DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants response filed 05/20/2026 has been received and entered. Claims 1, 52, 56, 68, 71, 85, 87, 89-91, 98, 100, and 125-132 remain pending. Claims 1, 52, 68, 85, 87, and 125-132 have been examined on the merits in so far as they read on the elected species. Claims 56, 71, 89-91, 98, and 100 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected groups and/or species.
Claim Objections
Claim 126 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 126 recites the abbreviation "wt" without first defining the term. Appropriate correction is required.
Status of Prior Rejections/Response to Arguments
RE: Objection to claim 69
Claim 69 has been cancelled rendering the objection moot.
RE: Rejection of claims 68 and 69 under 35 USC 112(b)
Claim 68 is drawn to a pseudotyped lentivirus produced by the method of claim 56. Claim 56 has been amended to include a step of transducing and/or transfecting the cells with the one or more lentivirus production plasmids and with the nucleic ac id encoding the gene of interest and/or the nucleic acid that modulates gene expression. The amendments to claim 56 overcome the rejection.
The rejection over claim 68 is withdrawn.
Claim 69 has been cancelled rendering its rejection moot.
RE: Rejection of claims 1, 12, 15, 52, 68, 85, and 87 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Emmanuel et al (WO2021046143A1) as evidenced by Von Maltzahn et al (WO2020102578A1).
Applicants traverse the rejection of record on the grounds that Emmanuel et al does not disclose the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as claimed in the instant application.
In response, the argument has been fully considered but is not found convincing. Emmanuel discloses that in some embodiments the non-cell particle comprises one or more fusogens which can include a mammalian fusogen such as a myomaker or myomerger (See ¶ 0341 and 0346). The non-cell particles exemplified by Emmanuel are virus particles or virus-like particles such as pseudotyped lentiviral-like particles (See abstract). While Emmanuel disclose many options, it remains that the claimed composition is amongst them.
The rejection over claims 1, 52, 68, 85, and 87 is maintained and modified to include newly added claims.
Claims 12 and 15 have been cancelled rendering their rejection moot.
RE: Rejection of claim 69 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Whitt (J Virol Methods, 2010).
Claim 69 has been cancelled rendering its rejection moot.
RE: Rejection of claims 1, 12, 15, 52, 68, 69, 85, and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmanuel et al (WO2021046143A1) in view of Whitt (J Virol Methods, 2010).
The 103 rejection over Emmanuel et al in view of Whitt was included to address claim 69. Since claim 69 has been cancelled, the entire rejection is dropped.
Maintained/New Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 52, 68, 85, 87, and 127 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Emmanuel et al (WO2021046143A1) as evidenced by Von Maltzahn et al (WO2020102578A1).
Emmanuel discloses non-cell particles comprising pseudotyped virus, or viral like particles, including pseudotyped lentivirus or lentiviral-like particles, containing exogenous CD24 (See abstract and ¶0058). In some embodiments the particle comprises a protein fusogen which may include a myomaker or myomerger (See ¶0346). A fusogen facilitates binding to target cell population (See ¶0564). Emmanuel further discloses a composition comprising the pseudotyped particle and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (See abstract and ¶0057).
Regarding claim 1: Emmanuel discloses a pseudotyped lentivirus which reads on a pseudotyped virus that is a pseudotyped lentivirus. The pseudotyped lentivirus of Emmanuel can comprise a protein fusogen such as a myomaker or myomerger which reads on the pseudotyped particle comprise one or more polypeptides comprising one or more myomaker or myomerger polypeptides.
Regarding claim 52: Following the discussion of claim 1 above, Emmanuel discloses a pseudotyped virus comprising a fusogen such as a myomaker.
Emmanuel does not disclose the pseudotyped particle exhibits fusogenic activity with a target cell upon binding of the myomaker polypeptide to a myomaker or myomerger polypeptide on the target cell.
Von Maltzahn further teaches a myomaker expressing fusosomes can fuse with a target cell that expresses both myomaker and myomixer.
Given that Emmanuel discloses a pseudotyped virus comprising a fusogen (reads on fusosome) comprising myomaker and Von Maltzahn teaches a myomaker expressing fusosome can fuse with a target cell expressing myomaker and myomixer (reads on exhibits fusogenic activity upon binding a myomaker on a target cell), the pseudotyped virus of Emmanuel inherently exhibits fusogenic activity with a target cell upon binding of the myomaker polypeptide to a myomaker polypeptide on a target cell.
