The dual CCR5 and CCR2 inhibitor cenicriviroc does not redistribute HIV into extracellular space: implications for plasma viral load and intracellular DNA decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cenicriviroc is a potent antagonist of the chemokine coreceptors 5 and 2 (CCR5/CCR2) and blocks HIV-1 entry. The CCR5 inhibitor maraviroc has been shown in tissue culture to be able to repel cell-free virions from the cell surface into extracellular space. We hypothesized that cenicriviroc might exhibit a similar effect, and tested this using clinical samples from the Phase IIb study 652-2-202, by measuring rates of intracellular DNA decline. We also monitored viral RNA levels in culture fluids. METHODS: We infected PM-1 cells with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 BaL in the presence or absence of inhibitory concentrations of cenicriviroc (20 nM) or maraviroc (50 nM) or controls. Viral load levels and p24 were measured by ELISA, quantitative PCR and quantitative real-time reverse transcription PCR at 4 h post-infection. Frozen PBMC DNA samples from 30 patients with virological success in the Phase IIb study were studied, as were early and late reverse transcript levels. Docking studies compared binding between cenicriviroc/CCR5 and maraviroc/CCR5. RESULTS: Unlike maraviroc, cenicriviroc did not cause an increase in the amount of virus present in culture fluids at 4 h compared with baseline. The use of cenicriviroc did, however, result in lower levels of intracellular viral DNA after 4 h. Structural modelling indicates that cenicriviroc binds more deeply than maraviroc to the hydrophobic pocket of CCR5, providing an explanation for the absence of viral rebound with cenicriviroc. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to maraviroc, cenicriviroc does not repel virus back into extracellular space. Differences in results may be due to superior binding of cenicriviroc to CCR5 compared with maraviroc.
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".