Peripheral Blood CCR4+CCR6+ and CXCR3+CCR6+ CD4+ T Cells Are Highly Permissive to HIV-1 Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is limited knowledge on the identity of primary CD4+ T cell subsets selectively targeted by HIV-1 in vivo. In this study, we established a link between HIV permissiveness, phenotype/homing potential, and lineage commitment in primary CD4+ T cells. CCR4+CCR6+, CCR4+CCR6−, CXCR3+CCR6+, and CXCR3+CCR6− T cells expressed cytokines and transcription factors specific for Th17, Th2, Th1Th17, and Th1 lineages, respectively. CCR4+CCR6+ and CXCR3+CCR6+ T cells expressed the HIV coreceptors CCR5 and CXCR4 and were permissive to R5 and X4 HIV replication. CCR4+CCR6− T cells expressed CXCR4 but not CCR5 and were permissive to X4 HIV only. CXCR3+CCR6− T cells expressed CCR5 and CXCR4 but were relatively resistant to R5 and X4 HIV in vitro. Total CCR6+ T cells compared with CCR6− T cells harbored higher levels of integrated HIV DNA in treatment-naive HIV-infected subjects. The frequency of total CCR6+ T cells and those of CCR4+CCR6+ and CXCR3+CCR6+ T cells were diminished in chronically infected HIV-positive subjects, despite viral-suppressive therapy. A high-throughput analysis of cytokine profiles identified CXCR3+CCR6+ T cells as a major source of TNF-α and CCL20 and demonstrated a decreased TNF-α/IL-10 ratio in CXCR3+CCR6− T cells. Finally, CCR4+CCR6+ and CXCR3+CCR6+ T cells exhibited gut- and lymph node-homing potential. Thus, we identified CCR4+CCR6+ and CXCR3+CCR6+ T cells as highly permissive to HIV replication, with potential to infiltrate and recruit more CCR6+ T cells into anatomic sites of viral replication. It is necessary that new therapeutic strategies against HIV interfere with viral replication/persistence in discrete CCR6+ T cell subsets.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".