It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Public health interventions guided by clustering of HIV-1 molecular sequences may be impacted by choices of analytical approaches. We identified commonly-used clustering analytical approaches, applied them to 1886 HIV-1 Rhode Island sequences from 2004–2018, and compared concordance in identifying molecular HIV-1 clusters within and between approaches. We used strict (topological support ≥ 0.95; distance 0.015 substitutions/site) and relaxed (topological support 0.80–0.95; distance 0.030–0.045 substitutions/site) thresholds to reflect different epidemiological scenarios. We found that clustering differed by method and threshold and depended more on distance than topological support thresholds. Clustering concordance analyses demonstrated some differences across analytical approaches, with RAxML having the highest (91%) mean summary percent concordance when strict thresholds were applied, and three (RAxML-, FastTree regular bootstrap- and IQ-Tree regular bootstrap-based) analytical approaches having the highest (86%) mean summary percent concordance when relaxed thresholds were applied. We conclude that different analytical approaches can yield diverse HIV-1 clustering outcomes and may need to be differentially used in diverse public health scenarios. Recognizing the variability and limitations of commonly-used methods in cluster identification is important for guiding clustering-triggered interventions to disrupt new transmissions and end the HIV epidemic.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Brown University, Providence, USA (GRID:grid.40263.33) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9094)
2 Research Improving People’s Life, Providence, USA (GRID:grid.40263.33)
3 Yale University, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000000419368710)
4 Rhode Island Department of Health, Providence, USA (GRID:grid.280336.c) (ISNI:0000 0004 0456 9499)
5 Brown University, Providence, USA (GRID:grid.40263.33) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9094); Rhode Island Department of Health, Providence, USA (GRID:grid.280336.c) (ISNI:0000 0004 0456 9499)