Differential effect of CLK SR Kinases on HIV-1 gene expression: potential novel targets for therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: RNA processing plays a critical role in the replication of HIV-1, regulated in part through the action of host SR proteins. To explore the impact of modulating SR protein activity on virus replication, the effect of increasing or inhibiting the activity of the Cdc2-like kinase (CLK) family of SR protein kinases on HIV-1 expression and RNA processing was examined. RESULTS: Despite their high homology, increasing individual CLK expression had distinct effects on HIV-1, CLK1 enhancing Gag production while CLK2 inhibited the virus. Parallel studies on the anti-HIV-1 activity of CLK inhibitors revealed a similar discrepant effect on HIV-1 expression. TG003, an inhibitor of CLK1, 2 and 4, had no effect on viral Gag synthesis while chlorhexidine, a CLK2, 3 and 4 inhibitor, blocked virus production. Chlorhexidine treatment altered viral RNA processing, decreasing levels of unspliced and single spliced viral RNAs, and reduced Rev accumulation. Subsequent experiments in the context of HIV-1 replication in PBMCs confirmed the capacity of chlorhexidine to suppress virus replication. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these findings establish that HIV-1 RNA processing can be targeted to suppress virus replication as demonstrated by manipulating individual CLK function and identified chlorhexidine as a lead compound in the development of novel anti-viral therapies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".