Resistance of Herpes Simplex Viruses to Nucleoside Analogues: Mechanisms, Prevalence, and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herpes simplex viruses (HSV) type 1 and type 2 are responsible for recurrent orolabial and genital infections. The standard therapy for the management of HSV infections includes acyclovir (ACV) and penciclovir (PCV) with their respective prodrugs valacyclovir and famciclovir. These compounds are phosphorylated by the viral thymidine kinase (TK) and then by cellular kinases. The triphosphate forms selectively inhibit the viral DNA polymerase (DNA pol) activity. Drug-resistant HSV isolates are frequently recovered from immunocompromised patients but rarely found in immunocompetent subjects. The gold standard phenotypic method for evaluating the susceptibility of HSV isolates to antiviral drugs is the plaque reduction assay. Plaque autoradiography allows the associated phenotype to be distinguished (TK-wild-type, TK-negative, TK-low-producer, or TK-altered viruses or mixtures of wild-type and mutant viruses). Genotypic characterization of drug-resistant isolates can reveal mutations located in the viral TK and/or in the DNA pol genes. Recombinant HSV mutants can be generated to analyze the contribution of each specific mutation with regard to the drug resistance phenotype. Most ACV-resistant mutants exhibit some reduction in their capacity to establish latency and to reactivate, as well as in their degree of neurovirulence in animal models of HSV infection. For instance, TK-negative HSV mutants establish latency with a lower efficiency than wild-type strains and reactivate poorly. DNA pol HSV mutants exhibit different degrees of attenuation of neurovirulence. The management of ACV- or PCV-resistant HSV infections includes the use of the pyrophosphate analogue foscarnet and the nucleotide analogue cidofovir. There is a need to develop new antiherpetic compounds with different mechanisms of action.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".