Neutralization of the lethal toxin of Bacillus anthracis is an important topic of both fundamental medicine and practical health care, regarding the fight against highly dangerous infections. We have generated a neutralizing monoclonal antibody 1E10 against the lethal toxin of Bacillus anthracis and described the stages of receptor interaction between the protective antigen (PA) and the surface of eukaryotic cells, the formation of PA oligomers, assembly of the lethal toxin (LT), and its translocation by endocytosis into the eukaryotic cell, followed by the formation of a true pore and the release of LT into the cell cytosol. The antibody was shown to act selectively at the stage of interaction between Bacillus anthracis and the eukaryotic cell, and the mechanism of toxin-neutralizing activity of the 1E10 antibody was revealed. The interaction between the 1E10 monoclonal antibody and PA was found to lead to inhibition of the enzymatic activity of the lethal factor (LF), most likely due to a disruption of true pore formation by PA, which blocks the release of LF into the cytosol. Copyright ® 2021 National Research University Higher School of Economics.
Neutralization of the lethal toxin of Bacillus anthracis is an important topic of both fundamental medicine and practical health care, regarding the fight against highly dangerous infections. We have generated a neutralizing monoclonal antibody 1E10 against the lethal toxin of Bacillus anthracis and described the stages of receptor interaction between the protective antigen (PA) and the surface of eukaryotic cells, the formation of PA oligomers, assembly of the lethal toxin (LT), and its translocation by endocytosis into the eukaryotic cell, followed by the formation of a true pore and the release of LT into the cell cytosol. The antibody was shown to act selectively at the stage of interaction between Bacillus anthracis and the eukaryotic cell, and the mechanism of toxin-neutralizing activity of the 1E10 antibody was revealed. The interaction between the 1E10 monoclonal antibody and PA was found to lead to inhibition of the enzymatic activity of the lethal factor (LF), most likely due to a disruption of true pore formation by PA, which blocks the release of LF into the cytosol. Copyright ® 2021 National Research University Higher School of Economics.
Anthrax is an anthropozoonotic infection caused by the gram-positive, aerobic,
spore-forming, rod-shaped bacterium Bacillus anthracis. Depending on the route
of bacterial administration, three primary forms of the disease are
distinguished: gastrointestinal (alimentary route), cutaneous (contact route),
and pulmonary (inhalation route). All forms of the disease can be fatal, but
the airborne route of pathogen transmission is the most dangerous to human life
[1, 2].
B. anthracis spores are from 1 to 5 µm in size, which
enables them to easily enter the pulmonary alveoli upon inhalation. After
penetration into the lungs, B. anthracis spores do not germinate but are
quickly and efficiently phagocytized by alveolar macrophages and dendritic
cells, which are then transported through the lymphatic ducts to the thoracic
lymph nodes where the spores become vegetative cells that spread throughout the
body and destroy cells [3].The pathogenesis of anthrax is associated with two binary toxins and a capsule,
which are encoded by the pX01 and pX02 plasmids. The pX01 plasmid encodes three
components of the anthrax toxin: 83 kDa lethal factor (LF), 89 kDa edema factor
(EF), and 85 kDa protective antigen (PA). The second plasmid, pX02, encodes the
genes involved in the synthesis of the poly-D-glutamyl capsule. Removal of any
plasmid decreases the virulence of bacteria [4].The (effector) subunit A of anthrax binary toxins is represented by LF and EF,
and the subunit B is represented by PA. Combining the A and B subunits results
in the lethal toxin (LT), composed of PA and LF, and the edema toxin (ET),
composed of PA and EF. The binary toxins were named according to their
biological effects in animal models. Intradermal injection of ET (PA + EF)
causes edema, and injection of a high concentration of LT (PA + LF) causes
severe hypotension and death [5, 6].The key subunit of toxins in the pathogenesis of anthrax is the PA that binds
to receptors on the surface of immunocompetent cells and ensures the
penetration of LF and EF into the cell. The receptor interaction of 83 kDa PA
with the cell membrane is accompanied by the cleavage of a 20 kDa fragment by
host furin-like proteases, resulting in the formation of 63 kDa PA. Monomeric
PA63 oligomerizes and forms heptameric or octameric structures called prepores.
