Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Science. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jan 15, 2013.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3545708
Botulinum neurotoxin is shielded by NTNHA in an interlocked complex
Shenyan Gu,1 Sophie Rumpel,2 Jie Zhou,1 Jasmin Strotmeier,2 Hans Bigalke,2 Kay Perry,3 Charles B. Shoemaker,4 Andreas Rummel,2 and Rongsheng Jin1*
1Center for Neuroscience, Aging and Stem Cell Research, Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, 10901 North Torrey Pines Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
2Institut für Toxikologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany
3NE-CAT and Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Cornell University, Building 436E, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439, USA
4Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Biomedical Science, Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, 200 Westboro Road, North Grafton, MA 01536, USA
*To whom correspondence should be addressed: rjin/at/
Botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) are highly poisonous substances that are also effective medicines. Accidental BoNT poisoning often occurs through ingestion of Clostridium botulinum-contaminated food. Here, we present the crystal structure of a BoNT in complex with a clostridial non-toxic non-hemagglutinin (NTNHA) protein at 2.7 angstrom. Biochemical and functional studies show that NTNHA provides large and multivalent binding interfaces to protect BoNT from gastrointestinal degradation. Moreover, the structure highlights key residues in BoNT that regulate complex assembly in a pH-dependent manner. Collectively, our findings define the molecular mechanisms by which NTNHA shields BoNT in the hostile gastrointestinal environment and releases it upon entry into the circulation. These results will assist in the design of small molecules for inhibiting oral BoNT intoxication, and of delivery vehicles for oral administration of biologics.
The seven serotypes of BoNT (named A–G) are sequence-specific endopeptidases. They invade nerve cells at neuromuscular junctions, where they inhibit the release of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine by cleaving SNARE (soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive fusion protein attachment protein receptors) proteins, and subsequently paralyze the affected muscles (1). Although BoNT poisoning often occurs through oral ingestion of tainted food products, the molecular mechanism by which BoNTs avoid destruction in the hostile environment of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is unknown.
Naturally occurring BoNTs are protected within progenitor toxin complexes (PTC), which are high molecular weight multi-protein complexes composed of the BoNT and several non-toxic neurotoxin-associated proteins (NAPs) (2). The NAPs include the 140 kDa NTNHA, which together with BoNT forms the minimally functional PTC (M-PTC), and three hemagglutinin (HA) proteins, which assemble with the M-PTC and have been suggested to facilitate BoNT transcytosis across the intestinal barrier (1, 3). The protecting function of the M-PTC is sufficiently effective that it reduces the oral LD50 of BoNT 10–20-fold compared to free BoNT (4, 5). Intriguingly, the protected BoNT is released from the PTC upon transition from acidic to neutral pH, as occurs during absorption from the intestine into the bloodstream (6). Once in the circulation, free BoNT travels to neuromuscular junctions where it invades neurons. The molecular architecture of PTC is largely unknown, with the exception of two low-resolution structures revealed by electron crystallography (30 Å) and electron microscopy (7, 8).
We focused our study on the M-PTC of serotype BoNT/A1 because it is a major cause of human botulism and is a concern for bioterrorism (9). We established a robust recombinant system in E. coli to produce a genetically modified, catalytically inactive BoNT/A (~150 kDa) that carries three mutations (E224Q/R363A/Y366F) in the catalytic site (10), and the corresponding full-length NTNHA-A1 (~140 kDa, referred to as NTNHA-A) (11). BoNT/A E224Q/R363A/Y366F adopts a structure essentially identical to that of wild-type BoNT/A, and is referred to here as BoNT/Ai (fig. S1 & Table S2). The free forms of BoNT/Ai and NTNHA-A are monomeric at pH 6.0 and 7.5 (fig. S2), and assemble into a monomeric M-PTC at pH 6.0 with Kd of ~30.8 nM and 1:1 stoichiometry as analyzed by analytic ultracentrifugation and isothermal titration calorimetry (fig. S2 & Table S1). By contrast, no assembly occurs at pH 7.5.
