Emerging complexities of APOBEC3G action on immunity and viral fitness during HIV infection and treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enzyme APOBEC3G (A3G) mutates the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genome by converting deoxycytidine (dC) to deoxyuridine (dU) on minus strand viral DNA during reverse transcription. A3G restricts viral propagation by degrading or incapacitating the coding ability of the HIV genome. Thus, this enzyme has been perceived as an innate immune barrier to viral replication whilst adaptive immunity responses escalate to effective levels. The discovery of A3G less than a decade ago led to the promise of new anti-viral therapies based on manipulation of its cellular expression and/or activity. The rationale for therapeutic approaches has been solidified by demonstration of the effectiveness of A3G in diminishing viral replication in cell culture systems of HIV infection, reports of its mutational footprint in virions from patients, and recognition of its unusually robust enzymatic potential in biochemical studies in vitro. Despite its effectiveness in various experimental systems, numerous recent studies have shown that the ability of A3G to combat HIV in the physiological setting is severely limited. In fact, it has become apparent that its mutational activity may actually enhance viral fitness by accelerating HIV evolution towards the evasion of both anti-viral drugs and the immune system. This body of work suggests that the role of A3G in HIV infection is more complex than heretofore appreciated and supports the hypothesis that HIV has evolved to exploit the action of this host factor. Here we present an overview of recent data that bring to light historical overestimation of A3G's standing as a strictly anti-viral agent. We discuss the limitations of experimental systems used to assess its activities as well as caveats in data interpretation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".