Hugo Vigerelli1, Juliana M Sciani1,2, Patricia M C Pereira1, Aline A Lavezo3, Andrea C R Silva4, Rita C O Collaço5, Thalita Rocha2, Thais C Bueno2, Daniel C Pimenta1. 1. Laboratory of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Butantan Institute, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 2. Multidisciplinary Research Laboratory, São Francisco University, Bragança Paulista, SP, Brazil. 3. Laboratory of Biological Quality Control in vivo, Butantan Institute, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 4. Laboratory of Rabies Diagnostic, Serology, Pasteur Institute, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Department of Pharmacology, State University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Between 40,000-70,000 people die yearly of rabies, an incurable disease. Besides post-bite vaccination, no treatment is available for it. METHODS: First, virus dilution for antiviral effects in mice was determined. Then, animals were treated as follows: control (NaCl 250 µL/animal/day); bufotenine (0.63, 1.05 and 2.1 mg in 250 µL of NaCl/animal/day); rabies (10-6,82CVS dilution); and test (10-6,82 CVS dilution and bufotenine, in the above-mentioned doses). Animals were observed daily for 21 days or until the 3rd stage of rabies infection. Twitch-tension and liposome studies were applied to understand the possible interaction of bufotenine with receptors, particularly acetylcholine. RESULTS: Bufotenine was able to increase the survival rate of intracerebrally virus-infected mice from 15 to 40%. Bufotenine did not seem to interfere with the acetylcholine response in the skeletal muscle, indicating that its mechanism of action is not blocking the virus entrance due to nAChR antagonism. By analyzing liposomes, we could observe that bufotenine did not passively penetrates cell membranes, indicating the necessity of complementary structures to cell penetration. CONCLUSIONS: Bufotenine is a promising candidate for drug development. After further chemical modification, it might be possible to dissociate minor side effects, increase efficiency, efficacy and pharmacokinetics, yielding a true anti-rabies drug.
BACKGROUND: Between 40,000-70,000 people die yearly of rabies, an incurable disease. Besides post-bite vaccination, no treatment is available for it. METHODS: First, virus dilution for antiviral effects in mice was determined. Then, animals were treated as follows: control (NaCl 250 µL/animal/day); bufotenine (0.63, 1.05 and 2.1 mg in 250 µL of NaCl/animal/day); rabies (10-6,82CVS dilution); and test (10-6,82 CVS dilution and bufotenine, in the above-mentioned doses). Animals were observed daily for 21 days or until the 3rd stage of rabies infection. Twitch-tension and liposome studies were applied to understand the possible interaction of bufotenine with receptors, particularly acetylcholine. RESULTS: Bufotenine was able to increase the survival rate of intracerebrally virus-infected mice from 15 to 40%. Bufotenine did not seem to interfere with the acetylcholine response in the skeletal muscle, indicating that its mechanism of action is not blocking the virus entrance due to nAChR antagonism. By analyzing liposomes, we could observe that bufotenine did not passively penetrates cell membranes, indicating the necessity of complementary structures to cell penetration. CONCLUSIONS: Bufotenine is a promising candidate for drug development. After further chemical modification, it might be possible to dissociate minor side effects, increase efficiency, efficacy and pharmacokinetics, yielding a true anti-rabies drug.
Rabies is a disease that occurs in more than 150 countries, where 3 billion people
are exposed to infection and 40,000-70,000 people die every year [1-3]. It
is a 100% vaccine-preventable disease and in over 99% of the cases, the virus is
transmitted to humans by domestic dogs [1].
The WHO fact-sheet on rabies states that “Globally, rabies deaths are rarely
reported and children between the ages of 5-14 years are frequent victims. Treating
a rabies exposure, where the average cost of rabies post-exposure prophylaxis is US$
40 in Africa, and US$ 49 in Asia, can be a catastrophic financial burden on affected
families whose average daily income is around US$ 1-2 per person”.There are only ten reported cases of rabies cure in the literature that do not lack
scientific evidence, and only three of them had completely recovered or suffered
mild sequelae [4-14]. There is constant research on new, more effective and less
expensive agents displaying potential antiviral activities on rabies [15-17].