Free BoNT/Ai and NTNHA-A are inherently fragile, as shown by in vitro cleavage by digestive proteases such as trypsin and pepsin (Fig. 1A). Free wild-type BoNT/A is inactivated by trypsin or by incubation at pH 3 or less, based on ex vivo mice phrenic nerve hemidiaphragm (MPN) assays (Fig. 1B). In contrast, the structural integrity and activity of BoNT/A is protected in the in vitro-reconstituted M-PTC at low, but not at neutral or alkaline pH (Fig. 1A–B). Thus, the recombinant M-PTC faithfully mimics the behavior of native M-PTC.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The architecture of the M-PTC. (A) NTNHA-A protects BoNT/Ai against trypsin and pepsin digestion when they assemble into the M-PTC in an acidic environment. (B) NTNHA-A protects active BoNT/A against low pH-mediated inactivation. It also protects BoNT/A (more ...)
To understand the molecular mechanism underlying BoNT/A protection and the pH-dependent assembly of the M-PTC, we determined a 2.7 Å resolution crystal structure of the M-PTC facilitated by a BoNT/A-specific nanobody, as well as the structure of a nanobody-free M-PTC at 3.9 Å resolution (Fig. 1C–D, figs. S3–4 and Table S2). Nanobodies are the smallest antigen-binding fragments (~12–15 kDa) of naturally occurring heavy-chain–only antibodies (VHH) present in camelids, and have been exploited as inhibitors of BoNTs (12). Here, the VHH binds on the surface of BoNT/Ai far from the NTNHA-A-interacting sites. It facilitates a more compact crystal packing and thus improves the diffraction quality of the crystals (fig. S5 and Table S3). The two independently solved crystal structures of the M-PTC are indistinguishable, demonstrating that the structure presented here represents the physiological conformation of the M-PTC, independent of VHH or crystal packing (fig. S3B).
BoNT/Ai and NTNHA-A form an interlocked compact complex, and bury an unusually large solvent-accessible area (~3,600 Å2 per molecule) through multivalent interfaces (Fig. 1). BoNT/Ai is composed of a 50 kDa light chain (LC, a Zn2+-endoprotease) and a 100 kDa heavy chain (HC), which has two domains: the N-terminal domain (HN) mediates LC translocation across the endosomal membrane, while the C-terminal domain (HC) is the receptor-binding domain (1). Unexpectedly, the protective component NTNHA-A has a structure highly similar to BoNT/Ai despite a low sequence identity (~20%). NTNHA-A also displays three domains that, when compared pair-wise with LC, HN, or HC, yield root-mean-square deviations of 2.2 Å (314 Cα pairs), 2.3 Å (300), and 1.9 Å (319), respectively, and thus are termed nLC, nHN, and nHC (“n” indicates NTNHA) (Fig. 1C–D & fig. S6). At the center of the complex is the HC fragment that is surrounded by all three domains of NTNHA-A (Table S4). Notably, HC rotates about 140° around a linker connecting HN and HC, resulting in a distinct conformation in comparison to the free form of BoNT/A (Fig. 2) (13). Complementing this, HN also forms many polar interactions with nHN and nHC (Fig. 3D–E). In contrast, LC does not bind NTNHA-A.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The HC fragment of BoNT/A can rotate around a linker connecting HN and HC. (A) Superposition of the free and complex forms of BoNT/A based on Cα atoms in LC and HN. HC of free BoNT/A is violet; LC and HN are omitted for clarity. Linkers in the (more ...)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The M-PTC is stabilized by extensive intermolecular interactions. (A–C) HC interacts with all three domains of NTNHA-A. The overall structure of the M-PTC is shown in (B) where NTNHA-A is in surface representation (gray) and BoNT/Ai is blue, orange, (more ...)
