MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283732759 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2200260119

Human endogenous retrovirus-K (HERV-K) reverse transcriptase (RT) structure and biochemistry reveals remarkable similarities to HIV-1 RT and opportunities for HERV-K–specific inhibition

2022· article· en· W4283732759 on OpenAlexaff
Eric T. Baldwin, Matthias Götte, Egor P. Tchesnokov, Eddy Arnold, Margit Hagel, Charles E. Nichols, Pam Dossang, Marieke Lamers, Paul Wan, Stefan Steinbacher, Donna L. Romero

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReverse transcriptaseEndogenous retrovirusRetrovirusBiologyEnzymeVirologyGenomeGeneticsGermlineGeneRNABiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) comprise nearly 8% of the human genome and are derived from ancient integrations of retroviruses into the germline. The biology of HERVs is poorly defined, but there is accumulating evidence supporting pathological roles in diverse diseases, such as cancer, autoimmune, and neurodegenerative diseases. Functional proteins are produced by HERV-encoded genes, including reverse transcriptases (RTs), which could be a contributor to the pathology attributed to aberrant HERV-K expression. To facilitate the discovery and development of HERV-K RT potent and selective inhibitors, we expressed active HERV-K RT and determined the crystal structure of a ternary complex of this enzyme with a double-stranded DNA substrate. We demonstrate a range of RT inhibition with antiretroviral nucleotide analogs, while classic nonnucleoside analogs do not inhibit HERV-K RT. Detailed comparisons of HERV-K RT with other known RTs demonstrate similarities to diverse RT families and a striking similarity to the HIV-1 RT asymmetric heterodimer. Our analysis further reveals opportunities for selective HERV-K RT inhibition.

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)0.000
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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207