Mutations in Gp41 are Correlated with Coreceptor Tropism but Do Not Improve Prediction Methods Substantially
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The main determinants of HIV-1 coreceptor usage are located in the V3-loop of gp120, although mutations in V2 and gp41 are also known. Incorporation of V2 is known to improve prediction algorithms; however, this has not been confirmed for gp41 mutations. METHODS: Samples with V3 and gp41 genotypes and Trofile assay (Monogram Biosciences, South San Francisco, CA, USA) results were taken from the HOMER cohort (n=444) and from patients screened for the MOTIVATE studies (n=1,916; 859 with maraviroc outcome data). Correlations of mutations with tropism were assessed using Fisher's exact test and prediction models trained using support vector machines. Models were validated by cross-validation, by testing models from one dataset on the other, and by analysing virological outcome. RESULTS: Several mutations within gp41 were highly significant for CXCR4 usage; most strikingly an insertion occurring in 7.7% of HOMER-R5 and 46.3% of HOMER-X4 samples (MOTIVATE 5.7% and 25.2%, respectively). Models trained on gp41 sequence alone achieved relatively high areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUCs; HOMER 0.713 and MOTIVATE 0.736) that were almost as good as V3 models (0.773 and 0.884, respectively). However, combining the two regions improved predictions only marginally (0.813 and 0.902, respectively). Similar results were found when models were trained on HOMER and validated on MOTIVATE or vice versa. The difference in median log viral load decrease at week 24 between patients with R5 and X4 virus was 1.65 (HOMER 2.45 and MOTIVATE 0.79) for V3 models, 1.59 for gp41-models (2.42 and 0.83, respectively) and 1.58 for the combined predictor (2.44 and 0.86, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Several mutations within gp41 showed strong correlation with tropism in two independent datasets. However, incorporating gp41 mutations into prediction models is not mandatory because they do not improve substantially on models trained on V3 sequences alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".