Despite their similarities, a structural comparison between NTNHA-A and BoNT/Ai revealed several features specific to NTNHA-A (fig. S6). NTNHA-A does not possess most of the characteristic structural features of BoNT/A that are crucial to its functions: (i) nLC does not have the catalytic zinc-binding “HExxH+E” signature motif that is conserved among all BoNT serotypes; (ii) NTNHA-A does not have the homologous long loop (Val431–Leu453) that in BoNT/A connects LC and HC and is cleaved post-translationally to activate BoNT/A; (iii) a functionally essential disulfide bond (Cys430–Cys454 in BoNT/A) that is involved in translocation of LC and is conserved in all BoNTs is not present in NTNHA-A (14); (iv) nHC maintains the core structure of HC but has deletions in many surface areas that are not directly involved in BoNT/Ai binding; and (v) none of the ganglioside-binding residues of HC, including the highly conserved ganglioside-binding motif (E+H+SxWY) found in many BoNT serotypes, is conserved in NTNHA-A (15, 16).
Intriguingly, NTNHA-A has a large insert in nLC (nGly116–nAla148, termed the nLoop) that is not present in LC. Furthermore, the nLoop is conserved in NTNHA A1, B, C, D, and G, but is missing in A2, E, and F (fig. S7). Notably, many of the known spontaneous nicking sites in NTNHA are located in the nLoop (17), and consistent with this, we observed that recombinant NTNHA-A was nicked between nLys133 and nLys134 during long-term storage. The nicking sites in NTNHA are masked in the HA-bound PTC, and the M-PTC containing the nicked NTNHA can no longer assemble with HAs (17, 18). Moreover, NTNHA-A2, E, and F, which lack the nLoop, do not have accompanying HA proteins and only form the HA-negative M-PTC (1921). The crystal structure reveals that the nLoop is fully exposed on the M-PTC surface and has no visible electron density, presumably due to its high flexibility (Fig. 1C). Collectively, these data suggest that the nLoop could participate in the interaction with HAs to assemble the larger PTCs.
The conformation of BoNT/Ai in the M-PTC brings the receptor-binding site located in the C-terminal subdomain of HC close to the C-terminal boundary of the long rod-like HN (Fig. 2). This conformation contrasts with crystal structures of the free BoNT/Ai (fig. S1), free BoNT/A, and free BoNT/B serotype, where the receptor-binding site in HC points to the N-terminal boundary of HN (13, 2224). The HC reorientation is mediated by a linker between HN and HC (Leu845–Thr876 in BoNT/A, referred to as the HN-HC linker), which adopts an essentially identical structure in free BoNT/A and BoNT/B but changes its conformation in the M-PTC (Fig. 2 & fig. S8). The conformational change is likely induced by NTNHA-A rather than pH because the same conformation is adopted by all structures of free BoNT/A or BoNT/B crystallized at pHs ranging from 5.0 to 7.0 (13, 2224).
We speculated that the flexible HN-HC linker may play a role in coordinating HC-mediated receptor binding and HN-mediated translocation, given that the membrane-anchored receptors impose some geometric restrictions on the position of HC with respect to the membrane surface (24, 25), and the long helical HN needs to strategically orientate on the membrane to achieve efficient translocation of LC to the cytosol (2628). To test this, we produced two mutants of BoNT/A in which the structure of the HN-HC linker was altered by point mutations. BoNT/AR861A/E868P/K871P, containing the helix breaker proline, is expected to destabilize the helical linker, whereas BoNT/AL862K/L863E/T867K, with extra ion pairs, will likely stabilize the helical structure. The two BoNT/A mutants showed wild-type–like characteristics with respect to protein folding, receptor binding capability, Zn2+-endoprotease activity, and NTNHA-A binding (fig. S9). However, the toxicity of both mutants was significantly decreased by ~6-fold in the MPN assay. Although the exact conformations of the two mutants are not known, it is clear that the observed decrease in toxicity is due to the disrupted coordination between HN and HC, leading to decreased efficiency of LC translocation. These data further suggest that any disturbance in the structural integrity of the HN-HC linker may affect the optimal positioning of HC and HN during BoNT intoxication. Thus the structural features of the HN-HC linker might represent a serotype-specific signature for the various BoNTs. For example, BoNT/E serotype has a more rapid LC translocation, which has been suggested to result from its intrinsically more flexible linker (fig. S8) (27, 29).
