MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010128338 · doi:10.1097/qad.0b013e3280187505

Diminished efficiency of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase containing the K65R and M184V drug resistance mutations

2007· article· en· W2010128338 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando A Frankel, Cédric Invernizzi, Maureen Oliveira, Mark A. Wainberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsReverse transcriptaseResistance mutationVirologyBiologyNucleoside Reverse Transcriptase InhibitorVirusRNAReverse-transcriptase inhibitorViral replicationMolecular biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the underlying biochemical mechanisms responsible for the diminished viral replicative capacity associated with K65R/M184V-containing viruses. METHODS: We studied the efficiency of (-)ssDNA synthesis by recombinant wild-type and mutated HIV-1 reverse transcriptases in cell-free assays. In addition, we determined susceptibility levels to nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) both in cell-free and cell culture assays. RESULTS: We observed that the K65R/M184V mutations in reverse transcriptase caused reductions in the efficiency of initiation of (-)ssDNA synthesis by increasing pausing at positions +3 and +5 as well as diminished RNA usage. These findings were confirmed in cell culture data using MT-4 cells and cord blood mononuclear cells. CONCLUSIONS: The simultaneous presence of K65R and M184V in reverse transcriptase has a negative impact with regard to the efficiency of initiation of (-)ssDNA synthesis and RNA usage, that exceeds the effect of either mutation on its own. These mechanisms, among others, are responsible for the diminished viral replicative capacity observed in tissue culture when K65R/M184V-containing viruses are studied.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDSSame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207