Exact(8)
Most genotypic tools have been designed based on a data set of the HIV-1 subtype B that seemed to be reliable only for this subtype.
Genotypic tools are increasingly replacing the initial phenotypic assays.
Genotypic tools are increasingly replacing phenotypic assays in most places.
The reliability of genotypic tools to determine HIV tropism in clinical samples compared with phenotypic assays has been examined in multiple studies, mainly conducted in Europe and Canada.
Some of these comparisons showed relatively poor concordances, mainly due to low sensitivity (< 45%) in detecting X4 variants by genotypic algorithms; 18 however, more recent studies have demonstrated improved sensitivity when using certain genotypic tools and/or using phenotypic assays other than Trofile® as the reference "gold standard".
The inadequacy of current genotypic tools for predicting CXCR4-using viruses among non-B subtypes thus underscores the need to improve the information on the correlation between phenotypic and genotypic methods for viral tropism determination in patients infected with non-B HIV-1.
Similar(52)
NCBI blastn vr2.2 and RotaC genotyping tools were used to explore the genotypic variation among the positive viral infected children.
The isolates collected were analyzed by using biochemical, genotypic, and proteomic tools.
A large number of genotypic resistance interpretation tools have been developed in recent years and are available by different means [ 7, 8].
To compound the situation, it is clear that isolates of the serovar Enteritidis show an even more remarkable and striking genetic similarity with one another to the extent that existing phenotypic and genotypic bacterial typing tools have proven inadequate to assess their degree of relatednesss [ 14– 16].
In this context, recent studies have shown that the use of genotypic tropism prediction tools, based on V3 sequence data, have an ability similar to that of Trofile® to predict virological response to maraviroc and therefore can reliably guide clinical practice.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com