PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Expert Rev Vaccines. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 4.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3319117
NIHMSID: NIHMS286349

Analysis of epitope information related to Bacillus anthracis and Clostridium botulinum

Abstract

We have reviewed the information about epitopes of immunological interest from Clostridium botulinum and Bacillus anthracis, by mining the Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource. For both pathogens, the vast majority of epitopes reported to date are derived from a single protein: the protective antigen of B. anthracis and the neurotoxin type A of C. botulinum. A detailed analysis of the data was performed to characterize the function, localization and conservancy of epitopes identified as neutralizing and/or protective. In order to broaden the scope of this analysis, we have also included data describing immune responses against defined fragments (over 50 amino acids long) of the relevant antigens. The scarce information on T-cell determinants and on epitopes from other antigens besides the toxins, highlights a gap in our knowledge and identifies areas for future research. Despite this, several distinct structures at the epitope and fragment level are described herein, which could be potential additions to future vaccines or targets of novel immunotherapeutics and diagnostic reagents.

Keywords: anthrax toxin, Bacillus anthracis, botulinum toxin, Clostridium botulinum, epitope, therapeutic antibodies, vaccine

Bacillus anthracis and Clostridium botulinum are Gram-positive soil-dwelling bacteria. B. anthracis is a relatively common veterinary pathogen that has emerged recently as a major biological weapon. By contrast, C. botulinum does not cause invasive disease but produces a potent neurotoxin that has both therapeutic and weapon potential [1,2]. Given their potential importance as biological weapons, there is intense interest in the generation of vaccines, passive antibody therapies and immune-based diagnostic strategies against both B. anthracis and the C. botulinum toxin [1-14]. Information related to immune epitopes can be used to advance our understanding of disease pathogenesis and host immunity, as well as applied to the development and characterization of therapeutics and diagnostics, including the establishment of reliable correlates of protection to monitor their performance. This review aims to provide a comprehensive panorama on the current status of knowledge specific to epitopes from these pathogens and to identify areas where additional study is needed.

Bioinformatic tools have greatly enhanced our ability to both catalog and analyze vast amounts of scientific data. The performance of meta-analyses from the data can facilitate in-depth evaluation of existing knowledge in a particular area of research [15]. The Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB) [101] is a project that is hosted by scientists at the La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology with support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a part of the US NIH. The goal of the IEDB is to compile and present immunological data and analysis tools through a single interface [16]. The scope of the IEDB encompasses structures that are targets of adaptive immunoreceptors of humans and other vertebrates (i.e., of epitopes that are reasonably defined in structural terms). More specifically, the IEDB focuses on the inclusion of peptidic B- and T-cell epitopes, either linear or conformational, of less than 50 residues in length and of nonpeptidic epitopes that are less than 5000 Da [17].

The database is populated with reports from the published literature, as well as by direct submission from epitope discovery groups, and contains an extensive collection of B- and T cell epitopes, as well as MHC binding structures, and a detailed annotation of the immunological context in which each epitope was defined (immunized/infected species, source organism and antigen of the epitope, and experimental techniques). Moreover, the compiled and standardized data can then be further evaluated using several analysis tools available at the IEDB website, as part of the Analysis Resource.

Based on the contextual information provided, the epitopes can be classified for their biological function as antigenic, immunogenic, neutralizing and/or protective (Box 1). Epitopes were excluded from this analysis if they only had MHC binding data, negative data, or data from assays where the same structure is used for immunization and detection, for these epitopes cannot be classified in the aforementioned categories.

Box 1

Definition of terms used

  • Epitope: A structure that is the specific target of a T- or B-cell receptor, with a size limit of 50 amino acids or 5000 Da.
  • Antigenic epitope: An epitope recognized by the immune system after immunization with the complete antigen or organism that contains it.
  • Immunoprevalent epitope: An antigenic epitope that is recognized by the immune system more frequently or more strongly than other epitopes from the same antigen.
  • Immunogenic epitope: An epitope able to elicit antigen- or organism-specific responses when used as immunogen.
  • Neutralizing epitope: An antigenic epitope that is recognized by antibodies or T cells with proven neutralizing or cytotoxic activity.
  • Protective epitope: An immunogenic epitope able to confer protection from disease/infection by the pathogenic antigen or organism that contains it.

This study includes all B. anthracis and C. botulinum epitopes identified as of 30 June 2007. The current epitope knowledge for these pathogens is highly focused on a small subset of antigens and is significantly biased towards antibody epitopes. However, an overview of the epitope information is provided for both B- and T-cell epitopes. In addition, a detailed analysis of the functionality and location of neutralizing and protective immune epitopes is provided.

Basic features of C. botulinum & B. anthracis pathogenicity & toxicity

B. anthracis and C. botulinum are facultative and strictly anaerobic bacteria, respectively and are related. They can each form highly resistant spores that, upon germination, produce toxins. As in other bacterial toxins, these toxins conform to the A/B toxin model, where the cell internalization functions (‘B component’) are on separate subunit(s) from the toxic enzymatic activity (‘A component’) [18].

Inhalation of B. anthracis spores can result in fulminant pulmonary syndrome that is associated with high mortality, as was shown during the bioterrorism attacks of 2001. B. anthracis has two major virulence factors, the anthrax toxin(s) and the poly-d-glutamic-acid capsule. These virulence factors are encoded by two plasmids, pX01 and pX02, and bacterial strains lacking either plasmid are significantly attenuated in virulence. Anthrax toxins are produced upon internalization and germination of spores in macrophages, from where the germinative form of the bacilli disseminates [12]. Although the exact relationship between toxin production and the fulminant sepsis that follows the inhalation of anthrax is unknown, there is general consensus that toxin production is critical for B. anthracis pathogenesis, which is supported by the observation that toxin-defective mutants are hypovirulent and that toxin-neutralizing antibodies correlate with protection against disease. The toxin B-component is named protective antigen (PA) because antibodies to this protein mediate protection in animal models. The complete PA molecule, known as PA83, has to undergo cleavage of its N-terminal domain, PA20, by host proteases to become the active, pore-forming heptamer of PA63 molecules [19]. The toxic A-components lethal factor (LF) and edema factor (EF) can then associate with the PA prepore, which subsequently inserts in the target cell membranes producing the pore through which EF and LF gain access to the cytosol and effect their toxicity. LF is a metalloprotease that targets the MAPK family of proteins. EF has Ca2+- and calmodulin-dependent adenylyl cyclase activity that affects the endogenous cellular cAMP levels. Hence, the term ‘anthrax toxin’ involves a cellular binding/transporter molecule (PA) and cytotoxic components (LF and EF). Both EF and LF can associate simultaneously with a PA heptamer to affect the target cell at both proximal and distal parts of the signal transduction pathways. In the case of homogenous LF–PA and EF–PA associations, the toxins are called lethal toxin (LeTx), and edema toxin, respectively [18, 19]. In addition, B. anthracis also produces anthrolysin, a cholesterol-dependent cytolysin that has potent activity in vitro [20], although its contribution to the pathogenesis of anthrax is unclear.

Two main types of toxins are found in C. botulinum and these are responsible for the clinical syndrome of botulism. The most deadly and common form of botulism syndrome follows ingestion of C. botulinum-contaminated food where the spores have germinated and produced botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT). Alternatively, the spores can germinate in the intestinal tract of infants and in wounds. From a biological weapon point of view, there is enhanced concern that this toxin can be aerosolized to deliver paralytic doses [18,21]. On a molar basis, BoNT is the most toxic agent known to exist, and targets motor neurons leading to flaccid paralysis that impair respiration leading to death through asphyxiation. The toxin is produced as a single-chain protein that is then cleaved into two disulfide-linked polypeptide chains: an A component, the light chain, where the proteolytic activity resides, and a B component, the heavy chain, involved in cell binding and internalization [18]. Seven different serotypes (A–G) exist, which differ in their specificity for cellular receptors and in the intracellular targets of the toxin protease activity. Recently, the long-proposed hypothesis of dual receptors for this toxin was validated by demonstrating that BoNT/B needs to bind to both cell-surface gangliosides and a protein receptor to mediate toxin internalization [22]. Once inside the motor neuron, the proteolytic activity of the light chain differs among some serotypes but, in all cases, the targets are proteins involved in exocytosis of presynaptic vesicles, therefore inhibiting neurotransmitter release and causing paralysis.

In addition to BoNT, C. botulinum produces C2 toxin, where the A and B components are two separately encoded polypeptides, analogous to other clostridial toxins, such as those found in C. perfringens and C. spiroforme [18,23]. The A component (component I) has ADP-ribosylating activity, with specificity for actin, leading to cytoskeleton disruption and cytotoxicity [23,24]. The B component (component II) has some degree of homology to the B. anthracis PA protein and also forms oligomers that bind to cell receptors. This toxin is produced by some strains of C. botulinum types C and D, and induces hypotension, increased intestinal secretion, vascular permeability and lung hemorrhage [24].

Inventory of B. anthracis- & C. botulinum-derived epitopes

Currently, the IEDB contains 15 references [25-39] dealing with B-cell epitopes and four references [40-43] with data on T-cell epitopes derived from B. anthracis. The IEDB contains ten references for C. botulinum[23,44-52] dealing solely with B-cell epitopes and three references [53-55] containing both T- and B-cell determinants. These numbers are reflective of all the manuscripts containing epitope-related information that could be identified in PubMed up to 30 June 2007.

