Comparison of HIV-specific CD8 T-cell responses among uninfected individuals exposed to HIV parenterally and mucosally.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of route of HIV exposure on the development of HIV-specific CD8 T-cell responses in exposed, uninfected (EU) individuals. DESIGN: Two groups of EU exposed to virus through either sexual or intravenous contact were studied. Group I included subjects (n = 20) who had unprotected sexual contact with known HIV-infected partners and no intravenous HIV exposure; Group II included individuals (n = 27) who had shared needles with HIV-infected partners and had no sexual exposure to this virus. Between-group comparisons were made for the proportion of responders, breadth, magnitude, and specificity of HIV-specific responses. METHODS: : The interferon-gamma ELISPOT assay was used to detect HIV-specific effector activity. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from each subject were stimulated with a panel of HIV peptides restricted to the MHC class I alleles expressed by the individual. RESULTS: A similar proportion of EU tested from each group (35.0% Group I versus 22.2% Group II) recognized at least one HIV peptide. Group I and II subjects recognized HIV peptides with a similar cumulative intensity of 130 +/- 67.5 and 182.9 +/- 184.2 spot forming cells/1 x 10 PBMC, respectively, and similar magnitude per stimulatory peptide of 82.7 and 78.4 SFC/1 x 10 PBMC, respectively. The proportion of stimulatory peptides derived from HIV Gag, reverse transcriptase, Env, and Nef was not significantly different between the two EU groups. HLA-A*0201 restricted HIV epitopes immunodominant in infected individuals are rarely stimulatory in EU subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Both mucosal and parenteral exposure to HIV can elicit HIV-specific CD8 T-cell responses with similar characteristics.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".