Three LF or EF molecules bind to one heptamer, and 4 molecules bind to an
octamer [7, 8]. After assembly of PA and LF/EF, the formed complex is
internalized by the cell through clathrin-dependent endocytosis. The resulting
endosome is gradually acidified. With changes in the environment’s pH
level, PA changes its conformation, penetrates into the endosome, and forms a
true pore for LF/EF translocation into the cytosol [9]. LF is a zinc metalloprotease that cleaves mitogen-activated
protein kinase kinases (MAPKs) in the cytosol, which ultimately leads to cell
apoptosis [10, 11].
Figure 1 presents all assembly stages and the toxic
activity of LT and ET from B. anthracis as well as the key stages of the
antitoxic activity of the monoclonal antibodies that specifically interact with
the Bacillus anthracis protective antigen domain IV.
Fig. 1
Schematic model of the assembly and activity of B. anthracis
toxins. Numbered arrows indicate the key stages of the antitoxic
activity of the 1E10 monoclonal antibody specifically interacting with domain
IV of the B. anthracis protective antigen: 1. Binding of the
mAb to the PA receptor; 2. Prevention of the assembly of an oligomeric PA63
prepore; 3. Inhibition of LF and EF binding to PA and prevention of endocytosis
of toxin effector subunits; 4. Inhibition of conversion of the oligomeric PA63
prepore to the pore
Schematic model of the assembly and activity of B. anthracis
toxins. Numbered arrows indicate the key stages of the antitoxic
activity of the 1E10 monoclonal antibody specifically interacting with domain
IV of the B. anthracis protective antigen: 1. Binding of the
mAb to the PA receptor; 2. Prevention of the assembly of an oligomeric PA63
prepore; 3. Inhibition of LF and EF binding to PA and prevention of endocytosis
of toxin effector subunits; 4. Inhibition of conversion of the oligomeric PA63
prepore to the poreOne of the interesting ways in which to protect the body from B. anthracis is
to develop protective therapeutic antibodies. In recent years, therapeutic
antibodies have become a potent tool in the fight against a whole range of
pathologies [12, 13]. They are used as targeted agents for the elimination of
pathological cells [14, 15]. Antibodies are very actively used as
protective agents in toxic infections [11, 16, 17].Figure 1 shows several possible pathways
for disrupting the interaction between
the toxin and the eukaryotic cell. In particular, it is possible to block the
binding of PA to a cellular receptor or disrupt the formation of an adequate
heptameric complex. It is also possible to block the binding of the toxin
effector subunits to the prepore or inhibit the conversion of the prepore to
the pore, which results in the inhibition of the kinase cascade.To date, several LT-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been
developed; most of these are murine mAbs, but there are also human
toxin-neutralizing antibodies (Raxibacumab, GlaxoSmithKline). Nevertheless, the
search for new, more effective LT-neutralizing antibodies continues [18].Previously, we generated 1E10 mAb which exhibits specific activity against the
PA domain IV [19]. The results of
studies on the J774A.1 cell line and a mouse model showed a pronounced ability
of 1E10 mAb to neutralize anthrax LT (some data are not published). The purpose
of this study was to identify the inhibition mechanism of the LT cytotoxic
effect by the monoclonal antibody 1E10.
EXPERIMENTAL
In this study, we used recombinant proteins: protective antigen (rPA) according
to [19] and lethal factor (rLF)
according to [20]. The recombinant
proteins have amino acid sequences of native B. anthracis PA and LF without
signal peptides, as indicated in UniProtKB: P13423 (PAG_BACAN) and P15917 (LEF_
BACAN), respectively, fused with the N-terminal 6×His-tag and c-myc
epitope. rPA and rLF expressed in E. coli BL21 (DE3) were purified from the
cell lysate by chromatography using a cOmplete His-TagPurification Resin metal-chelate sorbent (Roche, Germany). Biotinylated
recombinant proteins were prepared by conjugation to biotin sulfosuccinimidyl
(sulfo-NHS) ester (Sigma, USA). Fluorophore-labeled recombinant proteins
(rPA-FITC and rLF-Cy5) were obtained by conjugation to FITC (Thermo Fisher,
USA) and the Cy5 mono-reactive dye (Amersham, UK).Evaluation of PA adhesion on the surface of J774A.1 macrophages in the
presence of 1E10 mAb by flow cytofluorometryTo assess the binding of PA to receptors on the surface of J774A.1 macrophages
