| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
ABSTRACT |
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
To design better vaccines against VEEV and to diagnose natural infection to control outbreaks, it is important to rapidly detect and evaluate sero-conversion, especially neutralizing antibodies. The most direct method for specific identification of neutralizing antibodies is by plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT) using live virus. However, because VEEV is highly infectious by aerosol and is regulated as a select agent, few laboratories are equipped to perform such assays with wild-type viruses. Instead, a vaccine strain of a 1AB serogroup VEEV, TC-83, is commonly used but differences exist in exposed epitopes as compared with the Trinidad donkey parent and other field isolates of 1AB strains.4 Neutralizing antibodies against VEEV complex subtypes that have low cross-reactivity with TC-83 such as Everglades, 1D, and 1E may also go undetected.
Of the 6 VEEV subtypes, subtype IA/B and IC viruses are typically associated with disease outbreaks. Both are antigenically related and can only be distinguished using monoclonal antibodies or by genome sequencing. While some neutralizing monoclonal antibodies target the E1 envelope glycoprotein, most bind directly to the E2 envelope glycoprotein and inhibit binding of virus particles to cells, as well as inhibit hemagglutination activity. Four major epitopes have been previously identified that overlap on E2.5
Recently, we produced retroviral pseudotypes of VEEV, based on murine leukemia viruses, which bear the envelope proteins (envs) of VEEV on their surfaces.6 Unlike live virus, these particles cannot replicate but can enter cells, after which a marker gene becomes expressed. Our initial characterization, using VEEV-specific monoclonal antibodies, indicated that the appropriate native antigenic epitopes are present on the pseudotype particle surface.6 Given that Murine leukemia virus (MLV) vectors have a long track record in the clinical setting and pose little risk for human infection, the VEEV envpseudotyped vectors may make suitable substitutes for live VEE virus in a PRNT. This would improve laboratory safety and security, as well as provide a stable and readily available reagent for performing such assays. MLV also have strong reporter gene expression that may generate sufficient signal for high-density assays on 96-well or 384-well plates. To investigate the applicability of pseudotypes for VEEV neutralizing antibody detection, PRNT assays were performed using live VEEV and serum titers were compared with those obtained using pseudotypes. Two types of assays were used with the pseudotypes. The first was a reporter gene expression assay in 96-well format where firefly luciferase was the reporter. The second assay was a new virus entry assay system that measures release of virus encapsulated luciferase into cells during virus entry. This real-time entry detection system promises to provide the fastest possible method for neutralization assays, with signals being detected as early as 15 minutes after contact of virus with cells.7 Here, we compare the neutralization titers using the traditional PRNT method with fully infectious virus to the pseudotype-based assays. To our knowledge, this is the first time a direct comparison has been performed between these two systems using both human and animal serum samples.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Viruses used were representative strains from the 1AB subtype, Trinidad Donkey (TRD),8 and the epizootic 1C field isolate, strain 3908.9 Each was cultivated on BHK cells and titered by plaque assays before PRNT.
Serum samples. Sera were obtained from convalescent patients with documented VEEV etiologies, as determined by viral isolation and characterization. The specificity of each was assumed from known distributions of antigenic subtypes of VEEV and previous results using an epitope blocking ELISA.10 Sera were also obtained from horses experimentally infected with VEEV strains ID 66637 or ZPC738, IE 68U201, and IC strains 243937 or SH3. Human samples were acquired after informed consent was obtained from donors with approval from UTMB and Naval Medical Research Detachment institutional review boards. All sera were complement-inactivated prior to use by heating to 56°C for 30 minutes; half was used for PRNT with live virus and the remainder with pseudotypes. Rabbit antisera specific to Pixuna and Mucambo viruses in the VEE complex, as well as Eastern equine encephalitis virus (EEEV) were provided by Robert Tesh from the World Reference Center for Emerging Viruses and Arboviruses, UTMB.
Production of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus pseudotypes.
