MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038017537 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077052

An Upstream YY1 Binding Site on the HIV-1 LTR Contributes to Latent Infection

2013· article· en· W2038017537 on OpenAlexafffund
Wendy Bernhard, Kris Barreto, Sheetal A. Raithatha, Ivan Sadowski

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProvirusBiologyChromatinPopulationVirologyHIV Long Terminal RepeatBinding siteTranscription factorTranscription (linguistics)Virus latencyCell biologyVirusGeneticsLong terminal repeatViral replicationDNAGene expressionMedicineGeneGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During HIV-1 infection a population of latently infected cells is established. This population is the major obstacle preventing total eradication of the virus from AIDS patients. HIV-1 latency is thought to arise by various mechanisms including repressive chromatin modifications. Transcription factors such as YY1 have been shown to facilitate repressive chromatin modifications by the recruitment of histone deacetylases. In this study, we identified a novel binding site for YY1 on the HIV-1 LTR, 120 nucleotides upstream of the transcription start site. We show that YY1 can bind to this site in vitro and in vivo and that binding to the LTR is dissociated upon T cell activation. Overexpression of YY1 causes an increase in the proportion of cells that produce latent infections. These observations, in combination with previous results, demonstrate that YY1 plays a prominent role in controlling the establishment and maintenance of latent HIV-1 provirus in unstimulated cells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207