These references describe a total of 11 B. anthracis and 73 C. botulinum unique B-cell epitopes. As for T-cell epitopes, seven structures from B. anthracis and 42 from C. botulinum have been reported (Table 1, Appendix). It is notable that in a few instances the same structure could be assigned to both T- and B-cell epitope categories. These numbers are small compared with other pathogens from the NIAID A, B and C Priority Pathogens list [102]. For example, 176 B-cell epitopes and 692 T-cell epitopes derived from Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and 219 B-cell epitopes and 509 T-cell epitopes derived from Influenza A virus are found within the IEDB. This disparity probably reflects the only recently enhanced interest in B. anthracis and C. botulinum. Indeed, only two of the 18 epitopes from B. anthracis were identified prior to the anthrax bioterrorist attacks of 2001. A systematic analysis of the epitopes contained within both these organisms has not yet been reported in the scientific literature.

Table 1
Total number of Bacillus anthracis and Clostridium botulinum epitopes.

The ratio of B- to T-cell epitopes is approximately 1.5:1 for both pathogens, consistent with the notion that antibody responses are the main correlate of protection from toxic syndromes [56]. The known T-cell epitopes from both organisms are exclusively of the CD4 type, and no information is currently available about CDS T-cell epitopes.

In terms of the chemical nature of the epitopes, all the C. botulinum epitopes, and all but one of the B. anthracis epitopes, are peptidic in nature. The single carbohydrate epitope described for B. anthracis is derived from BclA, the immunodominant antigen of the spore outer coat (exosporium) [10,33,57]. This oligosaccharide contains anthrose, a sugar found, so far, only in B. anthracis. To our knowledge, no other nonpeptidic targets for immune recognition have been described in these organisms.

For the peptidic antibody epitopes described, the ratio of linear versus conformational epitopes is clearly in favor of linear epitopes (9:1 for B. anthracis and 23:1 for C. botulinum). This result probably reflects the relative experimental ease in defining linear B-cell epitopes compared with the identification of conformational epitopes.

Protein antigen sources of the epitopes

B. anthracis is a complex microorganism, whose complete genome has been mapped [58], and encodes approximately 5600 different proteins. However, immune epitopes from a mere five different protein antigens have been described to date (Table 2).

Table 2
Epitope distribution by antigen.

Given the fulminant course of B. anthracis pulmonary infection and the mode of action of the toxin, the presence of antibodies to PA, the major active component of the currently licensed vaccine [12,57], is a sought-after correlate of protection. Furthermore, there is considerable interest in the development of anti-PA passive antibody therapy as an adjunct to antimicrobial therapy and for the prevention of disease in individuals at risk for anthrax – at least one therapeutic monoclonal antibody (mAb) to PA is in clinical development [59]. Accordingly, the majority of the peptidic B-cell epitopes reported in the literature are derived from PA. A single epitopic structure has been described for each of the toxin enzymatic components (LF and EF). Besides anthrax toxin components, oligopeptides from the bacillum poly-γ-d-glutamic acid (P-γ-DGA) capsule are targets for antibody recognition. In the case of the T-cell epitopes, seven peptides derived solely from PA have been described.

Future work is required to define epitopes from other candidate antigens that induce protective B- and T-cell responses. For instance, peptidic structures from the BclA glycoprotein and other exosporium proteins are targets of the immune response in vaccinated animals and humans [12,57,60]. Identification of the corresponding epitopes could facilitate studies on the immune response to B. anthracis spores and its relationship with the pathogenesis and disease outcome. In this line, it is significant that no information is available on epitopes on anthrolysin.

Similarly, in the case of C. botulinum, almost all of the defined immune epitopes are derived from BoNT, with just two epitopes derived from the component II of the C2 toxin. This preponderance in BoNT epitope knowledge is in keeping with the neurotoxin being responsible for botulism syndrome. However, given that over 3400 proteins are encoded by this organism and that in vivo spore germination occurs in infant and wound botulism, it seems that additional valuable information could be obtained by studying immune responses associated with those syndromes. Furthermore, BoNT epitopes are described only for C. botulinum types A and E and the vast majority of the epitopes are from BoNT/A. No epitopes are described from the other five serotypes of BoNT. This gap in knowledge is of particular concern in the degree of preparation against biological attacks, since each of these toxins has considerable biological weapon potential.

Host distribution of epitope-specific responses

The distribution of epitopes by the organisms in which the specific immune response was detected is shown in Table 3. In this case, since certain epitopes are targeted by more than host, the numbers should not be considered additive.

Table 3
Distribution of epitopes by host.

Most of the epitope-specific immune responses to both B. anthracis and C. botulinum have been defined in mice, although other species have been studied. In the case of B. anthracis, some epitopes have been defined in rabbits and macaques, as well as in vaccinated humans. Clearly, epitopes could be studied in additional species, since veterinary vaccination with the avirulent Sterne strain 34F2, or other Sterne-like strains, is widespread for cattle, and the efficacy of these vaccines is routinely tested in guinea pigs.

Similarly, C. botulinum epitope-specific responses have been detected in humans vaccinated with pentavalent toxoid and in individuals inoculated with commercial preparations of BoNT/A for therapeutic purposes; some data also exist from experimental animals, such as chickens, horses and rabbits. A number of epitopes have been described as being recognized across species in mice, humans, chickens and horses (see later). Further definition of epitopes recognized in a diverse set of hosts would be of significant benefit, allowing rigorous comparison of the immune responses and identification of correlates of protection after vaccination of different species, in order to streamline the extrapolation of findings in experimental animal models to human-intended diagnostics and therapeutics.

Functional characteristics of B. anthracis epitopes

Of the ten peptidic B-cell epitopes described for B. anthracis (Table 1, seven are either targets of neutralizing mAbs, which have demonstrated activity in classic in vitro and in vivo neutralization assays, or are able to induce a protective response upon immunization. The protective capacity of the remaining three epitopes has not been assessed. As expected, five of the seven neutralizing epitopes described are from PA [27,29,34,35,39], consistent with the fact that this protein is the source from which, overall, the most epitopes have been described to date. Besides these PA epitopes, an LF epitope corresponding to the repeat 4 of domain III is recognized by mAbs that can reduce LeTx-induced cytotoxicity in macrophages in vitro. One of these mAbs provides protection from mortality following in vivo challenge with LeTx in rats [30]. In addition, γ-DGA oligopeptides from the bacilli-capsule antigen have also been used to generate antibodies with proven opsonophagocytic activity [36,37]. Immune responses directed at bacilli-specific antigens, such as the P-γ-DGA capsule, could be clinically useful by hampering the rapid dissemination of the pathogen in the infected host. However, the immunogenicity of γ-DGA is low, requiring carrier-protein conjugates for an effective induction of this protective response.

T-cell epitopes deriving from B. anthracis were defined in a PA-immune mouse and vaccinated humans by analyzing the proliferation and cytokine production of lymphocytes to overlapping peptides. Indeed, antibody responses to PA after vaccination are T-helper (Th) dependent [40] and PA peptides are presented by infected macrophages [43], suggesting that the epitope-specific T cells may be required for mounting a protective immune response.

Localization of B. anthracis PA epitopes

Since there have been several different PA epitopes described in different experimental contexts and animal hosts, it was of considerable interest to examine the relative localization of these epitopes, and to analyze whether common features could be discerned. A schematic representation of the PA protein and the epitopes recognized is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1A depicts the location of the B-cell epitopes, using different colors for the epitopes recognized in each host organism. Overall, no B-cell epitopes that conform to our 50-amino acid limit have been described in domain 1. The described epitopes tend to cluster in three discrete regions within the remainder of the protein. Each of these regions is recognized in multiple hosts and by at least one neutralizing antibody responses. These three regions correspond to the 2β2–2β3 loop of domain 2, the domain 3–domain 4 boundary and the small loop of domain 4. These regions are indicated in Figure 1D, on the 3D model obtained by x-ray crystallography (pdb 1TZN).

Figure 1
Bacillus anthracis protective antigen (PA) structure and its immunological recognition

The domain 2 2β2–2β3 loop region, which mediates membrane insertion, is the target of several neutralizing murine mAbs [27,39]. This region is probably also a target for polyclonal rabbit sera after vaccination, as the antisera can compete with an epitope-specific mAb for binding to PA.

A stretch of 20 residues at the boundary of domains 3 and 4, a region that currently lacks defined functional activity, has been broadly assigned as the epitope for an in vitro and in vivo neutralizing murine mAb, 2D3 [34]. Interestingly, polyclonal antibodies from vaccinated humans and rabbits were shown to compete with mAb 2D3 for binding to PA, suggesting that this epitopic region is also a target of immune recognition after vaccination [34,61].

Two B-cell epitopes for neutralizing mAbs have been described that localize to the small loop of domain 4, the main region involved in cellular receptor binding: one discontinuous epitope defined in mouse by alanine scanning [35] and a linear epitope defined in the crab-eating macaque M. fascicularis [29]. The neutralizing activity of the macaque antibody was confirmed to occur via inhibition of the PA–cell receptor interaction. These results indicate that neutralizing antibodies directed to the receptor binding site may be able to inhibit the first step of toxic activity, thereby reducing the risk of residual toxicity inherent to targeting other toxin activities.

