MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512219735 · doi:10.3791/54486

Evaluation of the Efficacy And Toxicity of RNAs Targeting HIV-1 Production for Use in Gene or Drug Therapy

2016· article· en· W2512219735 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert J. Scarborough, Kelsey Adams, Olivier Del Corpo, Aı̈cha Daher, Anne Gatignol

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRibozymeBiologySmall interfering RNARNA interferenceRNADNA-directed RNA interferenceComputational biologyGenetic enhancementViral replicationSmall nucleolar RNASmall hairpin RNAGeneLong non-coding RNAVirologyVirusGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small RNA therapies targeting post-integration steps in the HIV-1 replication cycle are among the top candidates for gene therapy and have the potential to be used as drug therapies for HIV-1 infection. Post-integration inhibitors include ribozymes, short hairpin (sh) RNAs, small interfering (si) RNAs, U1 interference (U1i) RNAs and RNA aptamers. Many of these have been identified using transient co-transfection assays with an HIV-1 expression plasmid and some have advanced to clinical trials. In addition to measures of efficacy, small RNAs have been evaluated for their potential to affect the expression of human RNAs, alter cell growth and/or differentiation, and elicit innate immune responses. In the protocols described here, a set of transient transfection assays designed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of RNA molecules targeting post-integration steps in the HIV-1 replication cycle are described. We have used these assays to identify new ribozymes and optimize the format of shRNAs and siRNAs targeting HIV-1 RNA. The methods provide a quick set of assays that are useful for screening new anti-HIV-1 RNAs and could be adapted to screen other post-integration inhibitors of HIV-1 replication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207