TABLE 4.
Patient or patient 154 extended-analysis typea | Gene amplified | No. of independent sequences
|
SM analysisb
|
AMOVA analysis
|
Molecular diversity (π)
|
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Free plasma virus | Integrated provirus |
P
|
Adjusted Pc
|
Migration events (ML/BI) | % Variation among or within populations | P | Adjusted P | Free plasma virus | Provirus | |||||
ML | BI | ML | BI | |||||||||||
Patient | ||||||||||||||
113* | RT | 14 | 24 | 0.432 | 0.219 | 0.432 | 0.229 | 11/10 | -1.45 | 101.45 | 0.704 | 0.704 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
135* | RT | 31 | 151 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 16/18 | 2.34 | 97.66 | 0.037 | 0.046 | 0.025 | 0.024 |
139* | RT | 15 | 83 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 16/16 | 17.59 | 82.41 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.029 | 0.021 |
148* | RT | 9 | 138 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.011 | 11/11 | 11.01 | 88.99 | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
154* | RT | 75 | 242 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 42/44 | 6.68 | 93.32 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
154* | Env | 46 | 28 | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 16/16 | 4.60 | 95.40 | 0.018 | 0.026 | 0.063 | 0.068 |
209† | Env | 179 | 113 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 17/16 | 1.66 | 98.34 | 0.055 | 0.061 | 0.067 | 0.077 |
Patient 154 extended analysis | ||||||||||||||
Plasma virus vs provirus derived from activated CD4+ T Cells | Env | 75 | 25 | 0.035 | 0.229 | 0.039 | 0.229 | 19/21 | 5.57 | 94.43 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
Plasma virus vs provirus derived from monocytes | Env | 75 | 17 | 0.005 | 0.020 | 0.007 | 0.025 | 12/13 | 8.13 | 91.87 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
Plasma virus vs provirus derived from unfractionated PBMC | Env | 75 | 83 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 35/36 | 6.11 | 93.89 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.021 | 0.021 |
*, Patient sequences derived from Bailey et al. (1); †, new patient analyzed for this study.
ML, phylogenetic trees were generated via a classical ML approach; BI, phylogenetic trees were generated via a Bayesian inference approach.
“Adjusted P” refers to P values obtained for both the SM tests and the AMOVA tests were subjected to Benjamini-Hochberg FDR corrections, treating P values obtained using the ML approach separately from those obtained using BI and both separately from the AMOVA tests (2).