However, in spite of the knowledge gathered on aspects of the disease and the host
immune response, no antiviral compound with reproducible activity in animal models
for rabies has been found [18].Taking this into account, we have performed the bio-monitored screening of the
amphibian skin secretion targeting anti-rabies molecules, based on that one possible
mechanism of the virus penetration in mammal cells is via the nicotinic
acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) [19], and some
amphibians secrete a myriad of alkaloids in their skin, which would bind these
receptors [20]. We have successfully
described that bufotenine inhibits rabies virus infection in mammalian cells in a
dose and time-dependent manner [21].
Moreover, bufotenine acted synergistically with a synthetic tetrapeptide derived
from the natural ocellatin-F1 [22], similar
to the rabies virus glycoprotein region associated with the viral cell penetration
[23]. As bufotenine’s actual mechanism of
action is still under investigation, the safety of the chronic administration on
mice was assessed [24]. Here, behavioral and
biological aspects were observed, in order to study the bufotenine as a possible
interfering agent in the process of rabies virus infection in
vivo.
Methods
Ethics statement
All in vivo experiments were approved by the Ethics Committee on
Animal Use of the Butantan Institute (CEUAIB - 9532050216).
Reagents
All reagents were of analytical grade and were purchased from Sigma Aldrich
(USA), unless otherwise stated.
Bufotenine
Anadenanthera colubrina seeds were obtained from the legitimate
supplier Arbocenter Comércio de Sementes Ltda, Birigui, São Paulo, Brazil (batch
0019). Bufotenine was purified as previously described [21].
Mice, cells and viruses
Swiss mice (Mus musculus), both male and female (21 g) were
employed in antiviral experiments and male mice (30 g), in the twitch-tension
studies. Animals were housed (3-6 per cage), at room temperature (22 ±
2oC) and 12:12 h light:dark cycle, with free access to food and
water.Mouse neuroblastoma (N2A) cell line (ATCC® CCL) were cultured in MEM-10 medium,
with Earle’s balanced salts and supplementation of essential amino acids, at
37oC, in a humidified 5% CO2 atmosphere, until the
formation of the cell monolayer.Three strains of street rabies viruses circulating in Brazil were isolated from
central nervous system samples of naturally infected animals (a dog, the
insectivorous bat Eptesicus furinalis and a bovine that was
infected by the hematophagous bat Desmodus rotundus) positively
diagnosed for such strains through genome sequencing performed in the Virology
Laboratory, Pasteur Institute, São Paulo, Brazil [25]. Rabies virus challenge virus standard
(CVS/31 batch 31/3#2/IB-6) were also used to determine the antiviral
activity.
Cytotoxicity of bufotenine in N2A cells
The cytotoxicity evaluation of bufotenine was performed by the MTT
[3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide] method, according
to Takeuchi et al. [26] and Mosmann
[27], with slight modifications.
Briefly, N2A cells (5 × 105 cells/well) were deposited in 96-well
microtiter plates and incubated with 50 μL (constant volume) of different
bufotenine concentrations (from 1 to 8 mg/mL) diluted in MEM-10. Negative
control was MEM-10. After 96 hours at 37oC, under a humidified 5%
CO2 atmosphere, the medium was removed and 50 μL 1
mg.mL-1 MTT, in MEM-10, was added, following a four-hour
incubation period. Next, the MTT solution was removed and 100 μL dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO) was added to each well. After gentle shaking of the plates, the
absorbance was measured (Molecular Devices®, SpectraMax M2) at 540 nm. The
cytotoxic concentration (CC50) value was defined as bufotenine
concentration able to reduce the MTT assay absorbance of treated cells by 50%,
when compared to the control, untreated cells.
N2A cells fluorescence inhibition test
This test was performed according to a previous study [28], with modifications. Briefly, different rabies virus
strains suspensions were deposited on 96-well microtiter plates that were kept
on ice bath during sample preparation. Then, 110 µL MEM-10 and 50 µL bufotenine
(1.5 or 0.75 mg/mL) were added. Samples were homogenized and, following removal
from ice, 100 µL of N2A cells (5 x 105) were added. After a 96-hour
incubation period at 37oC, under a humidified 5% CO2
atmosphere, the supernatants were collected for subsequent virus titration.
