Genotypic Predictors of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Drug Resistance
Rhee SY, Taylor J, Wadhera G, Ben-Hur A, Brutlag DL, Shafer RW.,
Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Oct 25, 2006.
Data
- Sets of mutations [Table 1]:
- Genotype-phenotype correlation data sets:
- Phenotype cut-offs between susceptible, low/intermediate resistance and high-level resistance for each drug
Results
- Summary of 10 x 5 fold-cross validation results:
Tables
- Prediction accuracy [Table 3]
- Number of highly discordant predictions according to mutation set and regression method
[Table 4]
- Highly Discordant Isolates: Predictions based on Least Angle Regression (LARS) Using Nonpolymorphic Treatment Selected Mutations
[Table 5]
- Correlation coefficients (r2) between actual and predicted result according to regression method and mutation dataset
[Table 6]
- Mean squared error between actual and predicted result according to regression method and mutation dataset
[Table 7]
- Regression coefficients for the PI treatment-selected mutations [Table 8],
the NRTI treatment-selected mutations [Table 9] and the NNRTI treatment-selected mutations [Table 10] in the Least Squares Regression (LSR),Support Vector Regression (SVR), and Least Angle Regression (LARS) Models
Figures
- Least-squares regression coefficients for protease inhibitor [figure 1A], nucleoside RT inhibitor [figure 1B] and non-nucleoside RT inhibitor [figure 1C] treatment-selected mutations
- Distribution in the number of nonpolymorphic TSMs [figure 2A] and expert panel mutations [figure 2B] per isolate
- Rate of learning using regression and nonpolymorphic treatment-selected mutations (TSMs) [figure 3]
- Regression coefficients for each of the PI, NRTI and NNRTI TSMs determined by different regression methods [figure 4]
[figure legends]
|