A completely different pattern is apparent in the case of T-cell epitopes (Figure 1B), which are found fairly evenly distributed along the whole PA molecule. Domains 3 and 4 contain murine T-cell epitopes [41-43], while single human T-cell epitopes have been described in domains 1 and 2 [40]. Interestingly, the domain-1 epitopes described for PA-immunized mice and a vaccinated human are located within the PA20 region that is cleaved before heptamerization [19], suggesting that this region is still processed for presentation on MHC class II molecules after vaccination, allowing the immune system to respond to the entire PA83 molecule and not just the active PA63.

Analysis of immune responses to anthrax toxin domains & regions

Within the IEDB, an epitope is defined as a molecular structure recognized by immune responses, and narrowed down to a molecular size of 50-amino acid residues (or 5000 Da) or less. Given the small number of defined epitopes described in the literature for B. anthracis that fulfil these criteria, we examined the effect of expanding the criteria to include larger fragments or domains that had specific relevance to this analysis, as they represent coarser-grain mappings of the immunologically reactive regions [31,34,42,61-67].

Expanding the criteria for data inclusion provided additional insights into the nature of anthrax-specific immune responses (Figure 1C). First, we found that the entire B. anthracis PA83 protein molecule has been studied, and that all the individual domains, including domain 1, could confer protection to toxic challenge upon the immunization of mice. Monoclonal- and polyclonal-neutralizing murine antibodies have been shown to be directed to domains 1, 2 and 4. The anti-domain-1 mAbs activity was demonstrated to occur via the inhibition of LF–PA interaction and slowing the proteolytic digestion of PA by furin, in agreement with the function of this PA region. Domain 1 also exhibits antigenicity in macaques. These findings highlight the surprising lack of fine definition of the epitopes within the highly immunogenic, protective domain 1.

Second, immune recognition of domains 3 and 4 in additional host species (humans, chimpanzees and rabbits) was reported in the literature. Knowledge of the neutralizing ability of antibodies from humans and chimpanzees directed to these domains could not have been derived from the existing data on epitopes of 50 amino acids or less. Therefore, further definition of the individual epitopes that mediate this activity is required in order to establish the degree of conservation among the determinants of neutralizing antibodies elicited in different hosts.

The immunogenicity of the N-terminal region of the enzymatic toxin components, LF and EF, was also studied but, in this case, they were not tested for the neutralizing or protective capacity [1,68-70]. However, even after expanding the molecular size requirement for data inclusion, studies that define additional antigenic or immunogenic regions in other B. anthracis antigens besides the toxins were not identified.

Localization of epitopes from botulinum toxin type A

The distribution of the antibody epitopes on the BoNT/A protein is shown in Figure 2A, where a color code defines the peptides reactive in each species. The top panel depicts the domain organization of the BoNT proteins, where the N-terminal light chain is linked through disulfide bonds to the heavy chain. The most N-terminal region of the heavy chain (the Belt) partially covers the light chain in the free state, native conformation. The HN domain of BoNT is involved in the translocation of the light chain to the cytosol. The HC domain most C-terminal region (HCC) is involved in the receptor binding, while no clear function has been attributed to the HCN region located at the N-terminal part of the HC domain. To maximize the biological relevance of the analysis, only peptides recognized strongly (i.e., immunoprevalent epitopes, Box 1) were considered here. The cutoff values for inclusion are listed in Figure 2. Several B-cell epitopes from BoNT/A have been reported in a series of studies performed by the Atassi group [45-47,50,53-55] using overlapping peptides from the heavy chain of BoNT/A1. Focusing the analysis on the more highly antigenic peptides, seven peptides were identified in humans, defining six immunoprevalent sites, two of them located in the HN domain and four in the HC domain. In mice, 20 peptides were immunoprevalent and define a total of 13 recognition sites, which were fairly evenly distributed along the heavy chain. Some of these peptides were also shown to induce a BoNT/A1-specific response upon peptide immunization of mice. As many as 18 peptides are recognized in the chicken, defining 11 immunoprevalent sites, again, fairly well-distributed along the heavy chain. By contrast, peptides found to be antigenic in horses are mainly located at the belt and HN domain (eight peptides defining four antigenic sites), while only one peptide from the HC domain can be considered highly antigenic.

Figure 2
Clostridium botulinum botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT/A) structure and its Immunological recognition

Residues in the belt–HN boundary and the C-terminal 1275–1296 peptide are recognized consistently in the four species tested, suggesting these regions are broadly antigenic. It would then be of interest to assess the capacity of these regions to induce protective responses, as they may represent common neutralizing antibodies’ targets.

The group of Atassi has also studied the antigenicity and immunogenicity of the peptides covering the HN and HC domains for murine Th cells (Figure 2B) [53-55]. The overall antigenic potential of these domains appears to be higher is SJL (H-2s) than in BALB/c (H-2d) mice. The receptor-binding region, while a target of antibody responses, was antigenic in SJL mice immunized with BoNT/A toxoid [55], but that result was not seen in mice immunized with a recombinant HC fragment of BoNT/A [53], while upon direct peptide immunization with determinants from that region, peptide-specific T-cell-proliferative responses could indeed be elicited [55]. The belt and HCN regions, on the other hand, appear to contain a high density of H-2s determinants. In order to infer which regions would be of interest to include in vaccines aimed at inducing Th responses, the T-cell epitopes recognized in other species need to be studied as well.

Neutralizing epitopes from BoNT/A

Two linear epitopes and three discontinuous epitopes from BoNT/A have been described as being recognized by neutralizing mAbs. These BoNT/A neutralizing epitopes are represented on the 3D model of BoNT/A obtained by x-ray crystallography (pdb 3BTA) in Figure 2D. The effects of these mAbs on toxin activity correlate with the location of the epitopes on the BoNT/A domains for which discrete functions are known, as described below.

For the heavy-chain epitopes, one structure recognized by five neutralizing murine mAbs raised against the HC domain [48], co-localizes with the putative ganglioside binding site on the HCC region. Moreover, immunization of mice with this peptide conferred protection in two out of five mice to experimental challenge with ten LD50 doses of BoNT.

The three discontinuous epitopes reported to date are recognized by murine or human mAbs, studied extensively by the group of Marks [52] and found to be capable of synergistically neutralizing the toxin activity in both in vitro and in vivo mouse models. An analysis of the contribution of individual residues to the total binding energy using a library of BoNT/A1 mutants allowed for the definition of the residues involved in recognition. For the murine mAb S25, three consecutive residues, 1254QFN1256, that co-localize with the putative ganglioside binding site were identified. Similarly, for the human mAb 3D12, three consecutive residues, 1129GIR1131, on the HCC region were defined that overlap with residues potentially involved in the toxin–protein receptor interaction. The identified residues involved in the recognition by mAb C25 are located on the HCN region, for which there is no defined functionality. Further studies on the mechanism of neutralizing activity of this mAb could help define the role of the HCN region in BoNT toxicity. This set of three mAbs is proposed as an alternative to animal heptavalent antisera for postexposure treatment of toxic syndrome [68,71-73], the only currently available therapy for botulism.

A light-chain peptide is the target of a murine monoclonal IgG2b antibody raised against the isolated light chain [49]. This mAb was not protective in vivo when the toxin–mAb complex was formed in the extracellular milieu, but was protective when injected into the presynaptic ganglion neurons 1 h before the addition of BoNT/A. Thus, this response is not of therapeutic interest, but is an example of how studying the basis of the biological activity for inhibitory mAbs allows the confirmation of the functionality of toxin regions deduced from basic toxicological and mutational analysis.

Conservancy & cross-reactive recognition of epitopes among BoNT types & subtypes

Next, we analyzed the conservancy of neutralizing and protective epitopes among the different subtypes and serotypes of botulinum toxin, and reviewed the known cross-reactivity data for these epitopes. When comparing the amino acid sequences derived from the seven different serotypes of BoNT, it is evident that even with the shared general functionality of each domain, a high degree of variability exists that extends throughout the toxin’s entire primary structure. Variants are also found within each serotype, which can be defined as strains or subtypes depending on the degree of homology [74].

The amino acid sequences of the known neutralizing epitopes were analyzed for the percentage of identity among subtypes and between serotypes (Table 4) using the Epitope Conservancy Analysis tool, hosted on the IEDB website [101]. This tool provides all the regions in a target protein that have homology with the query sequence, with an identity threshold level determined by the user.

Table 4
Conservancy of BoNT neutralizing epitopes across serotypes and subtypes.

For the linear BoNT/A epitopes (Table 4), the degree of conservancy of epitopes within the BoNT/A serotype is usually high (88–100%), with a substantial drop in the identity score when the BoNT/A1 epitopes are aligned to other serotypes. For the light-chain epitope, BoNT/A1-28–53 (Table 4), meaningful counterparts can be assigned in the other serotypes because this subunit is more conserved than the heavy chain, of which the linear epitopes cannot always be identified in other serotypes. Still, the mAb specific for this light-chain epitope does not cross-react with BoNT/B – the closest sequence outside the BoNT/A serotype. The heavy-chain linear epitope, BoNT/A1-1230–1254 (Table 4), has similar counterparts within the other BoNT/A subtypes but no significant homologs in other serotypes. Although there is no experimental data on the cross-reactivity of its recognizing mAb, it would then be expected to be BoNT/A specific.

