Susceptibility to antivirals of a human HBV strain with mutations conferring resistance to both lamivudine and adefovir†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutations within the hepatitis B virus (HBV) polymerase gene conferring drug-resistance are selected during prolonged lamivudine (3TC) or adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) treatment. Because there is no other approved drug against HBV, treatments with 3TC or ADV are used either sequentially or in addition, depending on treatment response or failure. Considering the use of de novo or add-on 3TC+ADV bitherapy, we investigated the possibility of the emergence of an HBV strain harboring polymerase mutations conferring resistance to both 3TC (rtL180M+M204V) and ADV (rtN236T). We constructed the L180M+M204V+N236T mutant and determined its replication capacity and its susceptibility to different nucleos(t)ide analogs in transiently transfected hepatoma cell lines. The triple mutant replicates its genome in vitro, but less efficiently than either the wild-type (wt) HBV or L180M+M204V and N236T mutants. Phenotypic assays indicated that the L180M+M204V+N236T mutant is resistant to pyrimidine analogs (3TC, -FTC, beta-L-FD4C, L-FMAU). Compared with wt HBV, this mutant displays a 6-fold decreased susceptibility to ADV and entecavir and a 4-fold decreased susceptibility to tenofovir. Interferon alfa inhibited equally the replication of wt and L180M+M204V+N236T HBV. In conclusion, the combination of rtL180M+M204V and rtN236T mutations impairs HBV replication and confers resistance to both 3TC and ADV in vitro. These results suggest that the emergence of the triple mutant may be delayed and associated with viral resistance in patients treated with 3TC+ADV. However, other nucleos(t)ide analogs in development showed an antiviral activity against this multiresistant strain in vitro. This provides a rationale for the clinical evaluation of de novo combination therapies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".