Premium
Lack of detection of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 DNA by polymerase chain reaction in the plasma and lymphocytes of seronegative exposed hemophiliacs
Author(s) -
Henrard DR,
Laurian Y.,
Mehaffey W.F.,
Allain J.P.
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
transfusion
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.045
H-Index - 132
eISSN - 1537-2995
pISSN - 0041-1132
DOI - 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1993.33593255601.x
Subject(s) - polymerase chain reaction , primer (cosmetics) , virology , peripheral blood mononuclear cell , virus , biology , dna , viral disease , real time polymerase chain reaction , microbiology and biotechnology , group specific antigen , genomic dna , immunology , chemistry , gene , genetics , in vitro , organic chemistry
Direct detection of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV‐1) DNA in serum or plasma samples has been reported in seronegative as well as seropositive individuals. An alkaline lysis procedure was adapted for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of plasma specimens. Eighty‐ five seronegative hemophiliacs, 52 of whom had been exposed to HIV‐ contaminated blood components, and 19 seronegative at‐risk individuals were studied. Each sample was extracted and amplified with SK38/39 gag primers at least three times. Seventy‐six samples (72%) were consistently negative for HIV‐1 DNA, 24 (22%) were positive only once, and 4 (3%) were positive twice. Genomic DNA from peripheral mononuclear cells was prepared from 12 of 76 negative samples, 18 of 24 samples that were positive once, and 2 of 4 samples that were positive twice and analyzed with both gag and long terminal repeat primers. None (0/32) of these cellular DNAs were positive for HIV‐1, which suggests that these seronegative exposed hemophiliacs were not latently infected with HIV‐1. In contrast, all (10/10) control cells from seropositive patients were positive with both primer pairs. The detection of HIV‐1 DNA in serum or plasma may be prone to a high level of false‐positive PCR signals and should be interpreted with caution.