Microplates were returned to ice. Cells were fixed with cold 80% acetone
addition. After 15 minutes, the microplates were emptied by inversion and dried
at 37oC [29, 30].Viral presence in the cultured was immunologically evaluated - 40 µL of an
optimal dilution antirabies fluorescent conjugate was incubated for 1h [31]. Later, the plates were washed with PBS
and viewed under fluorescence microscopy (Leica DMIL, 100x magnification).
Infection inhibition was determined according to the fluorescence intensity
displayed by the cell monolayer, in comparison to the negative control (no
bufotenine). The supernatant virus titers were determined by plate assay [29, 30] adapted to N2A cells and expressed as-log TCID 50/mL, using the
Spearman-Karber analysis.
In vivo experiments
The in vivo experiments, according to the WHO procedures for
rabies (observation of infected animals for 21 consecutive days and monitoring
of symptoms development and survival rate) [32] were divided into two cycles; and each and all experimental
groups contained ten animals. Cycle 1 was necessary to establish the best virus
dilution to evaluate antiviral effects. It consisted of the following
treatments:control group: subcutaneous (SC) inoculation of NaCl 0.9 %, 250
µL/animal/day;bufotenine group: SC inoculation of 0.63 mg bufotenine, in 250 µL
NaCl/animal/day;rabies group: (intracerebral inoculation route) for four dilutions of
the CVS virus - 10-5.32 (corresponding to the challenge
dose of approximately 30LD50), 10-6.32
(corresponding to 3LD50), 10-6.82
(corresponding to 1.35LD50) and 10-7.32
(corresponding to 0.3LD50);bufotenine-treated group: mice inoculated with the same four
dilutions of the CVS virus and treated with bufotenine (0.63 mg/250
µL NaCl).Cycle 2, on the other hand, was necessary to establish the best bufotenine dose
to evaluate the antiviral effects. It consisted of the following treatments:control group: SC inoculation of NaCl 250 µL/animal/day;bufotenine group: subcutaneous inoculation of 0.63, 1.05 and 2.1 mg
in 250 µL of NaCl/animal/day;rabies group: intracerebral inoculation route with CVS dilution of
10-6,82;treatment group: mice inoculated with the same CVS dilution and
treated with each bufotenine dose.The progression evaluation of infected animals’ symptoms was divided into three
stages. The first stage consisted onset of hunchback, prostration and
piloerection. Although these signs are not specific to rabies, they indicate
that the animal is ill and that its welfare is compromised. In the second stage
the animal shows slow or circular movements, towards a single direction. These
are the first clinical indicators of neurological disorders. In the third stage,
the animal presents unstable movements, tremors and/or convulsions. These
symptoms can be aroused when provoking the animal with tweezers. These
neurological signs clearly indicate rabies infection. Animals were observed
daily, for 21 days, or until the development of the third stage of rabies, when
the animals were euthanized, avoiding the slow, progressive and irreversible
animal suffering caused by the infection.
Experiments with liposomes
Liposomes were obtained and analyzed as described by Sciani et al. [33]. Briefly, liposomes (10 µL) and
bufotenine (10 µg/10 µL) were separately analyzed for retention time
determination. Next, bufotenine and liposomes were incubated (20 µL, 1:1 V/V)
for 10 minutes at room temperature, and the mixture was analyzed under the same
conditions. The liposome peak was collected and lysed with 50% acetonitrile
containing 0.1% formic acid. This solution was then sonicated and centrifuged
for 10 minutes at 10840 x g at 4°C. The supernatant was analyzed by
electrospray-ion trap-time of flight (ESI-IT-TOF) (Shimadzu Co., Japan) equipped
with binary ultra-fast liquid chromatography system (UFLC) (20A Prominence,
Shimadzu Co., Japan), in order to identify bufotenine inside the liposomes.
Phrenic nerve-diaphragm muscle (PND) preparation
Mice were euthanized with an overdose of isoflurane (via inhalation). The
hemidiaphragms and corresponding phrenic nerves were carefully removed and
mounted under a tension of 5 g in 5 mL organ baths containing Tyrode solution
(composition in nM: NaCl 137, KCl 2.7, CaCl2 1.8, MgCl2
0.49, NaH2PO4 0.42, NaHCO3 11.9 and glucose
11.1) gassed with 95% O2 and 5% CO2 at 37oC.
