ArticleJournal of virology2003
Contrasting use of CCR5 structural determinants by R5 and R5X4 variants within a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 primary isolate quasispecies.
Article in Journal of virology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alternative coreceptor requirements for efficient CCR5- and CXCR4-mediated HIV-1 entry into macrophages.Journal of virology · 2011Article
- Article
- Evolution of CCR5 use before and during coreceptor switching.Journal of virology · 2008Article
- Preferential use of CXCR4 by R5X4 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates for infection of primary lymphocytes.Journal of virology · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Macrophagetropic R5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) isolates often evolve into dualtropic R5X4 variants during disease progression. The structural basis for CCR5 coreceptor function has been studied in a limited number of prototype strains and suggests that R5 and R5X4 Envs interact differently with CCR5. However, differences between unrelated viruses may reflect strain-specific factors and do not necessarily represent changes resulting from R5 to R5X4 evolution of a virus in vivo. Here we addressed CCR5 domains involved in fusion for a large set of closely related yet functionally distinct variants within a primary isolate swarm, employing R5 and R5X4 Envs derived from the HIV-1 89.6(PI) quasispecies. R5 variants of 89.6(PI) could fuse using either N-terminal or extracellular loop CCR5 sequences in the context of CCR5/CXCR2 chimeras, similar to the unrelated R5 strain JRFL, but R5X4 variants of 89.6(PI) were highly dependent on the CCR5 N terminus. Similarly, R5 89.6(PI) variants and isolate JRFL tolerated N-terminal CCR5 deletions, but fusion by most R5X4 variants was markedly impaired. R5 89.6(PI) Envs also tolerated multiple extracellular domain substitutions, while R5X4 variants did not. In contrast to CCR5 use, fusion by R5X4 variants of 89.6(PI) was largely independent of the CXCR4 N-terminal region. Thus, R5 and R5X4 species from a single swarm differ in how they interact with CCR5. These results suggest that R5 Envs possess a highly plastic capacity to interact with multiple CCR5 regions and support the concept that viral evolution in vivo results from the emergence of R5X4 variants with the capacity to use the CXCR4 extracellular loops but demonstrate less-flexible interactions with CCR5 that are strongly dependent on the N-terminal region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.