Protein/peptide‐based entry/fusion inhibitors as anti‐HIV therapies: challenges and future direction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The failures of several first-generation and second-generation small molecule drug-based anti-HIV therapies in various stages of clinical trials are an indication that there is a need for a paradigm shift in the future designs of anti-HIV therapeutics. Over the past several decades, various anti-HIV drugs have been developed, among them, protein/peptide-based therapies. From the first peptide discovered (SJ2176) to the first peptide approved by the Food and Drug Administration (DP178/T20/enfuvirtide/Fuzeon®), anti-HIV proteins/peptides as fusion/entry inhibitors have been shown to provide potent effects and benefits. This review summarizes the past and current endeavors in this area, discusses the potential mechanisms of action for various anti-HIV proteins/peptides, compares the advantages and disadvantages between the different proteins/peptides, and finally, examines the future direction of the field, specifically, strategies that will enhance the therapeutic efficacy of fusion/entry inhibitor-based anti-HIV proteins/peptides. Although there are numerous reviews highlighting the general field of entry/fusion inhibitors, there is a lack of literature focused on protein/peptide-based entry/fusion inhibitors for HIV therapy, and as a result, this review is intended to fill this void by summarizing the past, current, and future development of these macromolecules. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it