(ATCC®TIB-67™), 1 × 106 cells per sample were
incubated with fluorochrome-labeled rPA-FITC or rPA-FITC pre-incubated with
1E10 mAb at an equimolar ratio at 37°C for 1 h. J774A.1 cells were
incubated with rPA-FITC or rPA-FITC + mAb at 37°C in a CO2
incubator with gentle stirring on an orbital shaker for 1 h. After incubation,
all samples were washed three times with phosphate-buffer saline heated to
37°C (PBS; 137 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, 10 mM Na2HPO4,
1.76 mM KH2PO4, pH 7.4) and fixed with 1% formalin. The
samples were analyzed on a FACSAria III flow cytometer (Becton Dickinson, USA)
using the BD FACSDiva software (version 8.0). The cells were first analyzed
using forward (FSC) and side (SSC) scatter gating to determine size and
granularity, respectively. The ability of 1E10 mAb to inhibit adhesion of
rPA-FITC on the cell surface was assessed by gating in SSC-A/FITC-A channels.Effect of 1E10 mAb on PA oligomerizationFull-length 83 kDa rPA (PA83) was cleaved to produce PA63 and PA20. For that
purpose, rPA was incubated with trypsin (Roche, Germany) at a concentration of
1 μg/mL at room temperature for 45 min. At the end of the incubation, the
activity of the enzyme was inhibited by addition of a trypsin inhibitor from
soybean (Roche, Germany) to a final concentration of 10 μg/mL. The sample
was left under the same conditions. To stimulate oligomerization in the
solution, all samples were added with rLF at a molar ratio of rPA : rLF = 2 :
1. At the next stage, 1E10 mAb was added to cleaved rPA at molar ratios of 1:1,
1:2, or 1:3. Control samples contained uncleaved rPA83, as well as PA63 + PA20,
without addition of the antibody. All samples were incubated at 37°C for
60 min. Then, all samples were added with a 2-(N-morpholino) ethanesulfonic
acid (MES) solution, pH 5.5, to a final concentration of 50 mM and incubated at
37°C for 30 min. For further separation in gradient (4–20%) PAGE
under non-denaturing and non-reducing conditions, a sample loading buffer
(according to Laemmli) without mercaptoetonol was added to the samples. After
electrophoretic separation, the samples were transferred onto a Hybond-C Extra
nitrocellulose membrane (GE Healthcare, UK) using an automatic Trans-Blot®
Turbo™ Transfer System (Bio-Rad, USA). After transfer, the membrane was
blocked by immersing it in skim milk with a fat mass fraction of no more than
0.5% and incubated on a thermostatted orbital shaker at 300 rpm and 37°C
for 1 h. The membrane was washed with phosphate-buffer saline containing 0.05%
Tween-20 (PBS-T; 137 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, 10 mM Na2HPO4,
1.76 mM KH2PO4, 0.05% Tween-20, pH 7.4). Then, the
membrane was incubated with biotinylated anti-PA monoclonal mouse antibodies
(clone 4F5 with specific activity against the PA domain III produced at the
State Research Center for Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology) at a
dilution of 5 μg/mL at 37°C for 1 h. After incubation, the membrane
was washed three times with PBS-T, incubated with streptavidin conjugated to
horseradish peroxidase (Streptavidin-Peroxidase Polymer, Ultrasensitive, Sigma,
United States) at a dilution of 1 : 5,000, and washed six times with PBS-T. The
reaction was visualized with a substrate mixture solution (0.05%
diaminobenzidine (Sigma, USA), 0.015% H2O2 in PBS, pH
7.4). The reaction was stopped by washing with distilled water; then, the
membrane was dried in air.Investigation of the effect of 1E10 mAb on LT endocytosis by flow
cytometryTo confirm the rPA–rLF interaction and subsequent LT endocytosis, we used
flow cytometry. For this purpose, macrophages of the J774A.1 cell line (1
× 106 cells per sample) were incubated with rPA-FITC and
rLF-Cy5 in the presence or absence of 1E10 mAb. Solutions containing rPA-FITC
and/or rLF-Cy5 in the presence or absence of mAb were pre-incubated at
37°C for 1 h and added to the cells. J774A.1 macrophages (1 ×
106 cells) separately incubated with rPA-FITC + rLF and rLF-Cy5 +
rPA, as well as intact unstained J774A.1 cells, were used as controls. All
samples with cells were incubated at 37°C in a CO2 incubator at
gentle stirring on an orbital shaker for 30 min. After incubation, all the
samples were washed three times with PBS heated to 37°C. Proteins were
removed from the cell surface by adding a 0.01% trypsin solution, incubated at
37°C for 5 min, and washed three times with warm PBS. The cells were fixed
with 1% formalin. Samples were analyzed on a FACSAria III flow cytometer.
