MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490329041 · doi:10.1186/1742-4690-1-23

Is HIV-1 RNA dimerization a prerequisite for packaging? Yes, no, probably?

2004· review· en· W1490329041 on OpenAlexafffund
Rodney S. Russell, Chen Liang, Mark A. Wainberg

Bibliographic record

VenueRetrovirology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRNAGenomeComputational biologyContext (archaeology)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)BiologyGeneticsVirusViral life cycleVirologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During virus assembly, all retroviruses specifically encapsidate two copies of full-length viral genomic RNA in the form of a non-covalently linked RNA dimer. The absolute conservation of this unique genome structure within the Retroviridae family is strong evidence that a dimerized genome is of critical importance to the viral life cycle. An obvious hypothesis is that retroviruses have evolved to preferentially package two copies of genomic RNA, and that dimerization ensures the proper packaging specificity for such a genome. However, this implies that dimerization must be a prerequisite for genome encapsidation, a notion that has been debated for many years. In this article, we review retroviral RNA dimerization and packaging, highlighting the research that has attempted to dissect the intricate relationship between these two processes in the context of HIV-1, and discuss the therapeutic potential of these putative antiretroviral targets.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations113
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRetrovirologySame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207