The M184I/V and K65R nucleoside resistance mutations in HIV-1 prevent the emergence of resistance mutations against dolutegravir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recommended treatments for newly diagnosed HIV-positive individuals now focus on the integrase strand transfer inhibitors, raltegravir (RAL), elvitegravir (EVG) and dolutegravir (DTG). In treatment-naive individuals, cases of RAL-based and EVG-based virological failure, although rare, are associated with the occurrence of resistance mutations in integrase and/or reverse transcriptase coding sequences. In such cases, common resistance substitutions in reverse transcriptase that were associated with nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors included M184I/V and K65R and these occurred together with various mutations in integrase. In some instances, these mutations in reverse transcriptase preceded the emergence of mutations in integrase. In contrast, no resistance substitutions in either integrase or reverse transcriptase have been observed to date in viruses isolated from treatment-naive individuals who experienced treatment failure with DTG-based regimens. DESIGN: The objective of this study was to determine the effects of the M184I/V and K65R substitutions in reverse transcriptase on the ability of HIV-1 to become resistant against RAL, EVG or DTG. METHODS: We performed tissue culture selection experiments using reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistant viruses containing resistance substitutions at positions K65R, M184I or M184V in the presence of increasing concentrations of RAL, EVG or DTG and monitored changes in integrase sequences by genotyping. RESULTS: Selections using EVG and RAL led to the emergence of resistance mutations in integrase. In contrast, only the wild-type virus was able to acquire resistance mutations for DTG. CONCLUSION: Resistance mutations against nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors antagonized the development of HIV-1 resistance against DTG but not RAL or EVG.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".