4.8 Article

Persistence of episomal HIV-1 infection intermediates in patients on highly active anti-retroviral therapy

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 76-81

出版社

NATURE AMERICA INC
DOI: 10.1038/71569

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [R01RR011589] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI032391] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NCRR NIH HHS [R01 RR011589, RR11589] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NHLBI NIH HHS [HLS7880, R01 HL057880] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NIAID NIH HHS [T32 AI007272, R01 AI032890, U01 AI032907, AI 32391, R01 AI032391, R01 AI049152] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment of HIV-1-infected individuals with a combination of anti-retroviral agents results in sustained suppression of HIV-1 replication, as evidenced by a reduction in plasma viral RNA to levels below the limit of detection of available assays(1,2). However, even in patients whose plasma viral RNA levels have been suppressed to below detectable levels for up to 30 months, replication-competent virus can routinely be recovered from patient peripheral blood mononuclear cells(3,4) and from semen(5). A reservoir of latently infected cells established early in infection(6) may be involved in the maintenance of viral persistence despite highly active anti-retroviral therapy(.)(3-5) However, whether virus replication persists in such patients is unknown. HIV-1 cDNA episomes are labile products of virus infection and indicative of recent infection events. Using episome-specific PCR, we demonstrate here ongoing virus replication in a large percentage of infected individuals on highly active anti-retroviral therapy, despite sustained undetectable levels of plasma viral RNA. The presence of a reservoir of 'covert' virus replication in patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy has important implications for the clinical management of HIV-1-infected individuals and for the development of virus eradication strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据