In the case of the BoNT/A epitopes mapped to the individual residues involved in recognition (Table 4), the analysis is restricted to the BoNT/A subtypes since the divergence among serotypes is too profound to allow for a meaningful comparison of discontinuous or short sequences. Epitope conservancy among BoNT/A subtypes is consistent with experimental results relating to cross-reactivity. The residues involved in the recognition by the human mAb 3D12, 1129GIR1131, are conserved in all BoNT/A subtypes and for BoNT/A2, a cross-reactive recognition was demonstrated. On the other hand, residues involved energetically in the binding of mAb S25, 1254QFN1256, are not conserved in BoNT/A2 and, congruently, this mAb has an affinity three orders of magnitude higher for BoNT/A1 than for BoNT/A2 [74].

The humanized mAb, HuC25, provides an interesting example of how variability can affect cross-reactive recognition. The residues involved in the binding are conserved in BoNT/A1 and BoNT/A2 in seven out of nine instances, but in the presence of T1063P and H1064R substitutions the KD of HuC25 drops dramatically [52,74]. By artificial molecular evolution of HuC25, mAbs were obtained that have a higher affinity towards BoNT/A1 and are cross-reactive towards BoNT/A2 [75]. This latter activity is mediated by few mutated residues on the mAb, thus, confirming that subtle differences in antigens and antibodies can influence the extent of cross-reactivity.

For BoNT/E (Table 4), the epitopes described in the literature derive from studies of the recognition of the Iwanai strain, the complete sequence of which has not yet been published [51]. An HN domain epitope, 663VIKAIN668, is conserved in the published BoNT/E sequences. The other serotypes containing some homology at this epitope sequence are BoNT/F and BoNTA/4, but in the latter case, the location of the sequence is not conserved. The HC-domain epitope characterized, 1224YLTHMRD1230, is not found in the published BoNT/E sequences, which have a tyrosine at position 1225 and are the only sequences with significant homology. Cross-reactive recognition and neutralization by the mAbs directed to these epitopes to other subtypes of BoNT/E and to BoNT/F has not been tested.

In general, this analysis confirms the observation that polyclonal antibodies recognize serotype-specific determinants of neutralization [76]. Here, mAbs generated against the entire BoNT/A or BoNT/E toxins were analyzed, and were also found to lack cross-protective capacity between serotypes. These results suggest that vaccine and therapeutic approaches to this toxin may need to be strain specific.

Analysis of immune responses to BoNT/A domains & regions

As in the case of the PA protein of B. anthracis, we analyzed the available literature pertaining to the immune response to BoNT/A regions that fall outside our 50-amino acid limit for inclusion in the database as epitopes. The fragments that have been defined as being antigenic or immunogenic in the analyzed references [44,73,74,77-83] are shown in Figure 2C.

In mice, fragments that encompass the entire BoNT/A molecule were shown to have antigenic and immunogenic potential. The isolated heavy chain is the target of neutralizing antibodies and can elicit a protective immune response, while no such activities are associated with the light-chain. This observation is in agreement with what has been described previously for epitope-specific responses, where a light chain epitope is the target of a mAb whose neutralizing capacity is observed only upon intraneuronal injection. In addition, by immunization with overlapping fragments covering the entire BoNT/A1 sequence, it has been shown that protective immunity can be achieved not only by the most C-terminal HCC region where the receptor binding activity resides, but also by the region of the belt–HN boundary, which, as mentioned previously, is also immunoprevalent in humans, chickens and horses. This finding reinforces the need for further study on the basis of the protection afforded by this region, as it would be a potentially valuable addition to future synthetic vaccines.

In the case of horses, antisera generated against BoNT/A is shown to recognize all the fragments tested, suggesting that upon toxoid/toxin immunization, all the domains induce a specific response. This information is of value since the published epitope-specific responses did not include any data on the antigenicity or immunogenicity of the light chain in this species.

Two regions have been shown to be targets of human antibodies. Specifically, a fragment of the HCC region is recognized by a neutralizing mAb that was later mapped to its defined epitope. Similarly, the HN domain is confirmed to be a target of antibodies generated by pentavalent toxoid vaccination, as was already shown at the analysis of individual epitopes. In the case of rabbits, the analysis of longer fragments reveals that anti-HC domain antibodies raised in this species have neutralizing capacity, as is the case in humans and mice.

In general, there is good agreement between the data obtained at the epitope and large-fragment levels of analysis, and the results of the latter point to the need for further definition of the regions involved in protective responses in species other than the mouse.

Analysis of immune responses to domains & regions from other serotypes of BoNT

Data relating to recognition of fragments from other serotypes of BoNT besides BoNT/A is of interest given the almost complete lack of information about the immune response to them that can be obtained by analyzing the epitope-related published data. Regions of more than 50 amino acids from serotypes BoNT/B to BoNT/F were also studied, in five references for BoNT/B [84-88], three for BoNT/C [89-91], two from BoNT/D [89,91], four from BoNT/E [51,78,92,93] and two from BoNT/F [93,94]. No references were identified as containing data regarding immune recognition of BoNT/G fragments. The individual domains 1, 2 and 4 of the component II of C2 toxin have also been tested for both antigenicity and immunogenicity in a single reference [23].

By considering larger fragments, we found, consistent with the data derived from the BoNT/A analysis, that the heavy chains from BoNT/B, C, D and F are targets of neutralizing antibodies. Furthermore, the BoNT/B- and BoNT/E-HC domain and the BoNT/F HCC region were shown to confer protection from toxic challenge.

Novel neutralization data was also obtained from this analysis, showing that the light chain is a target of neutralizing antibodies in the case of BoNT/B, C and D. This kind of activity had not been demonstrated for BoNT/A, and is also apparently absent in BoNT/E. The basis of this difference in neutralizing epitopes in the different serotypes warrants further studies.

The ability of individual domains of component II of C. botulinum toxin C2 to induce neutralizing antibodies has also been studied. The C2 toxin cytotoxicity can be inhibited by anti-domain-4 sera, consistent with this domain’s activity, to mediate binding to the cellular receptor.

We also analyzed the information on the cross-reactive recognition of the different BoNT serotypes obtained when expanding our size limit. Sera raised in mice to BoNT/A fragments were in many cases able to cross-recognize other serotypes. In particular, cross-reactivity towards serotypes B, C, D, E and F was observed for antisera raised in CB6F1 mice to recombinant fragments, representing the light chain N-terminal region, the HN domain, and the N-terminal part of the HCC region, linked to a Th peptide from cholera toxin. In other studies, it was found that cross-reactivity of the BoNT/A fragment-specific sera is not so widespread among serotypes, with titers to heterologous toxins usually lower than to the immunogen, and the results varied depending on the immunization protocol. Furthermore, the protective capacity upon heterologous challenge of the immunized animals was not assessed in these studies. Indeed, the HC domain of BoNT/A1, which confers protection to homologous challenge, did not protect mice and rabbits from BoNT/B and/or BoNT/E challenge.

A different scenario is seen for BoNT/C and BoNT/D, where anti-heavy-chain cross-neutralizing mAbs were obtained, while their anti-light-chain counterparts failed to exhibit cross neutralization. This result is in accordance with the significant homology in the heavy chain for these two serotypes. For these cross-neutralizing mAbs, it would be of interest to further refine their cognate epitopes so that the basis of their activity could be deduced. At this point, the goal of inducing cross-protective responses among BoNT serotypes has not been met.

Expert commentary

Meta-analysis of epitope-specific immune responses, such as the one performed for this review, can generate a comprehensive picture on the current status of the research regarding specific pathogens of interest. This knowledge can be applied to enhance the definition of correlates of immunity, protection and desirable targets for detection reagents.

The knowledge derived from the immunological research on toxin-producing organisms, such as B. anthracis and C. botulinum, tends to focus primarily on the immune response to the toxin components, whether at the level of whole proteins, domains or defined epitopes. This focus is expected since the antibody-mediated inhibition of toxicity is the first desirable outcome of a protective vaccination. Anti-toxin antibodies are also useful tools for diagnostic and detection purposes. Congruently, the bulk of the information on epitopes from these two organisms is found at the level of toxin peptides recognized by antibodies. For both anthrax and botulinum toxins, most of the neutralizing and protective antibodies are directed to the region involved in binding to the cellular receptors, which are able to inhibit the first step of toxic activity. Other regions of the ‘B component’ of these toxins, such as those important for translocation of the enzymatic components to the cytosol, also have implicit protective capacity, as can be determined by analyzing the reported epitopes and domains that are targeted by neutralizing antibodies.

The usefulness of epitope-derived information for the generation of novel vaccines and detection reagents depends partly on their recognition across species, specifically when correlates of protection detected in experimental animal models are to be applied to humans. In the case of the PA protein from B. anthraris, some of the neutralizing epitopes defined in mice are thought to be recognized in rabbits and humans, since the polyclonal sera from vaccinated individuals compete with neutralizing epitope-specific mAbs for binding to PA. However, the epitope specificity and neutralizing capacity of the competing mAbs has not been directly tested and, therefore, it remains to be proven whether these epitopes are actually conserved across species.