Plasmids are described in detail in our previous work.6 Pseudotyped MLV were produced by transfection of 293FT cells with plasmids encoding the E3-E1 envs of VEEV (pVEEV-env), the MLV gag-pol genes (pGAG-POL), and a marker plasmid encoding firefly luciferase under control of the MLV LTR promoter and packaging (
) sequence (p-luciferase). Similarly, a pseudotyped virus bearing the env of VSV was produced by substituting the VEEV env expression plasmid with that for VSV-G (pVSV-G, Clonetech, Mountain View, CA). Transfection was by the calcium phosphate method11 and supernatants containing virus were collected 2 days post-transfection. After removing cell debris with a 0.45-µm filter, the supernatant was either frozen or used immediately to infect target cells, typically 293 cells. The method is depicted in Figure 1
. Target cell infection was measured 20 hours after infection using a Turner Veritas (Turner Biosystems, Inc, Sunnyvale, CA) plate reader. Cells had been lysed by freeze-thaw and addition of Steady-glo luciferase assay buffer (Promega, Madison, WI). Stability of virus was tested by comparing luciferase activities of virus that had been kept at –80°C for 3 years to that previously recorded.
|
To perform the rapid entry assay, luciferase-containing particles were incubated with 5 x 105 cells. One hour after addition of virus, luciferase activity was measured after freeze-thaw lysis of cells (does not affect virus) and addition of Steady-glo luciferase assay buffer (Promega, Madison, WI). Unless indicated otherwise, virus concentration was adjusted to give approximately 2000 counts per second (cps) per assay point. The background count of the luminometer was 10–20 cps.
Neutralization assays. For assays using both live virus and pseudotype-based virus, viruses were incubated at 37°C with serially diluted serum (as indicated) for 30 minutes prior to addition to cells. After 1 hour incubation, the supernatant was replaced with fresh medium (DMEM with fetal bovine serum) and cells were incubated for the indicated time before assay readout.
i) PRNT assay. For assays with live VEEV, PRNT assays were performed as described previously13 with titers expressed as the reciprocal of the antiserum dilution required to reduce virus plaque numbers by 80%. After infection with virus, cells were incubated in 6-well plates for 2–3 days with 0.4% agarose overlays and were then stained with 0.05% crystal violet dye in 50% methanol and plaques were counted.
ii) Pseudotype neutralization.
For assays with pseudotyped virus, a gene reporter or a rapid entry assay was used. The reporter gene assay used detection of luciferase activity after its expression in pseudotype transduced cells. This reporter gene assay was performed in a 96-well plate with cells incubated for 20 hours after infection with serum-treated virus, before readout. In contrast, for the rapid entry assay, cells (105) were incubated with serum-treated virus in tubes for 1 hour, which was sufficient to obtain a reproducible signal. For each assay the drop in luciferase signal, compared with untreated or cells treated with control serum, was used to determine the neutralizing activity of each serum. The concentration of serum that decreased luciferase activity by 
80% was used as the end point with the reciprocal of this serum dilution-factor given as the neutralizing titer. At least 2 independent experiments were performed for each of the assays described and the range of titers observed is given where applicable.
Curve fitting and statistical analysis. Curves were fitted to kinetic data using non-linear regression analysis and kinetic and goodness of fit parameters calculated using Graphpad software (GraphPad Prism version 4.00 for Windows, Graph-Pad Software, San Diego California USA, www.graphpad.com). For each dataset, exponential, first (straight line) order, and second order polynomial curves were tested. The curve with the highest R2 value was cited. Graphpad software was also used for statistics analysis. Data were compared by one way ANOVA and included the Tukey-Kramer post test.
|
RESULTS |
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
We recently developed MLV and lentivirus pseudotypes that bear the envs of VEEV subtypes 1AB and 1C on their surface. Preliminary work indicated that the envs are generally indistinguishable in function and monoclonal antibody neutralization of virus was similar to that reported for wild-type virus.6 The only detectable difference was that pseudotyped particles have fewer envs on their surface as compared with live virus. However, this should not influence the ability of pseudotypes to function in a neutralization assay, as most likely they would be more sensitive to antibody neutralization. MLV pseudotypes cannot propagate as most of the retroviral genome is replaced with a reporter gene, such as luciferase. They are assembled by supplying individual plasmids encoding matrix/capsid genes plus polymerase, envs, and a reporter gene with packaging signals on separate plasmids. To obtain an infectious virus, multiple independent recombination events are needed. Even at this stage MLV are only infectious toward mice; no evidence of infection of healthy humans has been reported. Indeed, current NIH guidelines recommend that these vectors can routinely be used at biosafety level 2 or level 1 when replication competent virus is not detectable.14 Here, we tested if the pseudotypes could be used as an alternative to wild-type virus in neutralization assays using human and horse serum.