Gating was performed using forward (FSC) and side (SSC) scatter, and the effect
of 1E10 mAb on the LF–PA interaction and LT endocytosis was assessed by
gating in FITC-A and Cy5-A fluorescence channels.Effect of 1E10 mAb on specific LT activitySpecific enzymatic activity of internalized LT was determined based on the
presence of native or cleaved MEK. For that purpose, the following samples were
prepared: J774A.1 mouse macrophages (1 × 107 cells) were
incubated in the presence of LT at a molar ratio of rPA : rLF = 5 : 1 with and
without 1E10 mAb. LT was pre-incubated with or without mAbs at 37°C for 1
h; then, the solutions were added to the cells and incubated at 37°C in a
CO2 incubator at gentle stirring on an orbital shaker for 30, 60,
120, and 240 min. J774A.1 macrophages (1 × 107 cells) without
addition of LT or mAbs were used as an intact control. After incubation, the
cells were precipitated by centrifugation; the cell pellet was lysed in 0.5%
Triton X-100; then, a sample loading buffer (according to Laemmli) with
mercaptoetonol was added to the samples. The resulting samples were applied to
gradient (4–20%) PAGE. After electrophoretic separation, the Western blot
analysis was performed using the standard technique described above. The
membrane was incubated with rabbit monoclonal antibodies to MEK1 + MEK2 (Abcam,
UK, ab200179) at a dilution of 1 : 10,000. After incubation with specific
monoclonal antibodies to MEK, the membrane was washed with PBS-T and incubated
with a goat anti-rabbit IgG antibody, (H + L) HRP conjugate, (Merck, Germany)
at a dilution of 1 : 1,000 in PBS. The interaction was visualized by a color
reaction using diaminobenzidine as described above.
RESULTS
Evaluation of the ability of 1E10 mAb to inhibit rPA adhesion on the
surface of J774A.1 macrophage-like cellsEffect of 1E10 antibodies on rPA adhesion on the surface of J774A.1 cells.
(A) – cell samples incubated in medium in the absence of
rPA-FITC and 1E10 mAb. (B) – cell samples incubated with
rPA-FITC. (C) – cell samples incubated with rPA-FITC
pretreated with 1E10 mAbFigure 2 shows the distribution of J774A.1 cells incubated with medium (A),
FITC-labeled PA (B), and FITC-labeled PA pretreated with 1E10 mAb (C). A
comparative analysis of the presented cytograms indicates identity of the
J774A.1 cell distributions
in Fig. 2 B and C.
In both cases, after incubation
with rPA-FITC, pretreated with 1E10 mAb or not, an equally high level of cell
fluorescence was observed, which was an indication of adhesion of rPA-FITC to
their surface. These findings indicate that 1E10 mAb does not block the binding
of rPA to the surface of eukaryotic cells.
Fig. 2
Effect of 1E10 antibodies on rPA adhesion on the surface of J774A.1 cells.
(A) – cell samples incubated in medium in the absence of
rPA-FITC and 1E10 mAb. (B) – cell samples incubated with
rPA-FITC. (C) – cell samples incubated with rPA-FITC
pretreated with 1E10 mAb
Evaluation of the ability of 1E10 mAb to block PA oligomerizationAssessment of the 1E10 mAb ability to block the formation of PA63 oligomers.
1 – Molecular weight markers SM0671 (Fermentas, USA);
2 – Control rPA (83 kDa); 3 –
PA63; 4 – PA63 + rLF; 5 – PA63 +
1E10 mAb (1:1) + rLF; 6 – PA63 + 1E10 mAb (1:2) + rLF;
7 – PA63 + 1E10 mAb (1:3) + rLFThe effect of 1E10 monoclonal antibodies on PA oligomerization was studied
using Western blotting. The addition of 1E10 mAb to cleaved 63 kDa PA at
antigen:mAb molar ratios of 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 did not affect oligomer formation
(Fig. 3).
Therefore, 1E10 mAb does not prevent PA oligomerization and prepore formation.
Fig. 3
Assessment of the 1E10 mAb ability to block the formation of PA63 oligomers.
