Publications
-
11.06.2008Crystal Structure of the Anti-Viral APOBEC3G Catalytic Domain and Functional ImplicationsArticles
Nature. 2008 Nov 6;456(7218):121-4
-
01.25.2007The APOBEC-2 Crystal Structure and Functional Implications for the Deaminase AIDArticles
Nature. 2007 Jan 25;445(7126):447-51
-
07.20.2013Lentivirus Restriction by Diverse Primate APOBEC3A ProteinsArticles
Virology. 2013 Jul 20;442(1):82-96
-
02.06.2013A Systematic Study of the N-Glycosylation Sites of HIV-1 Envelope Protein on Infectivity and Antibody-Mediated NeutralizationArticles
Retrovirology. 2013 Feb 6;10:14
-
08.10.2012A Structural Basis for the Biochemical Behavior of Activation-Induced Deoxycytidine Deaminase Class-Switch Recombination-Defective Hyper-Igm-2 MutantsArticles
The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2012 Aug 10;287(33):28007-16
-
05.21.2010Structural Model for Deoxycytidine Deamination Mechanisms of the HIV-1 Inactivation Enzyme APOBEC3GArticles
The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2010 May 21;285(21):16195-205
-
10.2009The Current Structural and Functional Understanding of APOBEC DeaminasesArticles
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 2009 Oct;66(19):3137-47
-
10.2009APOBEC Deaminases-Mutases With Defensive Roles for ImmunityArticles
Science China Life Sciences. 2009 Oct;52(10):893-902
-
01.2009The Prospect of APOBEC3G for the Future of HIV TherapyArticles
The Future of HIV Therapy. 2009 Jan
Presentations
-
06.25.2020
Life Science Legal Report
-
On February 28, 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued a decision on priority in an interference proceeding between the Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, “Broad”) and the Regents of the University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, “CVC”), and... Continue Reading…
-
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) recently designated two decisions as informative regarding discretionary denials of institution: Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., Case IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (May 13, 2020), and Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC, Case IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020). These decisions show how the Board... Continue Reading…
-
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) recently provided guidance to practitioners on its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and § 314(a) by designating three decisions as informative or precedential.[1] Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board may deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) because “the same or substantially... Continue Reading…
-
PTAB 1600 Tech Center Round-Up: Week of February 25-March 1
During the week of February 25, 2019, the Board issued six decisions in Technology Center 1600: five instituting inter partes review (IPR) and one instituting post-grant review (PGR). The decisions are summarized as follows: Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH, IPR2018-01425 (Decision—Institution of Inter Partes Review Feb. 25, 2019); Eli Lilly and Company... Continue Reading…