Retrovirus pseudotypes were made bearing the envs of VEEV or VSV (see Fig. 1
). The VSV-G pseudotyped virus served as a negative control in our assays to detect nonspecific effects of serum on MLV infection. MLV pseudotypes can enter cells, integrate a reporter gene into the host chromosome, and then permanently drive expression of the reporter gene through action of cellular transcription factors on the viral LTR promoter. For the VEEV pseudotype, expression of luciferase (see Fig. 1, lower) was detectable as early as 15 hours and increased at later time points. Curve fitting indicated that the increase in signal was linear over time (R2 = 0.98), with a theoretical starting point of 14 hours and increasing by 5500 ± 200 cps/h of incubation of cells. The VSV vector had similar kinetics (not shown). Out of convenience subsequent assays were performed at 20 hours post inoculation of pseudotyped virus but could be done sooner as signal for each virus was sufficient (> 104 cps) by 17 hours. The stability of each pseudotype was tested by comparing the luciferase activity of each after a single freeze-thaw cycle for virus stored for 3 years at –80°C to that recorded when fresh. While initial freezing reduced the titer of the VSV and VEEV pseudotypes by 3-fold and 5-fold respectively, activities for the 3-year-old stocks were similar to that of the initial frozen stock (within 2-fold, data not shown). This indicated that beyond the initial impact of freezing, the pseudotypes remained stable for prolonged periods of time.
The pseudotyped viruses were then used to establish that they could be effectively neutralized by immune serum and that neutralization was specific to the VEEV env and not due to nonspecific interaction with the common MLV core. Seven sera were selected from humans and horses. One was from a vaccinated horse and another from a vaccinated laboratory worker and were previously shown to have neutralizing antibodies by PRNT. Four other sera were from unvaccinated laboratory workers and another was from an unvaccinated horse that had not been previously exposed to VEEV. Each was used to define the neutralization properties of pseudotypes bearing envs from the Trinidad donkey (TRD) strain of VEEV or VSV (Figure 2; the human non-immune serum behaved similarly and so only 2 are shown). Mouse ascites fluid from mice inoculated with VSV (Indiana strain) was also tested on the VSV-G pseudotyped virus only and served as a positive control for this virus. For the VSV env pseudotype, the VEEV immune and non-immune serum behaved similarly. Each human sera had neutralizing activity that peaked at 1:20 (lowest dilution tested), reducing the luciferase signal by 64 ± 19%. At 1:40 this was reduced to 41 ± 16%. The signal from the VEEV env pseudotyped virus was also inhibited by the 1:20 dilution of non-immune human serum with surprisingly little variation between serum samples, reducing the luciferase signal by 79 ± 2%. At 1:40 this was reduced to 66% ± 2. In contrast, the two VEEV immune serum significantly reduced VEEV pseudotype infection beyond the inhibition seen with non-immune serum (P < 0.001 at the 1:20 dilution), with dilutions of 1:640 and 1:2560 yielding > 80% signal reduction. Similarly, the anti-VSV ascites fluid reduced VSV luciferase activity by > 80% at a dilution of 1:640. These findings indicated that the VEEV pseudotype was potentially a useful tool for determining neutralization titers (NTs) but due to the effects of non-immune serum on the VEEV pseudotype, only NTs of > 40 were significant and indicated the presence of neutralizing antibody.
|
). We used 2 strains of VEEV that differed by subtype (IAB and IC) and are antigenically representative of common epizootic VEEV subtypes. Corresponding pseudotypes bearing the envs of each were also constructed. In this set of experiments the VSV control was neutralized to 57 ± 16% of the untreated control signal at a serum concentration of 1:40, which was similar to previous experiments. Non-immune serum behaved similarly. In contrast, VEEV TRD reactive serum effectively reduced assay signals or plaque numbers to give titers of 320 and > 1280 for the PRNT and pseudotype assays respectively (80% reduction in plaque number or luciferase signal was used as end point). The difference seen in the titers between the PRNT and the pseudotype assay indicated that the pseudotypes were more readily neutralized.