1 – Molecular weight markers SM0671 (Fermentas, USA);
2 – Control rPA (83 kDa); 3 –
PA63; 4 – PA63 + rLF; 5 – PA63 +
1E10 mAb (1:1) + rLF; 6 – PA63 + 1E10 mAb (1:2) + rLF;
7 – PA63 + 1E10 mAb (1:3) + rLF
Effect of 1E10 mAb on the rLF–rPA interaction and LT endocytosisAssessment of the 1E10 mAb effect on the rLF–rPA interaction and LT
endocytosis. (A) – cell samples incubated in medium
without LT or mAb. (B) – cell samples incubated with
rPA-FITC and unlabeled rLF. (C) – cell samples incubated
with unlabeled PA and rLF-Cy5. (D) – cell samples
incubated with 1E10 mAb-pretreated rPA-FITC and rLF-Cy5Figure 4 shows cytograms of J774A.1 cells. The results of a cytometric analysis
showed that all J774A.1 cells in the presence of fluorochrome-labeled rPA and
rLF pretreated with 1E10 mAb were characterized by a high level of
intracellular fluorescence of FITC and Cy5 dyes
(Fig. 4D),
which is an indication that 1E10 mAb is unable to block the rLF–rPA interaction and LT endocytosis.
Fig. 4
Assessment of the 1E10 mAb effect on the rLF–rPA interaction and LT
endocytosis. (A) – cell samples incubated in medium
without LT or mAb. (B) – cell samples incubated with
rPA-FITC and unlabeled rLF. (C) – cell samples incubated
with unlabeled PA and rLF-Cy5. (D) – cell samples
incubated with 1E10 mAb-pretreated rPA-FITC and rLF-Cy5
Effect of 1E10 mAb on specific LT activityEffect of 1E10 mAb on the rLF enzymatic activity towards MEK1 and MEK2.
(A) – Western blot results correlated with molecular
weight markers. (B) – Enlarged image of Western blot
results. 1 – Molecular weight markers SM0671 (Fermentas,
USA); 2 – Control: intact J774A.1 cells; 3
– J774A.1 cells + LT, incubation for 30 min; 4
– J774A.1 cells + (LT + 1E10 mAb), incubation for 30 min;
5 – J774A.1 cells + LT, incubation for 60 min; 6
– J774A.1 cells + (LT + 1E10), incubation for 60 min; 7
– J774A.1 cells + LT, incubation for 120 min; 8
– J774A.1 cells + (LT + 1E10), incubation for 120 min; 9
– J774A.1 cells + LT, incubation for 240 min; 10
– J774A.1 cells + (LT + 1E10), incubation for 240 minLF is a zinc-dependent endopeptidase that cleaves mitogen-activated protein
kinases (MAPKKs), in particular MEK1 and MEK2, with removal of a 1.2 kDa
peptide. Figures 5 A and 5B (lanes 3, 5, 7, 9) show that LT causes cleavage of
MEK1 and MEK2 d, while LT pretreated with the 1E10 monoclonal antibody leaves
MEK1 and MEK 2 intact. During long-term incubation (240 min), samples prepared
from cell culture incubated with LT without addition of the mAb contained lower
amounts of MEK1 and MEK 2
(Fig. 5 A and B, lane 9), which probably indicates
the passage of rLF through the pore into the cell cytosol and the enzymatic
activity of rLF towards MEK1 and MEK2, leading to cell apoptosis. Therefore, we
have found that the 1E10 mAb–rPA interaction inhibits the enzymatic
activity of LT towards MEK1 and MEK2.
Fig. 5
Effect of 1E10 mAb on the rLF enzymatic activity towards MEK1 and MEK2.