To validate the physiological relevance of the M-PTC structure, we performed systematic truncation studies. The isolated HC fragment bound to NTNHA-A with high affinity at pH 6.0 (Kd ~48.3 nM) but not at pH 7.5, and thus largely replicated the binding behavior of full length BoNT/Ai. Consistent with this, the HC-deleted BoNT/Ai (LHN) no longer bound NTNHA-A (fig. S10). BoNT/Ai has a larger unfavorable binding entropy than HC (ΔΔS ~-16.8 cal mol−1 K−1) (Table S1), which could be due to a loss of conformational entropy of BoNT/Ai upon NTNHA-A binding, and may be related to the reorientation of HC. Truncating nHC or the C-terminal subdomain of nHC (nHCC) in NTNHA-A abolished the protective function of NTNHA-A at pH 2, suggesting that nHC is crucial for shielding the sensitive HC of BoNT/A (Fig. 1B).
Additional support for the M-PTC structure is provided by structure-based mutagenesis studies. Interactions between HC and NTNHA-A were gradually weakened as more intra-PTC charge-charge interactions were disrupted: the binding affinity at pH 6.0 decreased in the order of HC-K1000A > HC-K1000A/K1039A > HC-K1000A/K1039A/K1121A (Fig. 3F & fig. S10). Even a single point mutation, HC-K1000A, significantly decreased the binding affinity by ~7-fold (Kd ~337.5 nM). The HC-centered protection by NTNHA-A is biologically relevant. While the integrity of HC is crucial to enrich BoNT/A on the neuron surface at the early stage of intoxication, it is much more sensitive to proteolysis than LC and HN in the free BoNT/A (30, 31).
To understand how a pH change can trigger the disassembly of the PTC, we focused on HC because it largely replicates the binding features of full-length BoNT/Ai. We specifically concentrated on residues located in the complex interface that are titratable in an acidic environment (e.g., His, Glu, and Asp). Intriguingly, we found four acidic residues in HC, each of which (shown in parentheses) is located in the vicinity of an intra-PTC salt bridge or a long-range electrostatic interaction: (Glu982)/Lys1000–nAsp808, (Asp1037)/Lys1039–nGlu810, (Asp1118)/Lys1121–nAsp455, and (Asp1171)/Arg1175–nAsp1110 (Fig. 4 & fig. S11). Our mutagenesis studies show that these charge-charge interactions are crucial for the assembly of the M-PTC (Fig. 3F). Analyzing the surface electrostatic potentials shows that BoNT/Ai is generally positively charged around these acidic residues, while the opposing NTNHA-A surface is largely negatively charged (fig. S11). Therefore, negatively charged BoNT/Ai residues in these areas pose an unfavorable force, which could potentially weaken the local electrostatic interactions in a pH-dependent manner.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
A pH-sensing mechanism. A close-up view of pH-sensing residues Glu982 and Asp1037, which are buried in the M-PTC in the vicinity of intra-PTC charge-charge interactions. Key residues in the interface are shown as ball-and-stick models. Hydrogen bonds (more ...)
To address the potential roles of these acidic residues in pH sensing, we mutated them individually to non-titratable residues. Single point mutants of the HC fragment (E982A, D1037A, D1118A, or D1171A) all folded correctly (fig. S12) and bound NTNHA-A at pH 6.0 to a similar extent as the wild-type HC. Remarkably, HC-E982A and HC-D1037A showed significant binding to NTNHA-A at pH 7.5 (Fig. 3F and fig. S10). Thermodynamic studies showed that HC-E982A binds to NTNHA-A similarly to the wild-type HC at pH 6.0, predominantly driven by enthalpy (Kd ~39.4 nM); it also binds to NTNHA-A at pH 7.5, driven by both enthalpy and entropy (Kd ~279.5 nM) (Table S1). Furthermore, a single mutation of E982A significantly increased binding between the full-length BoNT/Ai and NTNHA-A at pH 7.5, as measured in a pull-down assay (~20% binding by mutant vs. < 5% by the wild-type protein). These data suggest that Glu982 and Asp1037 are important pH-sensing residues that modulate the pH-dependent assembly of the M-PTC.
