MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408649059 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.17.25324117

Single genome amplification and molecular cloning of HIV-1 populations in acute HIV-1 infection: implications for studies on HIV-1 diversity and evolutionary rate

2025· preprint· en· W4408649059 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anthony Y.Y. Hsieh, Amin S. Hassan, Jamirah Nazziwa, Sara Karlson, Lovisa Lindquist, Jonathan Hare, Anatoli Kamali, Etienne Karita, William Kilembe, Matt A. Price, Per Björkman, Pontiano Kaleebu, Susan Allen, Eric Hunter, Jill Gilmour, Sarah L. Rowland-Jones, Eduard J. Sanders, Joakim Esbjörnsson

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNew Partnership for Africa's DevelopmentChinese Academy of Medical SciencesAlliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in AfricaAfrican Academy of SciencesSkånes universitetssjukhusKarolinska InstitutetGovernment of the United KingdomSvenska Sällskapet för Medicinsk ForskningWellcome TrustVetenskapsrådetInternational AIDS Vaccine InitiativeNational Institutes of HealthUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)GenomeBiologyCloning (programming)VirologyDiversity (politics)GeneticsComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyGeneSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is one of the fastest evolving human pathogens. Understanding transmission, within-host adaptation, and evolutionary dynamics are pivotal for development of interventions and vaccines. HIV-1 infection is generally caused by one single transmitted founder virus (TFV), and TFV sequences have typically been obtained using single genome amplification (SGA). However, suboptimal sample quality can result in sequencing failures, representing non-trivial losses considering the scarcity of acute HIV-1 infection (AHI) samples. Sequencing failures may be mitigated by molecular cloning (MC), a method that can be less vulnerable to sample quality but more susceptible to PCR errors. Here, we explore the feasibility of supplementing SGA with MC data using samples from clinical and research cohorts to determine whether sequence diversity and evolutionary rate estimates are comparable between the two techniques. Methods Participants were enrolled in an East African research cohort from the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative 2006-2011 or a clinical cohort from Sweden (1983-2011). SGA and MC sequencing were done on the HIV-1 env V1-V3 region (approximately 940 base pairs). Within-host sequence diversity was determined from maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees and evolutionary rate by Bayesian phylogenetic analysis. Highlighter and Poisson-Fitter tools, Hamming distances, and assessment of star phylogenies were used to quantify TFVs. Results Participants with AHI (N=100, median age 30.3 years, 15% female) were included, contributing 350 samples from four longitudinal time points 10-540 days post infection. SGA succeeded on 90% of research cohort and 48% of clinical cohort samples. Comparative analysis of linked SGA and MC data from 10 samples indicated that approximately eight sequences were necessary for diversity estimates. Consistently higher sequence diversity was observed among MC relative to SGA sequences (mean±SD 0.009±0.007 and 0.006±0.006 substitutions/site, p<0.001), whereas evolutionary rates were similar between the two methods (mean±SD 0.014±0.006 vs. 0.014±0.009 substitutions/site/year, p=0.673). Five participants with visits within 45 days post infection were eligible for TFV quantification and all found to have one TFV using both MC and SGA data. Conclusion MC data is a suitable supplement for SGA-based studies to preserve the value of precious samples for evolutionary rate but not sequence diversity analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicHIV Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→