MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054443036 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1414148111

Broadly neutralizing antibodies suppress HIV in the persistent viral reservoir

2014· article· en· W2054443036 on OpenAlexaff
Tae‐Wook Chun, Danielle Murray, J. Shawn Justement, Jana Blažková, Claire W. Hallahan, Olivia Fankuchen, Kathleen Gittens, Erika Benko, Colin Kovacs, Susan Moir, Anthony S. Fauci

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMaple Leaf Medical Clinic
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsVirologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)AntibodyImmunologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several highly potent and broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against HIV have recently been isolated from B cells of infected individuals. However, the effects of these antibodies on the persistent viral reservoirs in HIV-infected individuals receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) are unknown. We show that several HIV-specific monoclonal antibodies--in particular, PGT121, VRC01, and VRC03--potently inhibited entry into CD4(+) T cells of HIV isolated from the latent viral reservoir of infected individuals whose plasma viremia was well controlled by ART. In addition, we demonstrate that HIV replication in autologous CD4(+) T cells derived from infected individuals receiving ART was profoundly suppressed by three aforementioned and other HIV-specific monoclonal antibodies. These findings have implications for passive immunotherapy as an approach toward controlling plasma viral rebound in patients whose ART is withdrawn.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations70
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207