MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086607206 · doi:10.2174/1570162043484988

The Selective Packaging and Annealing of Primer tRNALys3 in HIV-1

2004· review· en· W2086607206 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence Kleiman, Rabih Halwani, Hassan Javanbakht

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent HIV Research · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimer (cosmetics)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ChemistryBiologyVirologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In HIV-1, tRNA(Lys3) serves as the primer for reverse transcriptase, and during viral assembly, the tRNA(Lys) isoacceptors, tRNA(Lys1,2) and tRNA(Lys3), are selectively packaged into the virion. In this review, we shall first discuss the evidence for the formation of a tRNA(Lys) packaging complex, whose components include Gag, GagPol, genomic RNA, lysyl-tRNA synthetase (LysRS), and tRNA(Lys). Evidence suggests that the formation of this complex involves a Gag/GagPol/viral genomic RNA complex interacting with a tRNA(Lys)/ LysRS complex, with Gag interacting with both GagPol and LysRS, and GagPol interacting with the tRNA(Lys). The interaction of Gag with LysRS is quite specific, does not require the presence of tRNA(Lys), and LysRS is believed to be the target that allows the specific packaging of tRNA(Lys) into the virion. The parameters influencing these interactions, and the molecular sites of interaction, will be discussed. The selective packaging of tRNA(Lys3) into HIV-1 facilitates annealing of tRNA(Lys) to the 5' region of viral RNA genome. This region contains a series of stem loops, and there exists several regions in both the viral RNA and the tRNA(Lys) that are believed to be important for tRNA(Lys) annealing. The annealing is facilitated by viral proteins such as unprocessed Gag, nucleocapsid, and reverse transcriptase.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent HIV ResearchSame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207