By contrast, in the case of the anti-BoNT/A antibodies, the recognition of heavy-chain epitopes across different species has been studied extensively, but such information is not available for the particular epitopes targeted by antibodies with proven neutralizing capacity. Nevertheless, the HCC- and the belt–HN-domain boundary regions have been shown both to be targets of neutralizing antibodies in specific organisms and to be immuno-prevalent sites for antibody recognition in four different species. Therefore, it could be expected that the immune response to these regions may represent good correlates of protection to BoNT/A toxic challenge. Further studies aimed at addressing these issues are still needed. Indeed, basic work is still required, for instance, to define the function and exact location of the belt–HN-domain neutralizing epitope. In this sense, it is important to note that, either in mAb-mediated neutralization of in vivo toxicity or in peptide vaccination experiments, no single epitope has been shown to induce significant protective responses to BoNT challenge. This result points out the need to include several epitopes in the formulation of synthetic vaccines to confer full protection to toxic exposure.

Given that both anthrax and botulinum toxins act intracellularly on their substrates, we wanted to assess the extent and value of an immune response to the enzymatic subunit (A components). In this regard, we found that the enzymatic active subunits are also desirable targets for protective antibodies. In the case of anthrax toxin, a single protective epitope from the enzymatic toxic components has been described, located in the domain III of the LF, which is involved in the interaction of LF with its substrate. Antibodies to this region are able to confer passive immunity to LeTx. Nevertheless, when studying the reported immune response to larger fragments, we found that antibodies to the N-terminal, PA-binding domains of both LF and EF have also been implicated in protection to toxic challenge.

In BoNT, the light chain could only be found to be the target of protective immune responses when we analyzed fragments of over 50 amino acids, and this activity was not found in all the serotypes. This information suggests that there is potential value in inducing anti-light-chain antibodies, but the epitopes that are important in this response are yet to be defined. Given that, in general, the light chain is better conserved among BoNT serotypes than the heavy chain, the finer definition of these epitopes is desirable, as is the further clarification of the apparent difference among serotypes in the protection to toxic challenge conferred by this domain.

There is also an urgent need to explore the possibility of obtaining cross-neutralizing antibodies based on epitope-specific recognition. The analysis of the mere seven neutralizing epitopes described in the published literature so far (five from BoNT/A and two from BoNT/E), has not enabled the definition of potential sites of cross-neutralizing activity. The required antibodies could be aimed at regions whose immunogenicity is masked in the course of protein vaccinations, in which case, further work at the epitope level of recognition would still be required.

A separate point should be made to the fact that subsets of antitoxin antibodies, as shown for anti-PA mAbs [95] can, in some instances, mediate enhancement of toxicity. An epitope-based approach to the development of vaccines and therapeutic reagents is, therefore, extremely useful in that it would avoid this kind of undesirable reactivity.

In conclusion, the present analysis has provided a review of the status on the immunological research on C. botulinum and B. anthracis with regards to immune-epitope information to date. Several epitopes are identified that can serve as starting points for producing the next generation of vaccines and detection reagents.

Five-year view

This revision of the published data on the epitopes from B. anthracis and C. botulinum has allowed us to pinpoint areas where work is needed in order to afford understanding of the pathogenesis of these organisms and the ability of the immune system to effectively restrain their actions.

Two main areas of future work seem evident from this analysis. First, is the study of other targets of protective immunity in addition to those defined for the toxins themselves, as they may serve as additional correlates of protection. In this sense, the spores of anthrax have been shown to be opsonized in vitro by anticapsule antibodies, but how effective, or even desirable, such a response would be in vivo has yet to be fully determined. In principle, spore and bacillus antigens from B. anthracis could be possible additions for obtaining protective and therapeutic antibody preparations for the management of anthrax infection [96-98].

The immune response to C. botulinum surface antigens has not been studied. Since the spores germinate in vivo in wound and infant botulism, the course of those syndromes could be modified with prophylactic and/or therapeutic reagents aimed at the spores and/or the bacteria themselves. However, these approaches would not be applicable for cases of direct intoxication with the toxin, either in a food-borne or aerosolized form.

Second, further progress needs to be made in the study of T-cell determinants from the toxins and the whole organisms, and how the T-cell reactivity might affect the outcome of infection and toxic shock. The Th-dependent antibody response to the toxins has already prompted some investigations on the CD4+ T-cell immunity and its epitope specificity, but the immunoprevalency and immunodominancy of these epitopes still needs to be addressed for this information to be applied to the development of effective vaccines. Although the cytotoxic responses are not the predominant immunological arm for fighting bacterial infections or toxic syndromes, these toxins act intracellularly and, possibly, are presented on MHC-class I molecules to generate CD8+ T-cell responses. It is noteworthy that, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have been conducted to assess the existence of class I epitopes on these toxins. We hope that future lines of work will address these issues.

In the case of the BoNTs in particular, another future area of work is research aimed at the development of vaccines and detection/diagnostic reagents that are able to work across serotypes. The lack of cross-neutralizing epitopes among serotypes, except for the known cross-neutralizing determinants on BoNT/D and C, has led to the development of multivalent toxoid preparations as prospective vaccines. The use of epitope-derived information, on the other hand, could overcome this limitation and prove the existence of cross-neutralizing determinants.

Key issues

  • The current knowledge on Bacillus anthracis and Clostridium botulinum epitopes, analyzed from the data deposited in the Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Program, is largely limited to antibody epitopes from the toxin components.
  • The total number of epitopes described from these organisms is significantly lower than those from other organisms important for human health and disease.
  • The knowledge derived from the epitopes described could be valuable in the development of vaccines, immunotherapeutics and detection reagents. Combinatorial approaches based on this knowledge could enhance their potency synergistically.
  • Expanding the analysis for larger fragments involved in immune recognition allowed for the identification of additional regions of potential value, but this information is difficult to analyze with regards to structure–function mechanistic perspectives.
  • Gaps in knowledge, identified by the analysis, highlight areas where future research is required, such as discovery of B-cell epitopes and their functions, identification of T-cell epitopes and analysis of epitopes from antigens other than the bacterial toxins.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource curation team for their excellent work in curating the cited epitope information and Alison Deckhut Augustine for helpful suggestions and a critical review of the manuscript.

This work was supported by the US NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Contract HHSN26620040006C (Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Program). Arturo Casadevall is supported, in part, by grant 5U54AI057158-05.

Appendix

AntigenEpitopeCategoryRef.

Bacillus anthracis
Edema factor342 GVATKGLNVHGKSSDWG 358B cell[26]
Lethal factor380 DSLSEEEKELLNRIQVDS 397B cell[30]
Protective antigen340 (A)SFFD 344B cell[27,39]
Protective antigen442 SKNLAPI 448B cell[62]
Protective antigen610 IKLNAKMNILIRDKRFHYDRN 630B cell[31,34,61]
Protective antigen679 EGLKEVINDRYDMLN 693B cell[25]
Protective antigen700 DGKTFIDFKKYNDKLPLYISNPNYKVNVYA 729B cell[32]
Protective antigen715 PLYISNPNY 723B cell[29]
Protective antigenN682, K684, L685, P686, L687, Y688B cell[35]
Protective antigen93 IWSGFIKVKKSDEY 106T cell[41]
Protective antigen141 RLYQIKIQYQRENPTE 156T cell[40]
Protective antigen183 PELKQKSSNSRKKR 196T cell[41]
Protective antigen411 SLVLGKNQTLAT 422T cell[40]
Protective antigen573 GKDITEFDFNFDQQTSQNIK 592T cell[43]
Protective antigen576 ITEFDFNFDQQTSQ 589T cell[41]
Protective antigen688 RYDMLNISSLRQDG 701T cell[41]
Protective antigen746 STNGIKKILIFSKK 759T cell[41]

