Selective BCL-X <sub>L</sub> Antagonists Eliminate Infected Cells from a Primary Cell Model of HIV Latency but not from <i>Ex Vivo</i> Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract HIV persists, despite antiviral immune responses and effective antiretroviral therapy, in viral reservoirs that seed rebound viremia if therapy is interrupted. Previously, we showed that the BCL-2 protein contributes to HIV persistence by conferring a survival advantage to reservoir-harboring cells. Here, we demonstrate that many of the BCL-2 family members are overexpressed in HIV-infected CD4 + T-cells, indicating increased tension between pro-apoptotic and pro-survival family members – as well as raising the possibility that the inhibition of pro-survival members may disproportionately affect the survival of HIV-infected cells. Based on these results, we chose to further study BCL2L1 (encoding the protein BCL-X L ), due to its consistent overexpression and the availability of selective antagonists. Infection of primary CD4 + T-cells with either a clinical isolate, a CCR5-tropic strain, or a CXCR4-tropic strain of HIV resulted in increased BCL-X L protein expression; and treatment with two selective BCL-X L antagonists, A-1155463 and A-1551852, led to disproportionate cell death compared to uninfected CD4 + T-cells. In a primary cell model of latency, both BCL-X L antagonists drove significant reductions in total HIV DNA and in infectious cell frequencies both alone and in combination with the latency reversing agent bryostatin-1, with little off-target cytotoxicity. However, these antagonists, with or without bryostatin-1, or in combination with the highly potent latency reversing agent combination PMA + ionomycin, failed to reduce total HIV DNA and infectious reservoirs in ex vivo CD4 + T-cells from ART-suppressed donors. Our results add to growing evidence that bonafide reservoir-harboring cells are resistant to multiple “kick and kill” modalities - relative to latency models - and uncover BCL-X L antagonists as a facile approach to probing mechanistic underpinnings. We also interpret our results as encouraging of further exploration of BCL-X L antagonists for cure, where combination approaches may unlock the ability to eliminate ex vivo reservoirs.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".