Ex vivo HIV entry into blood CD4+ T cells does not predict heterosexual HIV acquisition in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A blood-based assay that could quantify HIV susceptibility would be very valuable for HIV prevention research. Previously, we developed and validated an ex vivo, flow-based, HIV entry assay to assess genital HIV susceptibility in endocervical CD4+ T cells. METHODS: Here we assessed whether this tool could be used to predict HIV risk using blood-derived CD4+ T cells in a rigorously-blinded, nested case-control study using blood samples collected from high-risk, HIV-uninfected South African women enrolled in the CAPRISA 004 clinical trial. Cases, subsequently acquiring HIV were sampled prior to HIV infection and compared with controls, who remained HIV-uninfected. The primary endpoint was ex vivo entry of a CCR5-tropic HIV founder virus into blood CD4+ T cells. Secondary endpoints included HIV entry into CD4+ central (TCM) and effector (TEM) memory T cells, and into CD4+ T cell subsets expressing CCR5, CD69, CCR6, α4β1 or α4β7. RESULTS: Compared to bulk CD4+ T cells (4.9% virus entry), CD4+ T cells expressing CCR5, CCR6 or α4β1 and TEM were highly susceptible (15.5%, 8.8%, 8.2% and 10.8% entry, respectively, all p<0.0001), while TCM, CD69+ or α4β7+ CD4+ cells were moderately susceptible (6.4%, 6.0% and 5.8% respectively, p ≤ 0.003). While the proportion of the aforementioned highly susceptible cells correlated with overall virus entry into CD4+ T cells within an individual (r = 0.68, 0.47, 0.67, and 0.60 respectively, p<0.0001), blood virus entry did not predict subsequent mucosal HIV acquisition after controlling for sexual behaviour and condom use (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77-1.11, p = 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: Although virus entry identified several previously known highly susceptible cellular HIV targets, blood HIV entry did not predict subsequent heterosexual HIV acquisition. Assessment of mucosal HIV susceptibility may require sampling at the site of HIV exposure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".