|
). For Everglades-reactive serum, neutralization was evident by PRNT (titer of 80) and with the VEEV pseudotypes (> 1280). Mucambo-reactive serum did not neutralize live virus but gave titers of 160 and 320 with the VEEV pseudotypes. This is consistent with E2 protein epitopes shared between TRD and these VEE complex subtypes.15 Mucambo and Everglades subtypes are reported to share 2 and 4 epitopes (as identified using monoclonal antibodies) respectively with VEEV strain TRD.16 The corresponding titers using PRNT and the pseudotype assay appear to reflect this relationship. The Pixuna reactive sera gave an unexpectedly potent neutralization (> 1280) of the VEEV pseudotypes but did not affect live VEEV (< 20) in the PRNT assay. This may reflect the exposure of a conserved, but buried cross-reactive epitope that is specifically bound by antibodies in the Pixuna reactive serum. Other sera reactive to more distantly related alphaviruses were also tested. Eastern equine encephalitis (EEEV), Mayaro virus, and Barmah Forest virus-reactive sera were used. EEEV is the sister antigenic complex with VEE in the alphavirus genus, and Mayaro is a more distantly related New World alphavirus, while Barmah Forest is a distantly related Old World alphavirus. In each case no cross-reactivity was evident by PRNT, but low-level neutralization was observed using the pseudotypes with EEEV and Mayaro reactive sera. No reactivity was evident with Barmah Forest reactive serum for either live VEEV or the pseudotypes. Apart from the exception of Pixuna reactive serum, neutralization patterns seen with the pseudotyped viruses correlated to those from PRNT assays using live VEEV. Importantly, since the pseudotype-based assay can be performed in a 96-well format (and potentially higher density formats, like 384-well plates) it is particularly suited for high-throughput primary screening of serum to detect neutralizing antibodies.
We then applied the pseudotype assay to screen for neutralizing antibodies in human and horse serum. Again, a 96-well format was used that could be adapted to a high-throughput patient or veterinary diagnostic screening scenario. Sera were reacted with pseudotyped virus and then cells were added and cultured. After 20 hours, cells were lysed and luciferase gene expression was read. Typical signals obtained for untreated virus were 2 x 104 cps, which corresponds to approximately 200 colony forming units of virus (data not shown), and was readily detected in our 96-well plate reading luminometer. We tested 5 human sera from individuals living in VEEV-endemic areas of Mexico, 4 laboratory workers (in addition to that from Figure 2) previously vaccinated with the TC-83 vaccine strain (a derivative of strain TRD), and 7 horses experimentally infected with different VEEV strains (indicated in Table 2). One horse was also bled at day 0, 8, and 14 after inoculation with virus to observe seroconversion. In general, where end points were obtained, the pseudotypes were neutralized more effectively than wild-type virus, and gave titers that were at least 2-fold higher than for the PRNT using live virus (see Table 2). In each case the NTs reflected the results obtained from the PRNT assay. Of the 14 serum that were positive by PRNT, all were detected as being positive by the pseudotype assay. Indeed, 2 samples taken from individuals living in a VEEV endemic area (serum 486 and 505), previously indicated to be negative by PRNT had low-level reactivity using the pseudotype assay (titer of 40–80 using the TRD pseudotype). A vaccinated individual (VAC1) also gave a low NT (40–80) with the pseudotypes but was negative by PRNT. These were likely true positives as the titers obtained with normal human serum did not exceed 1:20. Also, the VSV-G control pseudotype gave a neutralization activity on average of 64% and 41% at 1:20 and 1:40 respectively with each of the sera tested in this set of experiments (data not shown).
|
, upper panel). This approach offers the potential of detecting neutralizing antibodies in the fastest time possible for a virus-based method. In our previous work entry was detected as quickly as 15 minutes after virus contact with cells.
|
, middle panel). From this a time of 1 hour with 105 cells was sufficient to obtain a signal that was highly reproducible and had a signal to noise ratio of > 100 (2200 cps with a typical instrument background of 20 cps). While assays were performed in tubes, a 96-well plate assay could be achieved with extended incubation times (2 h) to obtain sufficient signal from smaller cell numbers (typically 104 cell per well).