The pKa of the ionizable groups in proteins may be substantially shifted from the intrinsic pKa depending on the microenvironment surrounding these groups (32). Glu982 and Asp1037 of BoNT/A are predicted (33) to have clearly increased pKa values upon binding to NTNHA-A, partly due to desolvation effect when they are buried in the context of the M-PTC. Thus, Glu982 and Asp1037 are likely protonated at pH 6.0 as their pKa values increase during the BoNT/A–NTNHA-A interaction, leading to a stable M-PTC. In contrast, these residues are deprotonated in a neutral or alkaline environment, generating repulsive charge interactions with NTNHA-A to destabilize the M-PTC assembly. We replaced Glu982 and Asp1037 with the isosteric, non-titratable residues Gln and Asn, respectively, to mimic their protonated state. Both HC-E982Q and HC-D1037N showed significant binding with NTNHA-A at pH 7.5, further supporting the pH-sensing role of these two residues (Fig. 3F & fig. S10). At the same time, thermodynamic studies revealed a loss of enthalpy on binding of HC-E982A to NTNHA-A at pH 7.5 compared to pH 6.0 (ΔΔH ~6.3 kcal mol−1) (Table S1), suggesting that the protein-protein interaction network between HC and NTNHA-A is partly impaired at pH 7.5. Thus, additional pH-sensing components might exist in HC that become fully engaged in binding with NTNHA-A only at pH 6.0.
Collectively, these data suggest that the assembly of the M-PTC is dynamically regulated by key pH-sensing residues that switch protonation states in response to the environmental pH. These interaction sites would likely be the most malleable parts of the PTC, and could be specifically targeted for the development of small molecule inhibitors to break up the PTC in the acidic GI tract. A pharmacological approach such as this, which focuses on preventive countermeasures at the earliest stage of BoNT intoxication, would complement current efforts to design inhibitors that block the subsequent neuronal action of BoNT. Our results also suggest mechanisms for the development of an oral drug delivery system in which proteinaceous drugs could be conjugated to a BoNT fragment and protected from degradation with NTNHA.
Supplementary Material
We thank Drs. Axel Brunger and Thomas Binz for critical reading of the manuscript. We thank the staff of beam-line 9-2 at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL) and the NE-CAT staff of the Advanced Photon Source (APS), particularly Dr. Kanagalaghatta Rajashankar, for assistance in data collection. We thank Guorui Yao, Nadja Krez, Anna Magdalena Kruel, and Jacqueline Tremblay for excellent technical assistance, and Drs. Robert Liddington and Andrey Bobkov for assistance with ITC and AUC. This work was partly supported by an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship (R.J.), by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Exzellenzinitiative GSC 108 to S.R.), by the Robert-Koch-Institut (1362/I-979 to A.R.), and by grants from the NIAID, NIH, DHHS, under Award Number U54 AI057159 (C.B.S). Atomic coordinates and structure factors for the VHH-bound M-PTC, M-PTC, and BoNT/Ai have been deposited with the Protein Data Bank under accession codes 3V0A, 3V0B, and 3V0C, respectively.