Regarding claim 68: Claim 68 uses product-by-process language. Product-by-process claims are considered only in so far as the process of production affects the final product. Therefore, if the product as claimed is the same or obvious over a product of the prior art (i.e., is not structurally or chemically distinct), the claim is considered unpatentable over the prior art, even though the prior art product is made by a different process. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the process of production involves contacting (a) a composition comprising cells that express at least one myomerger polypeptide, at least one myomaker polypeptide, or a combination thereof with (b) a composition comprising one or more lentivirus production plasmids and (c) a composition comprising a nucleic acid encoding a gene of interest and/or a nucleic acid that modulates gene expression then transducing and/or transfecting the cells with the one or more lentivirus production plasmids and with the nucleic acid encoding the gene of interest and/or the nucleic acid that modulates gene expression [i.e. the method of claim 56].. The method of claim 56 can be understood to require the [final product of claim 56] to comprise a pseudotyped lentivirus comprising a nucleic acid encoding a gene of interest and/or a nucleic acid that modulates gene expression.
Emmanuel discloses a pseudotyped lentivirus comprising a myomaker or myomerger protein and CD24 (reads on a gene of interest) which reads on the pseudotyped virus of claim 68.
Regarding claims 85 and 87: Emmanuel discloses a pseudotyped lentivirus comprising a protein fusogen such as a myomaker or myomixer which reads on the pseudotyped particle of claim 1. Emmanuel further discloses a composition comprising the pseudotyped particle and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier which reads on a composition comprising the pseudotyped particle of claim 1 and a pharmaceutical composition comprising the pseudotyped particle of claim 1.
Regarding claim 127: Following the discussion of claim 1 above, the pseudotyped lentivirus of Emmanuel further comprises exogenous CD24 which reads on a nucleic acid encoding a gene of interest.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 52, 68, 85, 87, 125-127, 130, and 132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Emmanuel et al (WO2021046143A1) as evidenced by Von Maltzahn et al (WO2020102578A1) and in view of Corbel et al (US20190263899A1).
The teachings of Emmanuel et al and Von Maltzahn et al are set forth above.
Emmanuel et al evidenced by Von Maltzahn et al anticipates claims 1, 52, 68, 85, 87, and 127.
Regarding claims 125, 126, and 130: Following the discussion of claim 1 above, Emmanuel et al discloses a pseudotyped lentivirus comprising a myomaker protein.
Emmanuel et al does not disclose the amino acid sequence of the myomaker.
Corbel et al discloses a vector comprising a myomaker polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 28 which is 100 percent identical to SEQ ID NO: 3 of the instant application (See claims 15 and 16 and sequence alignment below). SEQ ID NO: 28 shares 99% identity with the myomaker protein from Phacochoerus africanus and 90% identity with human myomaker protein which reads on having at least 90% identity to a wt (i.e. wildtype) myomaker protein (See sequence alignments below). The myomaker of Corbel et al has fusogenic activity which induces cellular fusion which reads on exhibiting fusogenic activity with a target cell (See ¶0067 and ¶0110-0112). Furthermore, the vector of Corbel et al can be a lentivirus (See claim 26).
Given that Emmanuel et al and Corbel et al both disclose lentiviruses comprising a myomaker polypeptide it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute the myomaker of Emmanuel et al with the myomaker of Corbel et al, which comprises SEQ ID NO: 28, in the pseudotyped lentivirus of Emmanuel et al. One would have expected the myomaker of Corbel et al to work equivocally with the myomaker of Emmanuel et al in the pseudotyped lentivirus of Emmanuel et al because both polypeptides are a myomaker. Substitution of one element for another known in the field, wherein the result of the substitution would have been predictable is considered to be obvious. See KSR International Co. V Teleflex Inc 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US2007) at page 1395.
Regarding claim 132: Following the discussion of claims 1 and 130 above, Emmanuel discloses in some embodiments the target cell is a muscle cell (See ¶0429).
Claims 1, 68, 85, 87, 125-127, and 130-132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbel et al (US20190263899A1) in view of Giry-Laterriere et al (Methods in Molecular Biology, 2011).
The teachings of Corbel et al are set forth above.
Regarding claim 1: Corbel et al discloses a lentivirus comprising a myomaker polypeptide.
Corbel et al does not disclose a pseudotyped particle that is a pseudotyped lentivirus.
Giry-Laterriere teaches the G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV-G) is commonly used to pseudotype lentiviral vector particles because it is highly stable, allowing for the concentration of the vector by ultracentrifugation and because its phospholipid receptor is ubiquitously expressed in mammalian cells resulting in broad tropism in mouse and human cells (See pg. 184 second paragraph and pg. 185 Table 1). Additionally the association of the VSV-G glycoprotein with viral cores derived from lentiviruses results in vector pseudotypes that can integrate into non-proliferating target cells (See pg. 184 second paragraph).
