Mucosa: Key Interactions Determining Sexual Transmission of the HIV Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of HIV sexual transmission at the genital mucosa, initial interactions between the virus and the mucosal immunity determine the outcome of the exposure. Hence, these interactions have been deeply explored in attempts to undercover potential targets for developing preventative strategies. The knowledge gained has led to propose a hypothetical model for mucosal HIV transmission. Subsequent research studies on this topic further revealed new mechanisms and identified new host-HIV interactions. This review aims at integrating these findings to inform better and update the current model of HIV transmission. At the earliest stage of virus exposure, the epithelial integrity and the presence of antiviral factors are critical in preventing viral entry to the submucosa. However, the virus has been shown to enter to the submucosa in the presence of physical abrasion or via epithelial transmigration using paracellular passage or transcytosis mechanisms. The efficiency of these processes is greater with cell-associated viral inoculums and can be influenced by the presence of viral and immune factors, and by the structure of the exposed epithelium. Once the virus reaches the submucosa, dendritic cells and fibroblasts, as recently described, have been shown in vitro of being capable of facilitating the transfer of viral particles to susceptible cells, leading to viral dissemination, most likely in a trans-infection manner. The presence of activated CD4+ T cells in submucosa increases the probability of infection, where the predominant microbiota could be implicated through the modulation of an inflammatory microenvironment. Other factors such as genital fluids and hormones could also play an essential role in HIV transmission. Here, we review the most recent evidence described for mucosal HIV-transmission contributing with the understanding of this phenomenon.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".