Clostriduim botulinum
C2-II182 ANANRDTDRDGIPDE 196B Cell[24]
C2-II707 RLSGVFLIELDKLII 721B cell[24]
BoNT type A2 PFVNKQFNYKDPVNGV 17B cell[44]
BoNT type A28 GQMQPVKAFKIHNKIWVIPERDTFTN 53B cell[49]
BoNT type A218 AVTLAHELIHAGHR 231B/T cell[46,47,55]
BoNT type A449 ALNDLCIKVNNWDLFFSPS 467B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A449 ALNDLCIKVNNWDLFFSPSEDNFTN 473B cell[49]
BoNT type A463 FFSPSEDNFTNDLNKGEEI 481B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A477 KGEEITSDTNIEAAEENIS 495B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A491 EENISLDLIQQYYLTFNFD 509B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A505 TFNFDNEPENISIENLSSD 523B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A519 NLSSDIIGQLELMPNIERF 537B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A533 NIERFPNGKKYELDKYTMF 551B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A547 KYTMFHYLRAQEFEHGKSR 565B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A561 HGKSRIALTNSVNEALLNP 579B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A575 ALLNPSRVYTFFSSDYVKK 593B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A589 DYVKKVNKATEAAMFLGWV 607B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A603 FLGWVEQLVYDFTDETSEV 621B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A617 ETSEVSTTDKIADITIIIP 635B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A631 TIIIPYIGPALNIGNMLYK 649B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A645 NMLYKDDFVGALIFSGAVI 663B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A659 SGAVILLEFIPEIAIPVLG 677B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A673 IPVLGTFALVSYIANKVLT 691B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A687 NKVLTVQTIDNALSKRNEK 705B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A701 KRNEKWDEVYKYIVTNWLA 719B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A715 TNWLAKVNTQIDLIRKKMK 733B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A729 RKKMKEALENQAEATKAII 747B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A743 TKAIINYQYNQYTEEEKNN 761B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A757 EEKNNINFNIDDLSSKLNE 775B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A771 SKLNESINKAMININKFLN 789B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A785 NKFLNQCSVSYLMNSMIPY 803B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A799 SMIPYGVKRLEDFDASLKD 817B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A813 ASLKDALLKYIYDNRGTLI 831B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A827 RGTLIGQVDRLKDKVNNTL 845B cell[46,47,50]
BoNT type A841 VNNTLSTDIPFQLSKYVDN 859B/T cell[46,47,50,55]
BoNT type A855 KYVDNQRLLSTFTEYIKNI 873B cell[45-47,50,53]
BoNT type A869 YIKNIINTSILNLRYESNH 887B cell[45-47,50,53,54]
BoNT type A883 YESNHLIDLSRYASKINIG 901B cell[45-47,50,53,54]
BoNT type A897 KINIGSKVNFDPIDKNQIQ 915B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A911 KNQIQLFNLESSKIEVILK 929B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A925 EVILKNAIVYNSMYENFST 943B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A939 ENFSTSFWIRIPKYFNSIS 957B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A953 FNSISLNNEYIINCMENN 971B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A967 CMENNSGWKVSLNYGEIIW 985B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A981 GEIIWTLQDTQEIKQRVVF 999B cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A995 QRVVFKYSQMINISDYINR 1013B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A1009 DYINRWIFVTITNNRLNNS 1027B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A1023 RLNNSKIYINGRLIDQKPI 1041B/T cell[45,46,47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1037 DQKPISNLGNIHASNNIMF 1055B/T cell[45,46,47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1051 NNIMFKLDGCRDTHRYIWI 1069B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A1065 RYIWIKYFNLFDKELNEKE 1083B/T cell[45-47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1079 LNEKEIKDLYDNQSNSGIL 1097B/T cell[45-47,50-55]
BoNT type A1093 NSGILKDFWGDYLQYDKPY 1111B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A1107 YDKPYYMLNLYDPNKYVDV 1125B/T cell[45-47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1121 KYVDVNNVGIRGYMYLKGP 1139B/T cell[45-47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1135 YLKGPRGSVMTTNIYLNSS 1153B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A1149 YLNSSLYRGTKFIIKKYAS 1167B/T cell[45-47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1157 GTKFIIKKYASGNKDNIVRNNDRVY 1181B cell[48]
BoNT type A1163 KKYASGNKDNIVRNNDRVY 1181B/T cell[45-47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1177 NDRVYINVVVKNKEYRLAT 1195B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type A1191 YRLATNASQAGVEKILSAL 1209B/T cell[45-47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1205 ILSALEIPDVGNLSQVVVM 1223B cell[45-47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1219 QVVVMKSKNDQGITNKCKM 1237B cell[45-47,50,53]
BoNT type A1230 GITNKCKMNLQDNNGNDIGFIGFHQ 1254B cell[48]
BoNT type A1233 NKCKMNLQDNNGNDIGFIG 1251B/T cell[45-47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1247 IGFIGFHQFNNIAKLVASN 1265B/T cell[45-47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1261 LVASNWYNRQIERSSRTLG 1279B cell[45-47,50,53,55]
BoNT type A1275 SRTLGCSWEFIPVDDGWGERPL 1296B/T cell[45-47,50,53-55]
BoNT type AG1129, I1130, R1131B cell[52]
BoNT type AN918, L919, E920, F953, R1061, D1062, T1063, H1064, Y1066B cell[52]
BoNT type AQ1254, F1255, N1256B cell[52]
BoNT type E663 VIKAIN 668B cell[51]
BoNT type E1224 YLTHMRD 1230B cell[51]

BoNT: Botulinum neurotoxin.

Footnotes

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Contributor Information

Laura M Zarebski, Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB), La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, 9420 Athena Circle, La Jolla, CA 9203,7 USA, Tel.: +1 858 752 6500, Fax: +1 858 752 6987, laura/at/liai.org.

Kerrie Vaughan, Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB), La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, 9420 Athena Circle, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA, Tel.: +1 858 752 6500, Fax: +1 858 752 6987, kvaughan/at/liai.org.

John Sidney, Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB), La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, 9420 Athena Circle, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA, Tel.: +1 858 752 6500, Fax: +1 858 752 6987, jsidney/at/liai.org.

Bjoern Peters, Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB), La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, 9420 Athena Circle, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA, Tel.: +1 858 752 6500, Fax: +1 858 752 6987, bpeters/at/liai.org.

Howard Grey, Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB), La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, 9420 Athena Circle, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA, Tel.: +1 858 752 6500, Fax: +1 858 752 6987, hgrey/at/liai.org.

Kim D Janda, Departments of Chemistry and Immunology, The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, and The Worm Institute for Research and Medicine, The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA, Tel.: +1 858 784 2516, Fax: +1 858 784 2595, kdjanda/at/scripps.edu.

Arturo Casadevall, Department of Microbiology and Immunology and the Division of Infectious Diseases of the Department of Medicine of The Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Ave, Bronx, NY 10461, USA, Tel.: +1 718 430 2811, Fax: +1 718 430 8701, casadeva/at/aecom.yu.edu.

Alessandro Sette, Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource (IEDB), La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology, 9420 Athena Circle, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA, Tel.: +1 858 752 6500, Fax: +1 858 752 6987, alex/at/liai.org.

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as:

