4.8 Article

A quantitative approach for measuring the reservoir of latent HIV-1 proviruses

Journal

NATURE
Volume 566, Issue 7742, Pages 120-+

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-0898-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [UM1 AI126603, UM1 AI126620, UM1 AI12661, 43222, U01-AI-35042, UL1-RR025005]
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1115715]
  4. NIH SBIR [R43AI124996, R44AI124996]
  5. NSF [1621633, 1738428]
  6. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh
  7. Directorate For Engineering [1738428] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Div Of Industrial Innovation & Partnersh
  9. Directorate For Engineering [1621633] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A stable latent reservoir for HIV-1 in resting CD4(+) T cells is the principal barrier to a cure(1-3). Curative strategies that target the reservoir are being tested(4,5) and require accurate, scalable reservoir assays. The reservoir was defined with quantitative viral outgrowth assays for cells that release infectious virus after one round of T cell activation(1). However, these quantitative outgrowth assays and newer assays for cells that produce viral RNA after activation(6) may underestimate the reservoir size because one round of activation does not induce all proviruses(7). Many studies rely on simple assays based on polymerase chain reaction to detect proviral DNA regardless of transcriptional status, but the clinical relevance of these assays is unclear, as the vast majority of proviruses are defective(7-9). Here we describe a more accurate method of measuring the HIV-1 reservoir that separately quantifies intact and defective proviruses. We show that the dynamics of cells that carry intact and defective proviruses are different in vitro and in vivo. These findings have implications for targeting the intact proviruses that are a barrier to curing HIV infection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available