CCR5Δ32 and promoter polymorphisms are not correlated with initial virological or immunological treatment response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Natural genetic polymorphisms within the CCR5 gene and promoter have been linked to patterns of HIV-1 clinical disease progression in untreated individuals. The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the influence of the CCR5Delta32 mutation and promoter polymorphisms on virological and immunological treatment outcome in 436 antiretroviral-naive individuals initiating their first therapy, over a mean follow-up time of 22 months. METHODS: Genotypes for the CCR5Delta32 and promoter were determined by polymerase chain reaction amplification of human DNA from plasma, followed by gel electrophoresis for CCR5Delta32 or DNA sequencing for the promoter polymorphisms. Time to virological failure [defined as the second plasma viral load > or = 400 copies HIV-1 RNA/ml) and immunological failure (defined as time to achieve two successive CD4 cell counts below baseline) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: The five most common CCR5 promoter polymorphisms were observed at positions 208(G/T), 303(A/G), 627(C/T), 676(A/G), and 927(C/T). Allele frequencies were 0.24(208T), 0.38(303G), 0.44(627T), 0.35(676G) and 0.18(927T). The CCR5Delta32 allele frequency was 0.08. The promoter polymorphisms existed in strong linkage disequilibrium with each other and the Delta32. No significant effect of the individual CCR5Delta32 or promoter polymorphisms could be demonstrated with respect to time to treatment failure as defined by virological or immunological parameters (P > or = 0.07). Similarly, when combined CCR5Delta32 and promoter genotypes were analyzed in order to account for linkage disequilibrium, no significant effect was observed on time to virological or immunological failure (P > 0.6). CONCLUSION: CCR5Delta32 and promoter genotypes may not be of clinical relevance in predicting initial virological or immunological response to antiretroviral therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".