TABLE 1.

Effects of inactivating vif on intracellular reverse transcription^a

Producer cell lineb	Target cellb	Effect(s) of vif inactivation on DNA synthesis	Reference
CEM-SS	C8166 (multiple cycles)	No effect	219
MT4	P4 (one cycle)	No effect	20
CEM-SS	C8166	No effect	214
SupT1 or Jurkat	H9	No effect during the first 24 h	234
CEM-SS	MT2 or H9 (multiple cycles)	Lower level of DNA that remained constant between 10 h and 10 days	219
CEMc	PBMCs	No effect (4 to 30 h)	42
CEMx174	P4 (one cycle)	No DNA synthesis	20
H9	C8166	Synthesis of minus-strand and plus-strand DNA normal up to 8 h; degradation at longer time points; no integration	214
H9	C8166	Synthesis of minus-strand and plus-strand DNA normal up to 24 h; degradation at 48 h	55
H9	Jurkat	Strong inhibition except for minus-strand strong-stop DNA	55
CEM	H9	Very little synthesis; no final product	234
PBMCs	PBMCs	No DNA synthesis	42
Different chronically infected H9 clones with different levels of restrictiond		Strong global defect in DNA synthesis correlated with loss of infectivity	163

^aVirions produced by permissive or nonpermissive cells were used to infect either permissive or nonpermissive target cells, and reverse transcription of vif⁺ and Δvif viruses in the target cells was compared.

^bPermissive and nonpermissive cells are indicated in boldface type and with underlining, respectively.

^cEven though CEM cells are usually considered nonpermissive for HIV-1 Δvif replication, the cells used by those authors did support the replication of HIV-1 Δvif and were classified by these authors as being semipermissive (42).

^dThose authors compared DNA synthesis by isogenic HIV-1 Vif⁻ mutants produced by different chronically infected H9 clones, which exhibit different degrees of impairment in their replicative capacity (163).