1. Montecucco C, Schiavo G. Q Rev Biophys. 1995;28:423. [PubMed]
2. Collins MD, East AK. J Appl Microbiol. 1998;84:5. [PubMed]
3. Ito H, et al. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2011:1.
4. Ohishi I, Sugii S, Sakaguchi G. Infect Immun. 1977;16:107. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Cheng LW, et al. Toxicology. 2008;249:123. [PubMed]
6. Eisele KH, Fink K, Vey M, Taylor HV. Toxicon. 2011;57:555. [PubMed]
7. Burkard F, Chen F, Kuziemko GM, Stevens RC. J Struct Biol. 1997;120:78. [PubMed]
8. Hasegawa K, et al. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:24777. [PubMed]
9. Arnon SS, et al. JAMA. 2001;285:1059. [PubMed]
10. Binz T, Bade S, Rummel A, Kollewe A, Alves J. Biochemistry. 2002;41:1717. [PubMed]
11. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
12. Dong J, et al. J Mol Biol. 2010;397:1106. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Lacy DB, Tepp W, Cohen AC, DasGupta BR, Stevens RC. Nat Struct Biol. 1998;5:898. [PubMed]
14. de Paiva A, et al. J Biol Chem. 1993;268:20838. [PubMed]
15. Rummel A, Mahrhold S, Bigalke H, Binz T. Mol Microbiol. 2004;51:631. [PubMed]
16. Stenmark P, Dupuy J, Imamura A, Kiso M, Stevens RC. PLoS Pathog. 2008;4:e1000129. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Sagane Y, et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002;292:434. [PubMed]
18. Kouguchi H, Watanabe T, Sagane Y, Sunagawa H, Ohyama T. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:2650. [PubMed]
19. Fujii N, et al. J Gen Microbiol. 1993;139:79. [PubMed]
20. East AK, Collins MD. Curr Microbiol. 1994;29:69. [PubMed]
21. Lin G, Tepp WH, Pier CL, Jacobson MJ, Johnson EA. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010;76:40. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Swaminathan S, Eswaramoorthy S. Nat Struct Biol. 2000;7:693. [PubMed]
23. Eswaramoorthy S, Kumaran D, Keller J, Swaminathan S. Biochemistry. 2004;43:2209. [PubMed]
24. Chai Q, et al. Nature. 2006;444:1096. [PubMed]
25. Jin R, Rummel A, Binz T, Brunger AT. Nature. 2006;444:1092. [PubMed]
26. Baldwin MR, Kim JJ, Barbieri JT. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007;14:9. [PubMed]
27. Kumaran D, et al. J Mol Biol. 2009;386:233. [PubMed]
28. Montal M. Annu Rev Biochem. 2010;79:591. [PubMed]
29. Wang J, et al. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:16993. [PubMed]
30. Shone CC, Hambleton P, Melling J. Eur J Biochem. 1985;151:75. [PubMed]
31. Chen F, et al. Infect Immun. 1997;65:1626. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
32. Pace CN, Grimsley GR, Scholtz JM. J Biol Chem. 2009;284:13285. [PubMed]
33. Li H, Robertson AD, Jensen JH. Proteins. 2005;61:704. [PubMed]
34. Li L, Binz T, Niemann H, Singh BR. Biochemistry. 2000;39:2399. [PubMed]
35. Breidenbach MA, Brunger AT. Nature. 2004;432:925. [PubMed]
36. Fu Z, et al. Biochemistry. 2006;45:8903. [PubMed]
37. Battye TG, Kontogiannis L, Johnson O, Powell HR, Leslie AG. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 67:271. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
38. Potterton E, Briggs P, Turkenburg M, Dodson E. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2003;59:1131. [PubMed]
39. Adams PD, et al. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2010;66:213. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
40. McCoy AJ, et al. J Appl Cryst. 2007;40:658. [PubMed]
41. Emsley P, Cowtan K. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2004;60:2126. [PubMed]
42. Brunger AT. Nature. 1992;355:472. [PubMed]
43. Chen VB, et al. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2010;66:12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
44. Pei J, Grishin NV. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:802. [PubMed]
45. Gouet P, Courcelle E, Stuart DI, Metoz F. Bioinformatics. 1999;15:305. [PubMed]
46. Baker NA, Sept D, Joseph S, Holst MJ, McCammon JA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10037. [PubMed]
47. Hayward S, Berendsen HJ. Proteins. 1998;30:144. [PubMed]
48. Mahrhold S, Rummel A, Bigalke H, Davletov B, Binz T. FEBS Lett. 2006;580:2011. [PubMed]
49. Brunger AT, et al. PLoS Pathog. 2007;3:e113.
50. Fujita R, et al. FEBS Lett. 1995;376:41. [PubMed]
51. Lo MC, et al. Anal Biochem. 2004;332:153. [PubMed]