Analysis of Efficiency and Fidelity of HIV-1 (+)-Strand DNA Synthesis Reveals a Novel Rate-limiting Step during Retroviral Reverse Transcription
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have analyzed the efficiency and accuracy of polymerization at several different stages during the initiation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) (+)-strand DNA synthesis. This reaction is of particular interest, as it involves the recruitment by reverse transcriptase of an RNA primer that serves as substrate for both the polymerase and RNase H activities of the enzyme. We found that the correct incorporation of the first two nucleotides was severely compromised and that formation of mismatches was completely absent at this stage of initiation. Although the fidelity of incorporations decreased concomitantly with ensuing polymerization, the elongation of mispaired primers was literally blocked. Instead, mispaired primer strands initiated a switch from active synthesis of DNA to premature RNase H-mediated primer removal. These findings suggest the existence of a fragile equilibrium between these two enzymatic activities that is shifted toward RNase H cleavage once the polymerization process is aggravated. Our data show that the initiation of HIV-1 (+)-strand DNA synthesis differs significantly from reactions involving other primer/template combinations, including tRNA-primed (-)-strand DNA synthesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".