Complexity of the Inoculum Determines the Rate of Reversion of SIV Gag CD8 T Cell Mutant Virus and Outcome of Infection
Figure 1
Reversion to WT for different viruses and percentages of WT in the inocula.
(A–F) Shows WT (squares) and EM (triangles) plasma viral loads over time by qRT-PCR from individual pigtail macaques inoculated with different viruses over 11 weeks. (A) SHIVmn229 stock with 11.2% WT virus at KP9 CD8 T cell epitope (four animals) (B) In vivo passage of SHIVSF162P3 with 50% WT virus at AF9 CD8 T cell epitope (2 animals). (C) In vivo passage of SHIVmn229 with 4.0% WT virus at KP9 (2 animals). (D) In vivo passage of SHIVmn229 with 0.34% WT virus at KP9 (two animals). (E) Mix of SIVmac239 molecular clones containing 10% WT virus and 90% K165R EM virus. (F) Pure SIVmac239 molecular clone of 100% K165R EM virus (0% WT, 3 animals). (G) Mean (±SEM) of WT (upper panels) or EM (lower panels) viral loads of groups of animals given the same virus. Animals administered mixes of EM and WT virus with ≥10% WT have similar WT and EM viral loads and are grouped together (left panels) in comparison to animals administered viruses with <10% WT content (right panels). The first 10 days are shaded to indicate the differences in WT virus expansion between the two types of viruses.