The muscles were indirectly stimulated (nerve-evoked contractions; 0.1 Hz, 0.2
ms, supramaximal voltage; Grass S48 stimulator). The resulting muscle tension
was recorded using a force displacement transducer (BG 25 GM Kulite) coupled to
a Gould RS 3400 recorder. The preparations were allowed to stabilize for at
least 15 minutes before the addition of bufotenine (21 and 210 μg/mL).
Morphological analysis
After 120 minutes of bufotenine incubation, diaphragm muscles were fixed in 10%
formaldehyde overnight, dehydrated in graded ethanol (70%, 80%, 95% and 100%),
cleared in xylene and embedded in paraffin. Transversal sections (5-μm thick)
were mounted on glass slides for hematoxylin-eosin (HE) staining for
histological analyses. The slides were examined with a Nikon Eclipse E200 light
microscope (Nikon, Japan) and the images were captured and qualitatively
analyzed using NIS Elements 4.60.000 AR software.
Statistical analysis
All the results are expressed as mean ± SEM. The CC50 of bufotenine
concentration for N2A cells was calculated from concentration-effect curves, by
nonlinear regression analysis, of two independent experiments, performed in
triplicates. Survival curves were compared using Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) Test
and/or the Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon Test, which attributes higher statistical
weight to experimental points corresponding to deaths occurring at early time
points [34]. The twitch-tension responses
were expressed as a percentage of the basal values of each preparation, taken as
100% prior to the addition of bufotenine. Statistical comparisons were done
using analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Bonferroni test. All data
analyses were done using Prism (GraphPad Inc., La Jolla, USA) and the
significance set as: ns p > 0.05, * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01.
Results
Our results show an evident infection inhibition effect against the CVS and the
wild viruses (Fig. 1) and minute cytotoxic
effects for the assayed concentrations (1.5 and 0.75 mg/mL; below the
CC50, Additional file 1), indicating that either virus strain is
susceptible to the bufotenine infection inhibitory effect in mouse neuroblastoma
(N2A) cell line.
Figure 1
Bufotenine inhibits different RABV strains in N2A cells.
Inhibition of challenge virus standard (CVS): (a)
control; (b) bufotenine concentration of 1,5 mg/mL;
(c) bufotenine concentration of 0.75 mg/mL;
(d) supernatant virus titration. Inhibition of dog
lineage RABV isolated from dog central nervous system sample:
(e) control; (f) bufotenine
concentration of 1.5 mg/mL; (g) bufotenine
concentration of 0.75 mg/mL; (h) supernatant virus
titration. Inhibition of Eptesicus furinalis
lineage RABV isolated from bat central nervous system sample:
(i) control; (j) bufotenine
concentration of 1.5 mg/mL; (k) bufotenine
concentration of 0.75 mg/mL; (l) supernatant virus
titration. Inhibition of Desmodus rotundus lineage
RABV isolated from bovine central nervous system sample:
(m) control; (n) bufotenine
concentration of 1.5 mg/mL; (o) bufotenine
concentration of 0.75 mg/mL; (p) supernatant virus
titration.
For the standardization and optimization of in vivo experiments,
we have initially determined the CVS challenge dose to be 10-5.32
(corresponding to 30LD50), able to kill 100% of the infected mice
(Additional file 2a and
2d).Then, bufotenine was administered SC 0.63 mg/animal/day, according to Fuller et
al. [35] who established its toxicity to
be 30 mg/kg for the murine (rat) equivalent. Considering the average mouse blood
volume of 80 mL.kg-1, 0.63 mg/animal would correspond to 0.38
mg.mL-1 (blood), which is ≈4 times lower than the IC50
previously determined (1.57 mg.mL-1) for BHK-21 cell virus infection
inhibition [21].Additionally, 10-6,32, 10-6,82 and 10-7,32 CVS
were assayed in order to evaluate proper virus dilution and antiviral effects
(Additional files 2,
3, 4 and 5). The
10-6.82 dilution, able to kill 80-90% of the animals, was
selected. Then, two more bufotenine doses were tested at this virus dilution:
1.05 and 2.1 mg/animal/day (equivalent to 50 and 100 mg/kg, or 0.63 and 1.25
mg.mL-1) (Additional file 6, controls shown in Additional file 7).
