A Tight-Binding Mode of Inhibition Is Essential for Anti-Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Virucidal Activity of Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was previously found that certain nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) possess virucidal activity against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), and it was suggested that the tight-binding mode of inhibition of reverse transcriptase might be important for this virucidal activity (Borkow et al., J. Virol. 71:3023-3030, 1997). To test this, we compared six different NNRTI, including three tight-binding NNRTI, namely UC781, efavirenz (EFV) (Sustiva), and 5-chloro-3-phenylsulfonylindole-2-carboxamide (CSIC), and three rapid-equilibrium NNRTI, delavirdine (DLV) (Rescriptor), nevirapine (NVP) (Viramune), and UC84, in a variety of virucidal tests. Incubation of isolated HIV-1 virions with UC781, EFV, or CSIC rapidly inactivated the virus, whereas DLV, NVP, and UC84 were ineffective in this respect. Exposure of H9+ cells chronically infected by HIV-1 to the tight-binding NNRTI abolished the infectivity of nascent virus subsequently produced by these cells following removal of extracellular drug, thereby preventing cell-to-cell virus transmission in the absence of exogenous drug. In contrast, cell-to-cell transmission of HIV was blocked by DLV, NVP, and UC84 only when the drug remained in the extracellular medium. Pretreatment of uninfected lymphocytoid cells with UC781, EFV, or CSIC, but not DLV, NVP, or UC84, protected these cells from subsequent HIV-1 infection in the absence of extracellular drug. The protective effect was dependent on both the dose of NNRTI and the viral load. The overall virucidal efficacy of the tight-binding NNRTI tested was CSIC > UC781 approximately EFV. We conclude that the tight-binding mode of inhibition is an essential characteristic for virucidal NNRTI and that antiviral potency is an insufficient predictor for virucidal utility of NNRTI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".