Analyses of human papillomavirus genotypes and viral loads in anogenital warts.

Condylomata acuminata (genital warts) are the most common sexually transmitted viral diseases. These lesions are caused by infection with mucosal human papillomaviruses (HPVs). However, there is limited information on HPV strain distribution involved in the molecular pathogenesis of these lesions. To address this, the strain prevalence and the frequency of multiple HPV infections were determined in wart tissue obtained from 31 patients attending a wart clinic. These lesions were bisected and subjected to parallel DNA and mRNA extractions. HPV-type prevalence and incidence of multiple infections were determined by the Roche Linear Array assay. qPCR compared HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 viral loads and RT-qPCR measured HPV 6 and 11 E6 genomic expression levels. Seventy-one percent of these samples were infected with multiple HPVs. Only one sample was negative for HPV 6 or 11 DNA. Forty-eight percent of samples were positive for a high risk (oncogenic) HPV. The results show that multiple infections in tissue are frequent and the subsequent analysis of HPV 6 and 11 E6 DNA viral loads suggested that other HPVs could be causing lesions. Further analysis of HPV 6/11 E6 mRNA levels showed that there was no discernable relationship between HPV 6 E6 DNA viral load and relative HPV 6 or 11 E6 mRNA levels thereby questioning the relevance of viral load to lesion causality.

Sensitive HPV detection in oropharyngeal cancers.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomaviruses (HPV) are the aetiological agents of certain benign and malignant tumours of skin and mucosae; the most important of which is cervical cancer. Also, the incidence of ano-genital warts, HPV-anal cancer and oropharyngeal cancers are rising. To help ascertain a useful PCR detection protocol for oropharyngeal cancers, we directly compared three commonly used primer sets in detection of HPV from different clinical samples. METHODS: We compared PGMY09/11, MY09/11 and GP5+/6+ primers sets in PCRs of 34 clinically diagnosed samples of genital warts, cervical brushings (with associated histological diagnosis) and vulval biopsies. All negative samples were subsequently tested using the previously reported PGMY/GP PCR method and amplicons directly sequenced for confirmation and typing. An optimised PCR protocol was then compared to a line blot assay for detection of HPV in 15 oropharyngeal cancer samples. RESULTS: PGMY09/11 primers detected HPV presence in more cervical brushing (100%) and genital wart (92.9%) samples compared to MY09/11 (90% and 64.3%) and GP5+/6+ (80% and 64.3%) primer sets, respectively. From vulval biopsies, HPV detection rates were: MY09/11 (63.6%), GP5+/6+ (54.5%) and PGMY09/11 (54.5%). PGMY/GP nested PCR demonstrated that HPV was present, and direct sequencing confirmed genotypes. This nested PCR protocol showed detection of HPV in 10/15 (66.7%) of oropharyngeal cancer samples. CONCLUSIONS: PGMY09/11 primers are the preferred primer set among these three for primary PCR screening with different clinical samples. MY09/11 and GP5+/6+ may be used (particularly for cervical samples) but demonstrate lower detection rates. A nested PCR approach (i.e. a PGMY-GP system) may be required to confirm negativity or to detect low levels of HPV, undetectable using current primary PCR methods, as demonstrated using oropharyngeal cancer samples.