After all, mice infected with CVS 10-6,82 and treated with 0.63
mg/animal/day proved to be the best model for the antiviral effect evaluation
(Fig. 2). Therefore, data reported
hereafter derive from such conditions (data from both experiments).
Figure 2
Onset of symptoms and percent survival of mice infected with CVS
10-6.22 (approximately 1.35LD50) and
treated with bufotenine 0.63 mg/animal/day. (a) Rabies
control group: symptoms onset on mice infected with CVS
10-6.82; (b) treatment group: symptoms
onset on mice infected with CVS 10-6.82 and treated with
bufotenine 0.63 mg/animal/day; (c) percentage survival
of control group, rabies control group and treatment group. p value
summary: * p ≤ 0.05 in Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) Test, ** p ≤ 0.01 in
Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon Test.
Our experiments showed that bufotenine cannot passively penetrate either
positively or negatively charged liposomes, as shown in Figure 3. This data indicates that other cell structures,
such as proteins, ion channels, receptors, or even endocytosis are important for
bufotenine entrance into the cell.
Figure 3
Analysis of bufotenine penetration in liposomes by size exclusion
chromatography. (a) Positively charged liposome;
(b) bufotenine; (c) incubation of
liposome and bufotenine indicating no liposome penetration;
(d) overlap of (a), (b) and
(c).
Phrenic nerve-diaphragm muscle (PND) and morphological analysis
In PND preparations, bufotenine (21 and 210 μg/mL) did not interfere in the
contractions until 120 min analysis (Fig.
4). Light microscopy of control muscles (incubated for 120 min in Tyrode
solution; Fig. 5A and 5B) and bufotenine-incubated muscles (21 μg/mL; Fig. 5C and 5D) displayed normal morphology: hexagonal fibers, with peripheric
nuclei, intact sarcolemma and myofilaments distribution. These results indicated
that the alkaloid caused no damage to the tissue, nor to the neuromuscular
junction. However, PND preparations incubated with bufotenine at a higher
concentration (210 μg/mL, Fig. 5E-G),
displayed few areas of myonecrosis, with fibers in different pathologic states,
including edematous, hypercontracted, delta and ghost fibers, among normal
fibers, although the neuromuscular junction was also unaffected.
Figure 4
Representative neuromuscular response of phrenic nerve-diaphragm
muscle (PND) preparation under stimulation. Bufotenine (21 and 210
μg/mL) was unable to induce neuromuscular blockade. The points
represent the mean ± SEM of 7-4 experiments.
Figure 5
Histological analysis of diaphragm muscles incubated with Tyrode
alone and bufotenine. (A, B) Tyrode alone, (C,
D) 21 μg/mL of bufotenine and (E-G) 210
μg/mL of butotenine. Observe the normal muscle morphology in Tyrode
and bufotenine at lower concentrations. However, myonecrosis can
occur at 210 μg/mL of butotenine, as observed in (F)
and (G). d: delta lesion, e: edematous fiber, h:
hypercontracted fiber, g: ghost fiber. Magnification: (A, C,
E) = 100x; (B, D, F, G) = 400x.
Discussion
Currently, rabies laboratory research is performed with different strains of rabies
viruses (RABV), namely laboratory-adapted (fixed) strains (e.g. PV and CVS) and
wild-type viruses. Although fixed viruses possess the advantage of having a
well-defined incubation period and predictable clinical course, these strains may
have lost some of the wild-type ancestors features, such as local replication [36]. Taking this into account, we opted to use
three Brazilian wild type RABV strains, first on cultured cells before the actual
in vivo experiments, in order to confirm our previous results
with the PV strain [21].Interestingly, on the 5th day of bufotenine in vivo
treatment, there were still 11 healthy animals, whereas in the rabies group, there
were only five (Fig. 2). Such remarkable
difference was also observed for animals already displaying different stages of
infection. For example, there were only two animals displaying 3rd stage
infection symptoms in the bufotenine-treated group, whilst eight animals in the
rabies group had reached this phase at this same day. Furthermore, it was possible
to observe major differences on the survival percent of the groups. Specifically,
the bufotenine-treated group presented 90% survival rate, versus 60% of the rabies
group on the 5th day, 85% vs 50% on the 6th day, 70% vs 25% on
the 7th day, 55% vs 20% on the 8th day, 50% vs 15% on the
9th day and 40% vs 15% on the 11th day, which lasted until
the 21st and last day of experiment.As previously observed [24], animals treated
with bufotenine (and no virus) presented little histological alteration at the
inoculation site and no alteration in the collected internal organs, in terms of
inflammation or necrosis.Willoughby et al. [9] reported a human survival
case of a patient who developed rabies after exposure to a rabid bat, in the USA.
