Distinct Effects of Two HIV-1 Capsid Assembly Inhibitor Families That Bind the Same Site within the N-Terminal Domain of the Viral CA Protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of resistance to existing classes of antiretroviral drugs necessitates finding new HIV-1 targets for drug discovery. The viral capsid (CA) protein represents one such potential new target. CA is sufficient to form mature HIV-1 capsids in vitro, and extensive structure-function and mutational analyses of CA have shown that the proper assembly, morphology, and stability of the mature capsid core are essential for the infectivity of HIV-1 virions. Here we describe the development of an in vitro capsid assembly assay based on the association of CA-NC subunits on immobilized oligonucleotides. This assay was used to screen a compound library, yielding several different families of compounds that inhibited capsid assembly. Optimization of two chemical series, termed the benzodiazepines (BD) and the benzimidazoles (BM), resulted in compounds with potent antiviral activity against wild-type and drug-resistant HIV-1. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopic and X-ray crystallographic analyses showed that both series of inhibitors bound to the N-terminal domain of CA. These inhibitors induce the formation of a pocket that overlaps with the binding site for the previously reported CAP inhibitors but is expanded significantly by these new, more potent CA inhibitors. Virus release and electron microscopic (EM) studies showed that the BD compounds prevented virion release, whereas the BM compounds inhibited the formation of the mature capsid. Passage of virus in the presence of the inhibitors selected for resistance mutations that mapped to highly conserved residues surrounding the inhibitor binding pocket, but also to the C-terminal domain of CA. The resistance mutations selected by the two series differed, consistent with differences in their interactions within the pocket, and most also impaired virus replicative capacity. Resistance mutations had two modes of action, either directly impacting inhibitor binding affinity or apparently increasing the overall stability of the viral capsid without affecting inhibitor binding. These studies demonstrate that CA is a viable antiviral target and demonstrate that inhibitors that bind within the same site on CA can have distinct binding modes and mechanisms of action.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".