of interest
••
of considerable interest
1. Albrecht MT, Li H, Williamson ED, et al. Human monoclonal antibodies against anthrax lethal factor and protective antigen act independently to protect against Bacillus anthracis infection and enhance endogenous immunity to anthrax. Infect Immun. 2007;75(11):5425–5433. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Arnon SS, Schechter R, Maslanka SE, Jewell NP, Hatheway CL. Human botulism immune globulin for the treatment of infant botulism. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(2):462–471. [PubMed]
3. Casadevall A. Passive antibody administration (immediate immunity) as a specific defense against biological weapons. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(8):833–841. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Casadevall A. Antibodies for defense against biological attack. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20(2):114. [PubMed]
5. Eubanks LM, Dickerson TJ, Janda KD. Technological advancements for the detection of and protection against biological and chemical warfare agents. Chem Soc Rev. 2007;36:458–470. [PubMed]
6. Greenfield RA, Bronze MS. Prevention and treatment of bacterial diseases caused by bacterial bioterrorism threat agents. Drug Discov Today. 2003;8(19):881–888. [PubMed]
7. Kozel TR, Murphy WJ, Brandt S, et al. mAbs to Bacillus anthracis capsular antigen for immunoprotection in anthrax and detection of antigenemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101(14):5042–5047. [PubMed]
8. Sette A, Fleri W, Peters B, Sathiamurthy M, Bui HH, Wilson S. A roadmap for the immunomics of category A–C pathogens. Immunity. 2005;22(2):155–161. [PubMed]
9. Spencer RC. Bacillus anthracis. J Clin Pathol. 2003;56(3):182–187. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Swiecki MK, Lisanby MW, Shu F, Turnbough CL, Jr, Kearney JF. Monoclonal antibodies for Bacillus anthracis spore detection and functional analyses of spore germination and outgrowth. J Immunol. 2006;176(10):6076–6084. [PubMed]
11. Zhou B, Wirsching P, Janda KD. Human antibodies against spores of the genus Bacillus: a model study for detection of and protection against anthrax and the bioterrorist threat. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99(8):5241–5246. [PubMed]
12. Dixon TC, Meselson M, Guillemin J, Hanna PC. Anthrax. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(11):815–826. [PubMed]
13. Vitale L, Blanset D, Lowy I, et al. Prophylaxis and therapy of inhalational anthrax by a novel monoclonal antibody to protective antigen that mimics vaccine-induced immunity. Infect Immun. 2006;74(10):5840–5847. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Peterson JW, Comer JE, Baze WB, et al. Human monoclonal antibody AVP-21D9 to protective antigen reduces dissemination of the Bacillus anthracis Ames strain from the lungs in a rabbit model. Infect Immun. 2007;75(7):3414–3424. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Bui HH, Peters B, Assarsson E, Mbawuike I, Sette A. Ab and T-cell epitopes of influenza A virus, knowledge and opportunities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104(1):246–251. [PubMed]
16. Vita R, Vaughan K, Zarebski L, et al. Curation of complex, context-dependent immunological data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7:341–348. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Peters B, Sidney J, Bourne P, et al. The immune epitope database and analysis resource: from vision to blueprint. PLoS Biol. 2005;3(3):e91. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Barth H, Aktories K, Popoff MR, Stiles BG. Binary bacterial toxins: biochemistry, biology, and applications of common Clostridium and Bacillus proteins. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2004;68(3):373–402. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
19. Young JA, Collier RJ. Anthrax toxin: receptor binding, internalization, pore formation, and translocation. Annu Rev Biochem. 2007;76:243–265. [PubMed]
20. Mosser EM, Rest RF. The Bacillus anthracis cholesterol-dependent cytolysin, Anthrolysin O, kills human neutrophils, monocytes and macrophages. BMC Microbiol. 2006:656. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Arnon SS, Schechter R, Inglesby TV, et al. Botulinum toxin as a biological weapon: medical and public health management. JAMA. 2001;285(8):1059–1070. [PubMed]
22. Schiavo G. Structural biology: dangerous liaisons on neurons. Nature. 2006;444:1019–1020. [PubMed]
23•. Blöcker D, Barth H, Maier E, Benz R, Barbieri JT, Aktories K. The C terminus of component C2II of Clostridium botulinum C2 toxin is essential for receptor binding. Infect Immun. 2000;68(8):4566–4573. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from Clostriduim botulinum. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Aktories K, Bärmann M, Ohishi I, Tsuyama S, Jakobs KH, Habermann E. Botulinum C2 toxin ADP-ribosylates actin. Nature. 1986;322:390–392. [PubMed]
25•. Brodzik R, Bandurska K, Deka D, Golovkin M, Koprowski H. Advances in alfalfa mosaic virus-mediated expression of anthrax antigen in planta. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005;338(2):717. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from Bacillus anthracis. [PubMed]
26•. Goyard S, Orlando C, Sabatier JM, et al. Identification of a common domain in calmodulin-activated eukaryotic and bacterial adenylate cyclases. Biochemistry. 1989;28(5):1964–1967. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
27••. Gubbins MJ, Berry JD, Corbett CR, et al. Production and characterization of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies that recognize an epitope in domain 2 of Bacillus anthracis protective antigen. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2006;47(3):436–443. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
28•. Kozel TR, Thorkildson P, Brandt S, et al. Protective and immunochemical activities of monoclonal antibodies reactive with the Bacillus anthracis polypeptide capsule. Infect Immun. 2007;75(1):152–163. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29•. Laffly E, Danjou L, Condemine F, et al. Selection of a macaque Fab with framework regions like those in humans, high affinity, and ability to neutralize the protective antigen (PA) of Bacillus anthracis by binding to the segment of PA between residues 686 and 694. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(8):3414–3420. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30••. Lim NK, Kim JH, Oh MS, et al. An anthrax lethal factor-neutralizing monoclonal antibody protects rats before and after challenge with anthrax toxin. Infect Immun. 2005;73(10):6547–6551. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31•. Little SF, Novak JM, Lowe JR, et al. Characterization of lethal factor binding and cell receptor binding domains of protective antigen of Bacillus anthracis using monoclonal antibodies. Microbiology. 1996;142(3):707–715. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
32•. McConnell MJ, Danthinne X, Imperiale MJ. Characterization of a permissive epitope insertion site in adenovirus hexon. J Virol. 2006;80(11):5361–5370. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33•. Mehta AS, Saile E, Zhong W, et al. Synthesis and antigenic analysis of the BclA glycoprotein oligosaccharide from the Bacillus anthracis exosporium. Chemistry. 2006;12(36):9136–9149. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
34••. Reed DS, Smoll J, Gibbs P, Little SF. Mapping of antibody responses to the protective antigen of Bacillus anthracis by flow cytometric analysis. Cytometry. 2002;49(1):1–7. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
35••. Rosovitz MJ, Schuck P, Varughese M, et al. Alanine-scanning mutations in domain 4 of anthrax toxin protective antigen reveal residues important for binding to the cellular receptor and to a neutralizing monoclonal antibody. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(33):30936–30944. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
36••. Schneerson R, Kubler-Kielb J, Liu TY, et al. Poly(γ-d-glutamic acid) protein conjugates induce IgG antibodies in mice to the capsule of Bacillus anthracis: a potential addition to the anthrax vaccine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(15):8945–8950. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
37••. Wang TT, Fellows PF, Leighton TJ, Lucas AH. Induction of opsonic antibodies to the γ-d-glutamic acid capsule of Bacillus anthracis by immunization with a synthetic peptide-carrier protein conjugate. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2004;40(3):231–237. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
38•. Wang TT, Lucas AH. The capsule of Bacillus anthracis behaves as a thymus-independent type 2 antigen. Infect Immun. 2004;72(9):5460–5463. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
39••. Zhang J, Xu J, Li G, et al. The 2β2–2β3 loop of anthrax protective antigen contains a dominant neutralizing epitope. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006;341(4):1164–1171. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
40•. Laughlin EM, Miller JD, James E, et al. Antigen-specific CD4+ T cells recognize epitopes of protective antigen following vaccination with an anthrax vaccine. Infect Immun. 2007;75(4):1852–1860. Contains data on T-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41•. Musson JA, Walker N, Flick-Smith H, Williamson ED, Robinson JH. Differential processing of CD4 T-cell epitopes from the protective antigen of Bacillus anthracis. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(52):52425–52431. Contains data on T-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
42•. Smith ME, Koser M, Xiao S, et al. Rabies virus glycoprotein as a carrier for anthrax protective antigen. Virology. 2006;353(2):344–356. Contains data on T-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
43•. von Delwig A, Musson JA, Shim HK, et al. Distribution of productive antigen-processing activity for MHC class II presentation in macrophages. Scand J Immunol. 2005;62(3):243–250. Contains data on T-cell epitopes from B. anthracis. [PubMed]
44•. Ahmed SA, Smith LA. Light chain of botulinum A neurotoxin expressed as an inclusion body from a synthetic gene is catalytically and functionally active. J Protein Chem. 2000;19(6):475–487. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PubMed]
45•. Atassi MZ, Dolimbek BZ, Hayakari M, Middlebrook JL, Whitney B, Oshima M. Mapping of the antibody-binding regions on botulinum neurotoxin H-chain domain 855–1296 with antitoxin antibodies from three host species. J Protein Chem. 1996;15(7):691–700. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PubMed]
46•. Atassi MZ, Dolimbek BZ. Mapping of the antibody-binding regions on the HN-domain (residues 449–859) of botulinum neurotoxin A with antitoxin antibodies from four host species. Full profile of the continuous antigenic regions of the H-chain of botulinum neurotoxin A. Protein J. 2004;23(1):39–52. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PubMed]
47•. Atassi MZ, Dolimbek GS, Deitiker PR, Aoki KR, Dolimbek BZ. Submolecular recognition profiles in two mouse strains of non-protective and protective antibodies against botulinum neurotoxin A. Mol Immunol. 2005;42(12):1509–1520. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PubMed]
48••. Bavari S, Pless DD, Torres ER, Lebeda FJ, Olson MA. Identifying the principal protective antigenic determinants of type A botulinum neurotoxin. Vaccine. 1998;16(19):1850–1856. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PubMed]
49••. Cenci Di Bello I, Poulain B, Shone CC, Tauc L, Dolly JO. Antagonism of the intracellular action of botulinum neurotoxin type A with monoclonal antibodies that map to light-chain epitopes. Eur J Biochem. 1994;219(1–2):161–169. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PubMed]