Neutralization assays were then performed using selected serum from our prior screen of the pseudotypes. These included human serum (503) and horse serum (day 14 post-infection). NTs were 80 and 160 respectively (Figure 3, lower panel). In each case the VSV control was unaffected by the serum, showing that the signal inhibition was specific for the VEEV particles. NTs were calculated based on an 80% reduction in signal from the untreated cells. We found that the NTs obtained were within 2-fold of those from the PRNT assay. These observations indicate that the entry assay provides a rapid method to titer neutralizing VEEV antibody responses.
|
DISCUSSION |
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Virus pseudotypes are virus particles that bear the envs of a donor virus over the core of another virus. The most commonly used pseudotypes are retrovirus and VSV core-based particles. These form when the virus core buds from cell membrane domains that are enriched for the virus envs. When the native env is deleted, other viral envs can substitute. Pseudotyping efficiency is related to the ability of the new env to localize to membrane domains where the donor core buds.18,19 Many env pseudotypes of Murine leukemia viruses have been described and are promising gene therapy vectors.20 Importantly, in each case, the pseudotype adopts the host range, receptor utilization, and entry mechanism of the acquired env. Another advantage of pseudotypes is that they are rapidly generated using plasmid-based transfection of commercially available and well-characterized cell lines (usually derivatives of 293 HEK cells). From the current work, transient transfection of one 10-cm plate of 293 cells yields sufficient VEEV env or VSV env pseudotyped virus to perform 10 and 100 96-well plate assays, respectively (104 cps/well at 20 h; differences correspond to titer of the pseudotype). Virus can be rapidly assembled from plasmid stocks and virus stocks can be stored frozen at –80°C for at least 3 years without appreciable (2-fold) loss in activity. Producing virus stocks from plasmids also overcomes issues of antigenic drift that are associated with passage of replication competent virus in cell culture or animals.
Pseudotyped particles are also considered safe and non-contagious as the viral genome is almost completely replaced by a reporter gene. Indeed, current NIH guidelines indicate that MLV pseudotypes can be used at BSL-1 when no evidence of replication competent virus exists (as is typical).14 This is a significant advantage over other virus-based assays. In the present work we used the firefly luciferase reporter gene to replace the MLV genome. This enzyme produces light when its substrates, ATP, oxygen, and luciferin, are reacted together. Assay buffer is commercially available and many laboratories have equipment to sensitively measure the light output. To date, few groups have taken advantage of pseudotypes as potential diagnostic reagents. Exceptions are Hepatitis C virus21 and the SARS coronavirus.22 However, in both reports, no quantitative assessment was made to indicate how the NTs of the pseudotypes compared with those obtained through standard assays using live virus.
We show that VEEV envelope pseudotypes encoding firefly luciferase can be used to screen for neutralizing antibodies in serum of humans, horses, and rodents. In general, the neutralization patterns of the pseudotypes were similar to those seen with live virus by PRNT. In cases in which end points were obtained, the pseudotype assays gave titers at least 2-fold greater than by PRNT. Consistent with this result, we often observed neutralization of the pseudotyped particles when the PRNT assay did not detect activity, indicating the presence of low-level neutralizing antibodies. A drawback was seen in neutralization of both VSV and VEEV envpseudotyped particles with "non-immune" serum, which with VEEV env virus reached the 80% signal reduction threshold at serum concentrations of 1:20. The VSV env bearing pseudotypes were neutralized more weakly. However, when serum containing known neutralizing antibodies was used, neutralization exceeded that of the non-immune serum. This neutralization may be the product of nonspecific anti-viral factors in the serum. Others have reported that pseudotypes produced in murine cells can be neutralized by human antibodies reactive to mouse-specific carbohydrate modifications of the envs.23 Neutralization was also seen with non-immune serum in the PRNT assay using live virus, but it did not exceed the 80% reduction in plaque number that is the standard cut-off threshold.13 The "nonspecific" neutralization set the upper boundary of detection for the assay to serum concentrations 
1:40 where neutralization did not exceed 66% for any of the non-immune samples tested. We had expected that the VSV pseudotypes would be nonspecifically neutralized to a similar extent as seen with the VEEV env pseudotyped viruses and serve to measure this effect. However, 3 of 5 non-immune serum tested neutralized the VSV more weakly than the VEEV env pseudotyped virus. Another pseudotype bearing the envelope proteins of a different virus (e.g., another alphavirus) may perform this function better.
