Skip to main content
. 1999 Jul;73(7):5497–5508. doi: 10.1128/jvi.73.7.5497-5508.1999

TABLE 2.

Differences between Nef sequences derived from NPs, SPs, and RPs

Nef variationa No. (%) of occurrences in:
P valueb
NPs (n = 41) Progressors
SPs (n = 18) RPs (n = 32) Total (n = 50) NPs vs all progressors NPs vs RPs
N-terminal PxxP 1 (2) 2 (11) 8 (25) 10 (20) <0.03 <0.01
T15 21 (51) 3 (17) 10 (31) 13 (26) <0.03 0.14
A15 14 (34) 10 (56) 16 (50) 26 (53) 0.13 0.26
R39 0 (0) 4 (22) 6 (19) 10 (20) <0.02 <0.02
T51 12 (29) 9 (50) 21 (66) 30 (60) <0.01 <0.005
N51 28 (68) 9 (50) 10 (31) 19 (38) <0.01 <0.005
H102 14 (34) 3 (13) 5 (16) 8 (16) 0.08 0.12
T157 3 (7) 1 (6) 13 (41) 14 (28) <0.03 <0.005
C163 8 (20) 5 (25) 16 (50) 21 (41) <0.04 0.01
N169 1 (2) 1 (6) 9 (28) 10 (20) <0.03 <0.005
L170 28 (68) 11 (61) 9 (28) 20 (41) <0.02 <0.002
Q170 12 (29) 7 (39) 22 (69) 29 (58) 0.01 <0.002
M182 5 (12) 5 (28) 14 (44) 19 (39) 0.01 <0.005
E182 16 (39) 4 (22) 4 (13) 8 (16) <0.03 <0.03
a

Positions are those indicated by shaded ovals in Fig. 2

b

Determined by the chi-square test with the Yates correction.