Vidisha Singh1, Amir Dashti1, Maud Mavigner1,2, Ann Chahroudi3,4,5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Center for Childhood Infections and Vaccines of Children's Healthcare of Atlanta and Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. ann.m.chahroudi@emory.edu. 4. Center for Childhood Infections and Vaccines of Children's Healthcare of Atlanta and Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. ann.m.chahroudi@emory.edu. 5. Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA. ann.m.chahroudi@emory.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: For most people living with HIV (PLWH), treatment with effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) results in suppression of viremia below the limit of detection of clinical assays, immune reconstitution, reduced immune activation, avoidance of opportunistic infections, and progression to AIDS. However, ART alone is not curative, and HIV persists in a non-replicating, latent form. In this review, we provide a historical perspective on non-specific latency reversal approaches (LRA 1.0) and summarize recent advances in latency reversal strategies that target specific signaling pathways within CD4+ T cells or other immune cells to induce expression of latent HIV (immune-based latency reversal, or LRA 2.0). RECENT FINDINGS: The HIV reservoir is primarily composed of latently infected CD4+ T cells carrying integrated, replication-competent provirus that can give rise to rebound viremia if ART is stopped. Myeloid lineage cells also contribute to HIV latency in certain tissues; we focus here on CD4+ T cells as a sufficient body of evidence regarding latency reversal in myeloid cells is lacking. The immunomodulatory LRA 2.0 approaches we describe include pattern recognition receptor agonists, immune checkpoint inhibitors, non-canonical NF-kB stimulation, and transient CD8+ lymphocyte depletion, along with promising combination strategies. We highlight recent studies demonstrating robust latency reversal in nonhuman primate models. While significant strides have been made in terms of virus reactivation from latency, initial hopes for latency reversal alone to result in a reduction of infected cells, through viral cytopathic effect or an unboosted immune system, have not been realized and it seems clear that even effective latency reversal strategies will need to be paired with an approach that facilitates immune recognition and clearance of cells containing reactivated virus.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: For most people living with HIV (PLWH), treatment with effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) results in suppression of viremia below the limit of detection of clinical assays, immune reconstitution, reduced immune activation, avoidance of opportunistic infections, and progression to AIDS. However, ART alone is not curative, and HIV persists in a non-replicating, latent form. In this review, we provide a historical perspective on non-specific latency reversal approaches (LRA 1.0) and summarize recent advances in latency reversal strategies that target specific signaling pathways within CD4+ T cells or other immune cells to induce expression of latent HIV (immune-based latency reversal, or LRA 2.0). RECENT FINDINGS: The HIV reservoir is primarily composed of latently infectedCD4+ T cells carrying integrated, replication-competent provirus that can give rise to rebound viremia if ART is stopped. Myeloid lineage cells also contribute to HIV latency in certain tissues; we focus here on CD4+ T cells as a sufficient body of evidence regarding latency reversal in myeloid cells is lacking. The immunomodulatory LRA 2.0 approaches we describe include pattern recognition receptor agonists, immune checkpoint inhibitors, non-canonical NF-kB stimulation, and transient CD8+ lymphocyte depletion, along with promising combination strategies. We highlight recent studies demonstrating robust latency reversal in nonhuman primate models. While significant strides have been made in terms of virus reactivation from latency, initial hopes for latency reversal alone to result in a reduction of infected cells, through viral cytopathic effect or an unboosted immune system, have not been realized and it seems clear that even effective latency reversal strategies will need to be paired with an approach that facilitates immune recognition and clearance of cells containing reactivated virus.
Authors: Nancy M Archin; Rosalie Bateson; Manoj K Tripathy; Amanda M Crooks; Kuo-Hsiung Yang; Noelle P Dahl; Mary F Kearney; Elizabeth M Anderson; John M Coffin; Matthew C Strain; Douglas D Richman; Kevin R Robertson; Angela D Kashuba; Ronald J Bosch; Daria J Hazuda; Joann D Kuruc; Joseph J Eron; David M Margolis Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: R M van Praag; J M Prins; M T Roos; P T Schellekens; I J Ten Berge; S L Yong; H Schuitemaker; A J Eerenberg; S Jurriaans; F de Wolf; C H Fox; J Goudsmit; F Miedema; J M Lange Journal: J Clin Immunol Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 8.317
Authors: Thomas A Rasmussen; Martin Tolstrup; Christel R Brinkmann; Rikke Olesen; Christian Erikstrup; Ajantha Solomon; Anni Winckelmann; Sarah Palmer; Charles Dinarello; Maria Buzon; Mathias Lichterfeld; Sharon R Lewin; Lars Østergaard; Ole S Søgaard Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 12.767
Authors: Carolina Gutiérrez; Sergio Serrano-Villar; Nadia Madrid-Elena; Maria J Pérez-Elías; Maria Elena Martín; Coral Barbas; Javier Ruipérez; Eduardo Muñoz; Maria Angeles Muñoz-Fernández; Trevor Castor; Santiago Moreno Journal: AIDS Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Alessia Bertoldi; Vanessa D'Urbano; Isabella Bon; Annelies Verbon; Casper Rokx; Charles Boucher; Jeroen J A van Kampen; Rob A Gruters; Giorgio Gallinella; Leonardo Calza; Tokameh Mahmoudi; Elisa De Crignis; Maria Carla Re Journal: J Virol Methods Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 2.014
Authors: Maud Mavigner; Laura E Liao; Alyssa D Brooks; Ruian Ke; Cameron Mattingly; Nils Schoof; Julia McBrien; Diane Carnathan; Shan Liang; Thomas H Vanderford; Mirko Paiardini; Deanna Kulpa; Jeffrey D Lifson; Richard M Dunham; Kirk A Easley; David M Margolis; Alan S Perelson; Guido Silvestri; Ann Chahroudi Journal: J Virol Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: C Korin Bullen; Gregory M Laird; Christine M Durand; Janet D Siliciano; Robert F Siliciano Journal: Nat Med Date: 2014-03-23 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Miranda Li; Alyssa Brokaw; Anna M Furuta; Brahm Coler; Veronica Obregon-Perko; Ann Chahroudi; Hsuan-Yuan Wang; Sallie R Permar; Charlotte E Hotchkiss; Thaddeus G Golos; Lakshmi Rajagopal; Kristina M Adams Waldorf Journal: Front Genet Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 4.599