Evidence for a post-entry barrier to R5 HIV-1 infection of CD4 memory T cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV-1 strains R5 and X4 can infect CD4 memory T cells in vivo. Anti-CD3/28 stimulation induces beta-chemokines and CCR5 down-regulation and renders these cells resistant to R5 HIV-1 infection. Here we describe an additional cellular mechanism that blocks productive R5 HIV-1 infection of CD4 memory T cells. METHODS: Blood-derived CD4 memory T cells and CD4 T-cell clones were infected with primary R5 and X4 HIV-1 strains. Virus replication was correlated with CCR5 expression and beta-chemokine production. Virus entry and infectivity were measured by PCR for early and late products of HIV reverse transcription respectively. RESULTS: R5 strains were up to 1000-fold less infectious than X4 viruses for CD4 memory T cells. This resistance was independent of CCR5 levels and of the Delta-32 mutation and the CCR2-V64I/CCR5-59653T linked mutations. Blocking endogenous beta-chemokines relieved minimally this restriction. At the single cell level, CD4 memory cells were either permissive or non-permissive for R5 HIV-1 infection. R5 HIV titre was up to 10-fold lower than X4 virus titre even in a permissive clone. However, R5 viruses replicated as efficiently as X4 viruses in the permissive clone when neutralizing anti-beta chemokine antibodies were added. Non-permissive cells blocked a post-entry step of the virus life-cycle and expressed early but not late HIV transcripts. Neutralizing anti-beta chemokine antibodies promoted R5 virus replication marginally in the non-permissive clone. CONCLUSION: Some blood memory CD4 T cells retard R5 HIV-1 replication via endogenous beta-chemokines whereas others block productive R5 HIV-1 infection by an additional mechanism that interferes with a post-entry step of the virus life cycle. These natural barriers might contribute to lower pathogenicity of R5 HIV-1 strains for CD4 memory T cells than X4 viruses that emerge late in disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".