50•. Dolimbek BZ, Aoki KR, Steward LE, Jankovic J, Atassi MZ. Mapping of the regions on the heavy chain of botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT/A) recognized by antibodies of cervical dystonia patients with immunoresistance to BoNT/A. Mol Immunol. 2007;44(5):1029–1041. Contains data on B-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PubMed]
51••. Kubota T, Watanabe T, Yokosawa N, et al. Epitope regions in the heavy chain of Clostridium botulinum type E neurotoxin recognized by monoclonal antibodies. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997;63(4):1214–1218. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from C botulinum. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
52••. Levy R, Forsyth CM, LaPorte SL, Geren IN, Smith LA, Marks JD. Fine and domain-level epitope mapping of botulinum neurotoxin type A neutralizing antibodies by yeast surface display. J Mol Biol. 2007;365(1):196–210. Contains data on neutralizing B-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
53•. Oshima M, Hayakari M, Middlebrook JL, Atassi MZ. Immune recognition of botulinum neurotoxin type A: regions recognized by T cells and antibodies against the protective H(C) fragment (residues 855–1296) of the toxin. Mol Immunol. 1997;34(14):1031–1040. Contains data on B- and T-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PubMed]
54•. Oshima M, Middlebrook JL, Atassi MZ. Antibodies and T cells against synthetic peptides of the C-terminal domain (Hc) of botulinum neurotoxin type A and their cross-reaction with Hc. Immunol Lett. 1998;60(1):7–12. Contains data on B- and T-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PubMed]
55•. Dolimbek GS, Dolimbek BZ, Aoki KR, Atassi MZ. Mapping of the antibody and T cell recognition profiles of the HN domain (residues 449–859) of the heavy chain of botulinum neurotoxin A in two high-responder mouse strains. Immunol Invest. 2005;34(2):119–142. Contains data on B- and T-cell epitopes from C. botulinum. [PubMed]
56. Reuveny S, White MD, Adar YY, et al. Search for correlates of protective immunity conferred by anthrax vaccine. Infect Immun. 2001;69(5):2888–2893. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57. Steichen C, Chen P, Kearney JF, Turnbough CL., Jr Identification of the immunodominant protein and other proteins of the Bacillus anthracis exosporium. J Bacterial. 2003;185(6):1903–1910. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
58. Read TD, Peterson SN, Tourasse N, et al. The genome sequence of Bacillus anthracis Ames and comparison to closely related bacteria. Nature. 2003;423(6935):81–86. [PubMed]
59. Subramanian GM, Cronin PW, Poley G, et al. A Phase I study of PAmAb, a fully human monoclonal antibody against Bacillus anthracis protective antigen, in healthy-volunteers. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41(1):12–20. [PubMed]
60. Kudva IT, Griffin RW, Garren JM, Calderwood SB, John M. Identification of a protein subset of the anthrax spore immunome in humans immunized with the anthrax vaccine adsorbed preparation. Infect Immun. 2005;73(9):5685–5696. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
61. Baillie L, Townend T, Walker N, Eriksson U, Williamson D. Characterization of the human immune response to the UK anthrax vaccine. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2004;42(2):267–270. [PubMed]
62. Brossier F, Levy M, Landier A, Lafaye P, Mock M. Functional analysis of Bacillus anthracis protective antigen by using neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. Infect Immun. 2004;72(11):6313–6317. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
63. Chen Z, Moayeri M, Zhou YH, et al. Efficient neutralization of anthrax toxin by chimpanzee monoclonal antibodies against protective antigen. J Infect Dis. 2006;193(5):625–633. [PubMed]
64. Flick-Smith HC, Waters EL, Walker NJ, et al. Mouse model characterisation for anthrax vaccine development: comparison of one inbred and one outbred mouse strain. Microb Pathog. 2005;38(1):33–40. [PubMed]
65. Flick-Smith HC, Walker NJ, Gibson P, et al. A recombinant carboxy-terminal domain of the protective antigen of Bacillus anthracis protects mice against anthrax infection. Infect Immun. 2002;70(3):1653–1656. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
66. Rivera J, Nakouzi A, Abboud N, et al. A monoclonal antibody to Bacillus anthracis protective antigen defines a neutralizing epitope in domain 1. Infect Immun. 2006;74(7):4149–4156. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
67. Williamson ED, Hodgson I, Walker NJ, et al. Immunogenicity of recombinant protective antigen and efficacy against aerosol challenge with anthrax. Infect Immun. 2005;73(9):5978–5987. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
68. Chichester JA, Musiychuk K, de la Rosa P, et al. Immunogenicity of a subunit vaccine against Bacillus anthracis. Vaccine. 2007;25(6):3111–3114. [PubMed]
69. Price BM, Liner AL, Park S, Leppla SH, Mateczun A, Galloway DR. Protection against anthrax lethal toxin challenge by genetic immunization with a plasmid encoding the lethal factor protein. Infect Immun. 2001;69(7):4509–4515. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
70. Little SF, Leppla SH, Burnett JW, Friedlander AM. Structure–function analysis of Bacillus anthracis edema factor by using monoclonal antibodies. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1994;199(2):676–682. [PubMed]
71. Zeng M, Xu Q, Hesek ED, Pichichero ME. N-fragment of edema factor as a candidate antigen for immunization against anthrax. Vaccine. 2006;24(5):662–670. [PubMed]
72. Amersdorfer P, Wong C, Chen S, et al. Molecular characterization of murine humoral immune response to botulinum neurotoxin type A binding domain as assessed by using phage antibody libraries. Infect Immun. 1997;65(9):3743–3752. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
73. Nowakowski A, Wang C, Powers DB, et al. Potent neutralization of botulinum neurotoxin by recombinant oligoclonal antibody. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99(17):11346–11350. [PubMed]
74. Smith TJ, Lou J, Geren IN, et al. Sequence variation within botulinum neurotoxin serotypes impacts antibody binding and neutralization. Infect Immun. 2005;73(9):5450–5457. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
75. Garcia-Rodriguez C, Levy R, et al. Molecular evolution of antibody cross-reactivity for two subtypes of type A botulinum neurotoxin. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(1):107–116. [PubMed]
76. Arndt JW, Jacobson MJ, Abola EE, et al. A structural perspective of the sequence variability within botulinum neurotoxin subtypes A1-A4. J Mol Biol. 2006;362(4):733–742. [PubMed]
77. Amersdorfer P, Wong C, Smith T, et al. Genetic and immunological comparison of anti-botulinum type A antibodies from immune and non-immune human phage libraries. Vaccine. 2002;20(11–12):1640–1648. [PubMed]
78. Baldwin MR, Tepp WH, Pier CL, et al. Characterization of the antibody response to the receptor binding domain of botulinum neurotoxin serotypes A and E. Infect Immun. 2005;73(10):6998–7005. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
79. Byrne MP, Smith TJ, Montgomery VA, Smith JA. Purification, potency, and efficacy of the botulinum neurotoxin type A binding domain from Pichia pastoris as a recombinant vaccine candidate. Infect Immun. 1998;66(10):4817–4822. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
80. Dertzbaugh MT, West MW. Mapping of protective and cross-reactive domains of the type A neurotoxin of Clostridium botulinum. Vaccine. 1996;14(16):1538–1544. [PubMed]
81. Kozaki S, Miki A, Kamata Y, Ogasawara J, Sakaguchi G. Immunological characterization of papain-induced fragments of Clostridium botulinum type A neurotoxin and interaction of the fragments with brain synaptosomes. Infect Immun. 1989;57(9):2634–2639. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
82. Mullaney BP, Pallavicini MG, Marks JD. Epitope mapping of neutralizing botulinum neurotoxin A antibodies by phage display. Infect Immun. 2001;69(10):6511–6514. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
83. Pless DD, Torres ER, Reinke EK, Bavari S. High-affinity, protective antibodies to the binding domain of botulinum neurotoxin type A. Infect Immun. 2001;69(1):570–574. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
84. Boles J, West M, Montgomery V, et al. Recombinant C fragment of botulinum neurotoxin B serotype (rBoNTB (HC)) immune response and protection in the rhesus monkey. Toxicon. 2006;47(8):877–884. [PubMed]
85. Potter KJ, Bevins MA, Vassilieva EV, et al. Production and purification of the heavy-chain fragment C of botulinum neurotoxin, serotype B, expressed in the methylotrophic yeast Pichia pastoris. Protein Expr Purif. 1998;13(3):357–365. [PubMed]
86. Yang GH, Kim KS, Kim HW, et al. Isolation and characterization of a neutralizing antibody specific to internalization domain of Clostridium botulinum neurotoxin type B. Toxicon. 2004;44(1):19–25. [PubMed]
87. Kozaki S, Kamata Y, Nishiki T, et al. Characterization of Clostridium botulinum type B neurotoxin associated with infant botulism in Japan. Infect Immun. 1998;66(10):4811–4816. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
88. Kozaki S, Ogasawara J, Shimote Y, Kamata Y, Sakaguchi G. Antigenic structure of Clostridium botulinum type B neurotoxin and its interaction with gangliosides, cerebroside, and free fatty acids. Infect Immun. 1987;55(12):3051–3056. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
89. Ochanda JO, Syuto B, Oguma K, Iida H, Kubo S. Comparison of antigenicity of toxins produced by Clostridium botulinum type C and D strains. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1984;47(6):1319–1322. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
90. Oguma K, Agui T, Syuto B, Kimura K, Iida H, Kubo S. Four different monoclonal antibodies against type C1 toxin of Clostridium botulinum. Infect Immun. 1982;38(1):14–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
91. Oguma K, Murayama S, Syuto B, Iida H, Kubo S. Analysis of antigenicity of Clostridium botulinum type C1 and D toxins by polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies. Infect Immun. 1984;43(2):584–588. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
92. Tsuzuki K, Yokosawa N, Syuto B, et al. Establishment of a monoclonal antibody recognizing an antigenic site common to Clostridium botulinum type B, C1, D, and E toxins and tetanus toxin. Infect Immun. 1988;56(4):898–902. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
93. Kozaki S, Kamata Y, Nagai T, Ogasawara J, Sakaguchi G. The use of monoclonal antibodies to analyze the structure of Clostridium botulinum type E derivative toxin. Infect Immun. 1986;52(3):786–791. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
94. Holley JL, Elmore M, Mauchline M, Minton N, Titball RW. Cloning, expression and evaluation of a recombinant sub-unit vaccine against Clostridium botulinum type F toxin. Vaccine. 2000;19(2–3):288–297. [PubMed]
95. Mohamed N, Li J, Ferreira CS, et al. Enhancement of anthrax lethal toxin cytotoxicity: a subset of monoclonal antibodies against protective antigen increases lethal toxin-mediated killing of murine macrophages. Infect Immun. 2004;72(6):3276–3683. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
96. Brossier F, Levy M, Mock M. Anthrax spores make an essential contribution to vaccine efficacy. Infect Immun. 2002;70(2):661–664. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
97. Wang JY, Roehrl MH. Anthrax vaccine design: strategies to achieve comprehensive protection against spore, bacillus, and toxin. Med Immunol. 2005;4(1):4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
98. Welkos S, Friedlander A, Weeks S, Little S, Mendelson I. In-vitro characterization of the phagocytosis and fate of anthrax spores in macrophages and the effects of anti-PA antibody. J Med Microbiol. 2002;51(10):821–831. [PubMed]

Websites

101. Immune Epitope Database and Analysis Resource. www.immuneepitope.org.
102. NIAID Category A, B and C Priority Pathogens. www3.niaid.nih.gov/biodefense/PDF/cat.pdf.