MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092746828 · doi:10.1186/1742-4690-6-103

Comparative biochemical analysis of HIV-1 subtype B and C integrase enzymes

2009· article· en· W2092746828 on OpenAlexafffund
Tamara Bar-Magen, Richard D. Sloan, Verena Faltenbacher, Daniel A. Donahue, Björn D. Kuhl, Maureen Oliveira, Hongtao Xu, Mark A. Wainberg

Bibliographic record

VenueRetrovirology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Foundation for AIDS Research
KeywordsIntegraseRaltegravirElvitegravirIntegrase inhibitorEnzymeVirologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)DolutegravirChemistryIntegrasesBiologyBiochemistryAntiretroviral therapyViral load

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Integrase inhibitors are currently being incorporated into highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Due to high HIV variability, integrase inhibitor efficacy must be evaluated against a range of integrase enzymes from different subtypes. METHODS: This study compares the enzymatic activities of HIV-1 integrase from subtypes B and C as well as susceptibility to various integrase inhibitors in vitro. The catalytic activities of both enzymes were analyzed in regard to each of 3' processing and strand transfer activities both in the presence and absence of the integrase inhibitors raltegravir (RAL), elvitegravir (EVG), and MK-2048. RESULTS: Our results show that integrase function is similar with enzymes of either subtype and that the various integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) that were employed possessed similar inhibitory activity against both enzymes. CONCLUSION: This suggests that the use of integrase inhibitors against HIV-1 subtype C will result in comparable outcomes to those obtained against subtype B infections.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRetrovirologySame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207