HIV influences clustering and intracellular replication of hepatitis C virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract HCV and HIV coinfection is common and HIV leads to increased HCV viraemia and accelerated disease progression. However, the biological basis of this interaction remains poorly understood and little is known about the impact of HIV on HCV replication at the cellular level. We analysed HCV RNA, based on single‐cell laser‐capture microdissection, in liver biopsies from monoinfected (n = 4) and HCV/HIV‐coinfected (n = 5) participants. HCV RNA was assayed in 3200 hepatocytes with information of spatial position. We compared HCV RNA levels and clustering properties of infection between mono‐ and coinfected participants, and developed a mathematical model of infection. Although the median plasma HCV RNA level and the fraction of infected cells were comparable in monoinfected (7.0 log10IU/mL and ~ 30%) and coinfected (7.3 log10IU/mL and ~ 40%) participants, the median HCV RNA per infected hepatocyte in monoinfected (2.8IU) was significantly lower than in coinfected (8.2IU) participants (p = .03). Clustering of infected cells was more prominent in monoinfected participants (91% of samples) than in coinfected participants (~48%), p = .0045, suggesting that spatial spread may be influenced by HIV coinfection. Interestingly, when clustering does occur, the size of clusters is similar in both types of infection. A mathematical model of infection suggested that HIV allows higher intracellular accumulation of HCV RNA by impeding the export of HCV RNA. Our observations show that HIV coinfection impacts intracellular accumulation of HCV RNA and the clustering of HCV‐infected cells, but to a less extent the fraction of HCV‐infected cells.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".