HIV Type 1 BF Recombinant Strains Exhibit Different pol Gene Mosaic Patterns: Descriptive Analysis from 284 Patients under Treatment Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different complex structures of the pol gene have been identified in 284 HIV-1 B/F recombinant sequences obtained from a group of 587 patients under treatment failure from Argentina. To analyze the mosaic structures of these viral sequences and to determine their phylogenetic relationship, the 284 partial pol gene sequences of BF recombinant viruses were amplified by RT-PCR and sequenced. Intersubtype breakpoints were analyzed by bootscanning. Phylogenetic relationships were determined by means of neighbor-joining trees. The analysis of the sequences showed multiple phylogenetic topologies clustering within intersubtype BF reference sequences. At least three different mosaic patterns were found compared to previously described BF-type viruses with unequal distribution in the studied population. The analysis also showed that HIV-1 BF recombinant viruses with diverse mosaic structures are phylogenetically related in their F segments and in selected B fragments with the F1 subtype and with BF recombinant viruses from Brazil, respectively, suggesting a common recombinant ancestor. No association was observed between the prevalence of each mosaic pattern and the frequency of major drug-resistance mutations in PR and RT.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".