This was the first reported survival of a patient that had not received rabies
prophylaxis prior to the onset of the disease, known as the Milwaukee protocol,
based on induced therapeutic coma, ketamine (anti-excitatory) and unspecific
antiviral drug administration (such as ribavirin and amantadine), concomitant to
patient’s passive/active immunization. The patient evolved to an almost complete
recovery, including extensive physical and neurological rehabilitation [9]. However, several attempts to reproduce this
treatment failed [37-39].Zeiler and Jackson [40] questioned the
efficiency and efficacy of this protocol by comparing the actual number of
successful cases versus the detailed communications on the failed attempts (30+).
Moreover, these authors pity the lack of therapeutic alternatives and hope for the
development of new strategies based on consolidated animal models that, according to
our perspective, is what we have performed in the present study.In order to glimpse possible bufotenine mechanisms of action, we have synthesized
both positively - mimicking normal healthy cells - and negatively charged liposomes.
Our experiments showed that bufotenine cannot passively penetrate either liposomes
or other surface molecules, suggesting that cell receptors are necessary to
facilitate bufotenine cellular entry. Cell receptors have already been described to
play an important role in RABV entry, cell tropism, and spread. The neuromuscular
junction acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) was the first described receptor for the
RABV [41]. Later, in vitro
studies showed that neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM) and p75 neurotrophin could
be involved in the virus cellular penetration [42, 43]. Thus, we have initially
postulated that bufotenine would inhibit RABV penetration through competition with
nAChR [21], and then we tested the alkaloid
in PND preparation, which is mainly based on acetylcholine mediation.Interestingly, we observed that the bufotenine does not directly interact with either
nAChR or mAChR, as no modifications in the muscular contraction could be detected
under the employed experimental conditions. On the other hand, membrane proteins
would be essential, according to Broughan and Wunner [44] that showed the importance of such proteins in the virus
entrance into BHK-21, as well as our liposomes results demonstrated the incapacity
of the bufotenine passive membrane penetration.Furthermore, other cell-surface molecules, including sialic acid, galactose, mannose,
N-acetylglucosamine and gangliosides, have already been demonstrated to be involved
in rabies virus binding to the host cells [45, 46]. Thus, the cellular action of
bufotenine remains under investigation.
Conclusion
No specific effective rabies antiviral compound does exist [18]. Bufotenine presents a novel pharmaceutical prototype to be
further developed that, together with the current therapy, might prevent rabies
clinical symptoms, hence supplying time for the organism’s own immune response
against the virus that, ultimately, would lead to a cure. It is also noteworthy to
comment that, in the present study, viral load was intracerebral, whereas bufotenine
treatment was subcutaneous. Moreover, virus titers were much higher (following WHO
rabies protocols) than those expected to be consequence of an accident. Therefore,
the 40% prevention of symptoms development reported here could be deprecated. If one
mimics an accident, in which viruses would typically be injected intramuscularly at
a significantly lower titer, the symptoms development prevention could be much
higher, thus indicating the need for new studies aiming at the development of this
molecule.
Authors: Rodney E Willoughby; Kelly S Tieves; George M Hoffman; Nancy S Ghanayem; Catherine M Amlie-Lefond; Michael J Schwabe; Michael J Chusid; Charles E Rupprecht Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-06-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L Alvarez; R Fajardo; E Lopez; R Pedroza; T Hemachudha; N Kamolvarin; G Cortes; G M Baer Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Felipe Finger Banfi; Gabriela Camila Krombauer; Amanda Luisa da Fonseca; Renata Rachide Nunes; Silmara Nunes Andrade; Millena Alves de Rezende; Mariana Helena Chaves; Evaldo Dos Santos Monção; Alex Guterres Taranto; Domingos de Jesus Rodrigues; Gerardo Magela Vieira; Whocely Victor de Castro; Fernando de Pilla Varotti; Bruno Antonio Marinho Sanchez Journal: J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis Date: 2021-01-08