Quantification of mitochondrial toxicity in HIV‐infected individuals by quantitative PCR compared to flow cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive diagnostic assays to evaluate mitochondrial toxicity could have significant clinical utility for HIV-infected individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: This study compared the ratio of mitochondrial to nuclear DNA determined by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to the ratio of mitochondrial to nuclear-encoded proteins by flow cytometry, in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 73 HIV-infected individuals with and without risk factors for mitochondrial toxicity. RESULTS: PCR detected similar mitochondrial/nuclear DNA in HIV-infected individuals without a history of ART, and those receiving ART with lipodystrophy, lipoatrophy, or a history of suspected lactic acidosis. However, the ratio was significantly greater in ART-untreated compared to those receiving either stavudine or didanosine. In contrast, flow cytometry did not detect any differences in mitochondrial/nuclear protein (Lin et al., Cytometry B 2009;76B:181-190). There was no correlation between the assays (rho = -0.05, P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of the mitochondrial/nuclear DNA ratio by qPCR performed better than the mitochondrial/nuclear-encoded protein ratio by flow cytometry to detect adverse effects of nucleoside analogs on mitochondria.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".