Cellular Restriction Factors: Exploiting the Body’s Antiviral Proteins to Combat HIV-1/AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1983, when researchers first isolated HIV-1 from an AIDS patient, few imagined that it foretold a worldwide pandemic More than 25 years later, 65 million people have been infected with HIV-1; nearly half of these people have died of AIDS, and despite many scientific advances we are still without an efficacious vaccine The majority of HIV-1 infections and deaths have occurred in developing countries, with sub-Saharan Africa accounting for over 38 million HIV-1 infections alone. Sadly, the number of new infections currently exceeds our ability to treat everyone infected with the virus, and in the hardest-hit countries the social and economic backlash has been profound. After HIV-1 was isolated, a blood test to screen patients and the blood supply quickly followed, as did research on its structure and pathogenesis. Many assumed that a vaccine would be available in a few years, and excitement increased further with the licensing of the first effective drug against HIV-1, zidovudine (AZT) (Fischl et al., 1987). However, researchers soon discovered that the virus was highly resilient, and HIV-1 quickly developed resistance to AZT (Poli et al., 1989 Over the next few years, a number of new antiretroviral drugs were developed that attacked the virus in different ways, and it was at this time that a new approach to therapy ensued. Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) combined three or more different drugs to reduce HIV-1 replication, and significantly improved the prognosis of HIV-1-infected individuals However, HAART was not a cure, and many patients were resistant to at least one of the antiretroviral drugs. In addition, the drugs were highly toxic, making adherence to treatment difficult. During this time, the vaccine field was also hard at work, trying to develop a safe and effective HIV-1 vaccine. Most initial vaccine approaches focused on the HIV-1 envelope protein (gp120), and aimed to induce an antibody response to gp120. AIDSVAX was the first vaccine candidate of this type, and was developed by a U.S. pharmaceutical company called VaxGen (Flynn et al., 2005 An alternative approach, developed by Merck, aimed to induce a T-cell response to HIV-1 using a recombinant adenovirus vector expressing HIV-1 Gag, Pol and Nef proteins (Shiver et al., 2002). Unfortunately, results from www.intechopen.com
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".