Role of the K101E Substitution in HIV-1 Reverse Transcriptase in Resistance to Rilpivirine and Other Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance to the recently approved nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) rilpivirine (RPV) commonly involves substitutions at positions E138K and K101E in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT), together with an M184I substitution that is associated with resistance to coutilized emtricitabine (FTC). Previous biochemical and virological studies have shown that compensatory interactions between substitutions E138K and M184I can restore enzyme processivity and the viral replication capacity. Structural modeling studies have also shown that disruption of the salt bridge between K101 and E138 can affect RPV binding. The current study was designed to investigate the impact of K101E, alone or in combination with E138K and/or M184I, on drug susceptibility, viral replication capacity, and enzyme function. We show here that K101E can be selected in cell culture by the NNRTIs etravirine (ETR), efavirenz (EFV), and dapivirine (DPV) as well as by RPV. Recombinant RT enzymes and viruses containing K101E, but not E138K, were highly resistant to nevirapine (NVP) and delavirdine (DLV) as well as ETR and RPV, but not EFV. The addition of K101E to E138K slightly enhanced ETR and RPV resistance compared to that obtained with E138K alone but restored susceptibility to NVP and DLV. The K101E substitution can compensate for deficits in viral replication capacity and enzyme processivity associated with M184I, while M184I can compensate for the diminished efficiency of DNA polymerization associated with K101E. The coexistence of K101E and E138K does not impair either viral replication or enzyme fitness. We conclude that K101E can play a significant role in resistance to RPV.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".