(A) – Western blot results correlated with molecular
weight markers. (B) – Enlarged image of Western blot
results. 1 – Molecular weight markers SM0671 (Fermentas,
USA); 2 – Control: intact J774A.1 cells; 3
– J774A.1 cells + LT, incubation for 30 min; 4
– J774A.1 cells + (LT + 1E10 mAb), incubation for 30 min;
5 – J774A.1 cells + LT, incubation for 60 min; 6
– J774A.1 cells + (LT + 1E10), incubation for 60 min; 7
– J774A.1 cells + LT, incubation for 120 min; 8
– J774A.1 cells + (LT + 1E10), incubation for 120 min; 9
– J774A.1 cells + LT, incubation for 240 min; 10
– J774A.1 cells + (LT + 1E10), incubation for 240 min
DISCUSSION
In the Russian Federation, treatment of anthrax involves antibiotics and equine
anti-anthrax immunoglobulin (33rd Central Research Institute of the
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Russia) that contains polyclonal
antibodies to antigens of the B. anthracis STI-1 vaccine strain and anthrax
toxins. In generalized anthrax, antibiotics are not effective and the equine
anti-anthrax immunoglobulin can cause side effects, including anaphylactic
shock and serum sickness [20, 21]. The use of monoclonal antibodies provides
a predictable efficacy in neutralizing the anthrax toxin, and the use of
chimeric antibodies reduces allergization of the body. The use of mAbs against
PA is the most promising strategy for the treatment of anthrax, which provides
inhibition of the toxic effect of anthrax toxins. This is due to the fact that
PA is an essential LT subunit responsible for the toxic activity, which enables
penetration of LF and EF into the cell cytosol. Our previously developed 1E10
mAb to PA domain IV had exhibited its lethal toxin-neutralizing activity and is
considered a basis for the development of chimeric therapeutic mAbs. In this
work, we analyzed the stages that might be affected by the lethal
toxin-neutralizing activity of 1E10 mAb.An analysis of the interaction of rPA with the surface membrane of J774A.1
macrophage-like cells, rPA oligomerization with prepore formation,
rLF–rPA interaction, and LT endocytosis in the presence of 1E10 mAb
revealed a lack of inhibitory activity 1E10 mAb towards these processes.We supposed that 1E10 mAb, binding to PA, might disrupt the conformational
rearrangements of PA during the formation of the pore for LF penetration into
the cytosol, where it becomes enzymatically active. LF is known to hydrolyze
MEK1 and MEK2 in the N-terminal region, with the cleavage of a 1.2 kDa peptide.
MEK1 and MEK2 are mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKKs) that are involved
in a variety of cellular processes. Using the MEK1 + MEK2 specific antibody, we
showed that opsonization of PA by the 1E10 monoclonal antibody leads to the
inhibition of the LT enzymatic activity towards MEK1 and MEK2.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the mechanism of LT inhibition by the 1E10 monoclonal antibody
involves the inhibition of the enzymatic activity of LF towards MEK1 and MEK2,
which is likely associated with a disruption of the pore formation process and
the impossibility of LF release into the cytosol.In our opinion, this study has clearly demonstrated the potential of using
therapeutic antibodies in the fight against infections. It should be noted that
the COVID 19 pandemic clearly reinforced this conclusion. Along with great
success in the development of vaccines, the use of virus-neutralizing
antibodies in certain categories of patients is considered appropriate [22]. The generation of individual patient
B-cell clones producing neutralizing antibodies is based on recently developed
microfluidic technologies [23, 24]. These technologies have enabled a real
breakthrough in the development of SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing therapeutic
antibodies [25, 26]. The specificity of antibodies against the lethal toxin of
Bacillus anthracis, which were produced in this study, may be further modified
using combinatorial biology methods.
Authors: C Garrett Rappazzo; Longping V Tse; Chengzi I Kaku; Daniel Wrapp; Mrunal Sakharkar; Deli Huang; Laura M Deveau; Thomas J Yockachonis; Andrew S Herbert; Michael B Battles; Cecilia M O'Brien; Michael E Brown; James C Geoghegan; Jonathan Belk; Linghang Peng; Linlin Yang; Yixuan Hou; Trevor D Scobey; Dennis R Burton; David Nemazee; John M Dye; James E Voss; Bronwyn M Gunn; Jason S McLellan; Ralph S Baric; Lisa E Gralinski; Laura M Walker Journal: Science Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 63.714
Authors: David M Weinreich; Sumathi Sivapalasingam; Thomas Norton; Shazia Ali; Haitao Gao; Rafia Bhore; Bret J Musser; Yuhwen Soo; Diana Rofail; Joseph Im; Christina Perry; Cynthia Pan; Romana Hosain; Adnan Mahmood; John D Davis; Kenneth C Turner; Andrea T Hooper; Jennifer D Hamilton; Alina Baum; Christos A Kyratsous; Yunji Kim; Amanda Cook; Wendy Kampman; Anita Kohli; Yessica Sachdeva; Ximena Graber; Bari Kowal; Thomas DiCioccio; Neil Stahl; Leah Lipsich; Ned Braunstein; Gary Herman; George D Yancopoulos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stanislav S Terekhov; Ivan V Smirnov; Maja V Malakhova; Andrei E Samoilov; Alexander I Manolov; Anton S Nazarov; Dmitry V Danilov; Svetlana A Dubiley; Ilya A Osterman; Maria P Rubtsova; Elena S Kostryukova; Rustam H Ziganshin; Maria A Kornienko; Anna A Vanyushkina; Olga N Bukato; Elena N Ilina; Valentin V Vlasov; Konstantin V Severinov; Alexander G Gabibov; Sidney Altman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 11.205