Given that Corbel et al discloses a lentivirus and Giry-Laterriere teaches pseudotyping a lentiviral vector particle with a VSV-G allows concentration of the vector by ultracentrifugation, results in broad tropism in mouse and human cells, and allows the lentivirus to integrate into non-proliferating target cells, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the lentivirus of Corbel et al by pseudo-typing the lentivirus with VSV-G. One would have been motivated to pseudotype the lentivirus of Corbel et al with VSV-G because Giry-Laterriere teaches pseudotyping a lentivirus with VSV-G allows concentration of the vector by ultracentrifugation, results in broad tropism in mouse and human cells, and allows the lentivirus to integrate into non-proliferating target cells. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Giry-Laterriere teaches pseudotyping lentiviral particles with VSV-G is a common technique in the field.
Regarding claim 68: Claim 68 uses product-by-process language. Product-by-process claims are considered only in so far as the process of production affects the final product. Therefore, if the product as claimed is the same or obvious over a product of the prior art (i.e., is not structurally or chemically distinct), the claim is considered unpatentable over the prior art, even though the prior art product is made by a different process. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, the process of production involves contacting (a) a composition comprising cells that express at least one myomerger polypeptide, at least one myomaker polypeptide, or a combination thereof with (b) a composition comprising one or more lentivirus production plasmids and (c) a composition comprising a nucleic acid encoding a gene of interest and/or a nucleic acid that modulates gene expression then transducing and/or transfecting the cells with the one or more lentivirus production plasmids and with the nucleic acid encoding the gene of interest and/or the nucleic acid that modulates gene expression [i.e. the method of claim 56].. The method of claim 56 can be understood to require the [final product of claim 56] to comprise a pseudotyped lentivirus comprising a nucleic acid encoding a gene of interest and/or a nucleic acid that modulates gene expression.
Corbel et al discloses vectors comprise a first nucleic acid encoding a MINION polypeptide (reads on gene of interest), and a second nucleic acid encoding a Myomaker polypeptide (See ¶0010).
Corbel et al does not disclose a pseudotyped particle that is a pseudotyped lentivirus.
Giry-Laterriere teaches the G protein of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV-G) is commonly used to pseudotype lentiviral vector particles because it is highly stable, allowing for the concentration of the vector by ultracentrifugation and because its phospholipid receptor is ubiquitously expressed in mammalian cells resulting in broad tropism in mouse and human cells (See pg. 184 second paragraph and pg. 185 Table 1). Additionally the association of the VSV-G glycoprotein with viral cores derived from lentiviruses results in vector pseudotypes that can integrate into non-proliferating target cells (See pg. 184 second paragraph).
Given that Corbel et al discloses a lentivirus and Giry-Laterriere teaches pseudotyping a lentiviral vector particle with a VSV-G allows concentration of the vector by ultracentrifugation, results in broad tropism in mouse and human cells, and allows the lentivirus to integrate into non-proliferating target cells, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the lentivirus of Corbel et al by pseudo-typing the lentivirus with VSV-G. One would have been motivated to pseudotype the lentivirus of Corbel et al with VSV-G because Giry-Laterriere teaches pseudotyping a lentivirus with VSV-G allows concentration of the vector by ultracentrifugation, results in broad tropism in mouse and human cells, and allows the lentivirus to integrate into non-proliferating target cells. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Giry-Laterriere teaches pseudotyping lentiviral particles with VSV-G is a common technique in the field.
Regarding claims 85 and 87: Following the discussion of claim 1 above, Corbel et al discloses injecting cells with virus in polybrene (See ¶344) which reads on a composition/pharmaceutical composition comprising the pseudotyped particle of claim 1.
Regarding claim 125: Following the discussion of claim 1 above, Corbin discloses a myomaker polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 28 which is 100 percent identical to SEQ ID NO: 3 of the instant application (See sequence alignment below).
Regarding claims 126 and 130: Following the discussion of claim 1 above, Corbel et al discloses a vector comprising a myomaker polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:28. SEQ ID NO: 28 shares 99% identity with the myomaker protein from Phacochoerus africanus and 90% identity with human myomaker protein which reads on having at least 90% identity to a wt (i.e. wildtype) myomaker protein (See sequence alignments below). Furthermore, the myomaker of Corbel et al has fusogenic activity.
Regarding claim 127: Following the discussion of claim above, Corbel et al discloses vectors comprise a first nucleic acid encoding a MINION polypeptide (reads on gene of interest), and a second nucleic acid encoding a Myomaker polypeptide.
