The dolutegravir R263K resistance mutation in HIV-1 integrase is incompatible with the emergence of resistance against raltegravir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG) has demonstrated greater resilience than other antiretroviral drugs at withstanding the emergence of HIV-1 resistance mutations, such substitutions can develop, albeit rarely, in treatment-experienced integrase inhibitor-naïve individuals. The most common substitution in integrase under those circumstances is R263K whereas another substitution that was selected against DTG in tissue culture was G118R. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of these DTG-specific resistance substitutions on the ability of HIV-1 to become resistant against either of two other integrase inhibitors, raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir (EVG). DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed tissue culture selection experiments using DTG-resistant viruses containing integrase substitutions at positions R263K, H51Y/R263K, E138K/R263K, G118R and H51Y/G118R in the presence of increasing concentrations of either RAL or EVG. Changes in integrase sequences were monitored by genotyping. RESULTS: The presence of the R263K substitution delayed the emergence of resistance against RAL whereas the simultaneous presence of either the H51Y or E138K secondary substitutions in combination with R263K somewhat mitigated this inhibitory effect. In contrast, resistance against EVG appeared earlier than in wild-type virus in viruses containing the R263K and E138K/R263K DTG-associated resistance substitutions. CONCLUSION: The DTG-resistant R263K substitution antagonized the development of HIV-1 resistance against RAL while partially facilitating the occurrence of resistance against 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".