The assay was tested for the ability to detect cross-reactive neutralizing antibodies generated against members of the VEE complex and related alphaviruses. The VEE complex is made of 6 virus species that are antigenically related. Antisera generated against each virus cross-react to different extents.24 Monoclonal antibodies are required to further distinguish subtypes and strains. Subtype I viruses share 1–4 env epitopes with subtypes II through V.16,25 Most differences are in epitopes present on E2 and correspond to amino acid sequence differences. The NT using pseudotypes was expected to reflect the antigenic relatedness of VEEV TRD or 3908 strains to the virus used to generate the serum. Everglades virus is closely related to VEEV and shares at least 4 monoclonal antibody-recognized epitopes.16 Consistent with this relatedness, antiserum against Everglades potently neutralized VEEV TRD and 3908-based pseudotypes. Mucambo is a subtype III virus and shares only 2 epitopes, and Mucambo-reactive sera gave lower titers with both live and pseudotyped viruses. The exception was Pixuna reactive antiserum where the pseudotypes were efficiently neutralized but the live virus was unaffected. We speculate that the pseudotypes may expose a neutralizing epitope that is normally buried on live virus but was a dominant reactivity in the anti-Pixuna serum only. Epitopes on E1 are likely candidates as they are highly conserved between VEE complex members and even more distantly related alphaviruses.16 However, Mayaro, EEEV, and Barmah forest virus-reactive serum had little to no neutralizing activity for the pseudotypes indicating that for these antibodies against the neutralizing Pixuna epitope is not a major component. The findings indicate that the pseudotypes may give false positive reactions for some sera containing neutralizing antibodies to related viruses, like Pixuna. However, more extensive work with human and horse serum validated the effectiveness of the assay to screen for anti-VEEV neutralizing antibodies. In general, the NT results using pseudotypes closely reflected those obtained with live virus in a PRNT, with all PRNT-positive serum being positive by the pseudotype assay as well. We conclude that the pseudotype assay may be best suited as a rapid and high-throughput primary screen to detect neutralizing antibodies to closely related members of the VEE complex but identification of strain or subtype-reactive antibodies will likely require further testing using conventional PRNT and other assays.
While the pseudotype assay can be performed in under 24 hours, we also showed that a luciferase-based rapid virus entry assay could also be used to determine an NT more quickly. Times as short as 1 hour were sufficient to obtain a signal and obtain a quantitative measure of entry inhibition by antibody. This assay gave NTs that were within 2-fold of the PRNT assay with live virus. This system is more difficult to adapt to a high-throughput format as it is a kinetic assay; thus small differences in addition of virus, cells, and serum can result in increased errors in the readout of the assay. However, the assay is most useful when a quick determination of neutralization titer is required and for primary screening of drugs or other substances that affect cell viability after long-term exposure.
Overall we expect our findings to be directly applicable to high-throughput screening of serum for VEEV-neutralizing antibodies. The assays that we discussed may be useful in the laboratory for detection of neutralizing antibodies in patients and for development of vaccines or identification of drugs that block VEEV entry.
Received January 23, 2006. Accepted for publication May 23, 2006.
Acknowledgments: We thank Ms. Mardelle Susman for editing the manuscript. Thanks to Dr. Robert Tesh for providing characterized mouse serum raised to specific alphaviruses and James Olson and Evelia Quiroz for providing other sera. Technical assistance was provided by Wenli Kang. This work was supported by grants from NIAID to RD and SCW through the Western Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Disease Research, NIH Grant number U54 AI057156. Other support to SCW was provided by NIH Grant 48807 and by NIH contract N01-AI25489 and to RD by NIH Grant R56 AI 63513-01.
* Address correspondence to Robert Davey, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX 77555. E-mail: radavey{at}utmb.edu 
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Authors’ addresses: Andrey A. Kolokoltsov, Tonya M. Colpitts, and Robert A. Davey, 4.138, MRB, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, 301 University Blvd., Galveston, TX 77555. Eryu Wang and Scott C. Weaver, 4.128, Department of Pathology, Kieller Bldg., 301 University Blvd., Galveston, TX 77555.
|
REFERENCES |
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. L. Tallmadge, M. A. Brindley, J. Salmans, R. H. Mealey, W. Maury, and S. Carpenter Development and Characterization of an Equine Infectious Anemia Virus Env-Pseudotyped Reporter Virus Clin. Vaccine Immunol., July 1, 2008; 15(7): 1138 - 1140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. NI, N. E. YUN, M. A. ZACKS, S. C. WEAVER, R. B. TESH, A. P. T. DA ROSA, A. M. POWERS, I. FROLOV, and S. PAESSLER RECOMBINANT ALPHAVIRUSES ARE SAFE AND USEFUL SEROLOGICAL DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS Am J Trop Med Hyg, April 1, 2007; 76(4): 774 - 781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
