1 quasispecies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".