Differential evolution of a CXCR4-using HIV-1 strain in CCR5wt/wt and CCR5∆32/∆32 hosts revealed by longitudinal deep sequencing and phylogenetic reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rare individuals homozygous for a naturally-occurring 32 base pair deletion in the CCR5 gene (CCR5∆32/∆32) are resistant to infection by CCR5-using ("R5") HIV-1 strains but remain susceptible to less common CXCR4-using ("X4") strains. The evolutionary dynamics of X4 infections however, remain incompletely understood. We identified two individuals, one CCR5wt/wt and one CCR5∆32/∆32, within the Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study who were infected with a genetically similar X4 HIV-1 strain. While early-stage plasma viral loads were comparable in the two individuals (~4.5-5 log10 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml), CD4 counts in the CCR5wt/wt individual reached a nadir of <20 CD4 cells/mm(3) within 17 months but remained >250 cells/mm(3) in the CCR5∆32/∆32 individual. Ancestral phylogenetic reconstructions using longitudinal envelope-V3 deep sequences suggested that both individuals were infected by a single transmitted/founder (T/F) X4 virus that differed at only one V3 site (codon 24). While substantial within-host HIV-1 V3 diversification was observed in plasma and PBMC in both individuals, the CCR5wt/wt individual's HIV-1 population gradually reverted from 100% X4 to ~60% R5 over ~4 years whereas the CCR5∆32/∆32 individual's remained consistently X4. Our observations illuminate early dynamics of X4 HIV-1 infections and underscore the influence of CCR5 genotype on HIV-1 V3 evolution.
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 | 0.001 | 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".