Regarding claim 131 and 132: Following the discussion of claims 1 and 130 above, Corbel et al in view of Giry-Laterriere teach a pseudotyped lentivirus comprising a myomaker polypeptide. Corbel further teaches methods for treating muscular dystrophy in a subject by administering an effective amount of a therapeutic cell comprising a nucleic acid encoding a minion polypeptide and a nucleic acid encoding a myomaker (See ¶281). The therapeutic cell of Corbel comprises the vector for expressing myomaker (See ¶0014). The therapeutic cell can be a muscle cell such as a myoblast (See ¶0153). The therapeutic cells target dysfunctional cells such as muscle cells having a mutation in the dystrophin gene (See ¶0149). Given that the myomaker and minion polypeptides of the lentivirus of Corbel et al have fusogenic activity allowing fusion of cells, either the therapeutic cells or the dysfunctional cells of Corbel et al can be considered target cells.
Claims 1, 68, 85, 87, 125-132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corbel et al (US20190263899A1) in view of Giry-Laterriere et al (Methods in Molecular Biology, 2011) and Kimura et al (Mol Ther, 2009).
The teachings of Corbel et al and Giry-Laterriere et al are set forth above.
Corbel et al and Giry-Laterriere et al render claims 1, 68, 85, 87, 125-127, and 130-132 obvious.
Regarding claims 128 and 129: Following the disclose of claim 1 above, Corbel et al in view of Giry-Laterriere teach a pseudotyped lentivirus comprising a myomaker polypeptide. Corbel further teaches methods for treating muscular dystrophy in a subject by administering an effective amount of a therapeutic cell comprising a nucleic acid encoding a minion polypeptide and a nucleic acid encoding a myomaker (See ¶281). The therapeutic cell of Corbel comprises the vector for expressing myomaker (See ¶0014).
Corbel et al and Giry-Laterriere do not teach the pseudotyped particle further comprises a nucleic acid encoding dystrophin , microdystrophin, or minidystrophin.
Kimura et al teaches lentiviral vectors expressing a functional microdystrophin gene the lentiviral vector expressing microdystrophin can be used to express stable dystrophin in muscles and can be used as a gene therapy for muscular dystrophy.
Given that Corbel et al discloses a method of treating muscular dystrophy comprising administering a therapeutic cell comprising a vector comprising a myomaker polypeptide and Kimura teaches a lentiviral vector expressing a functional microdystrophin gene can be used as a treatment method for muscular dystrophy, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the lentivirus of Corbel et al and the lentivirus of Kimura et al (i.e. make a lentivirus expressing both myomaker and microdystrophin) in order to produce a more robust treatment method for muscular dystrophy. Combining equivalents known for the same purpose in order to form a new composition to be used for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (See MPEP2144.06(I) and in re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISOL A O'NEILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Christopher Babic can be reached at (571) 272-8507. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000
/MARISOL ANN O'NEILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1633
/ALLISON M FOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1633
Sequence Alignments
SEQ ID NO: 3 (Qy) vs SEQ ID NO: 28 (US20190263899A1) (Db)
Query Match 100.0%; Score 1174; Length 221;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 221; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MGTVMAKLLLPTLSSLAFLPTVSIAAKRRFHMEAMVYLFTTFFVAFYHACHGPGLAMICF 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MGTVMAKLLLPTLSSLAFLPTVSIAAKRRFHMEAMVYLFTTFFVAFYHACHGPGLAMICF 60
Qy 61 LRLDILEYFSVYGTALSMWVSLMALADFDEPKRSTFVMFGVLTIAVRIYHDRWGYGVYSG 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 LRLDILEYFSVYGTALSMWVSLMALADFDEPKRSTFVMFGVLTIAVRIYHDRWGYGVYSG 120
Qy 121 PIGTAALIIAAKWLQQMKDQRRLYPDKSVYTQQIGPGLCFGALALMLRFFFEEWDYTYVH 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 PIGTAALIIAAKWLQQMKDQRRLYPDKSVYTQQIGPGLCFGALALMLRFFFEEWDYTYVH 180
Qy 181 SFYHCALAMSFVLLLPKANKKAGSAGPPAKLDCSTLCCACI 221
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 SFYHCALAMSFVLLLPKANKKAGSAGPPAKLDCSTLCCACI 221
SEQ ID NO: 28 (US20190263899A1) (Query1) vs. protein myomaker [Phacochoerus africanus] (sbjct)
Identities: 220/221(99%)
Query 1 MGTVMAKLLLPTLSSLAFLPTVSIAAKRRFHMEAMVYLFTTFFVAFYHACHGPGLAMICF 60
MGTVMAKLLLPTLSSLAFLPTVS+AAKRRFHMEAMVYLFTTFFVAFYHACHGPGLAMICF
Sbjct 1 MGTVMAKLLLPTLSSLAFLPTVSVAAKRRFHMEAMVYLFTTFFVAFYHACHGPGLAMICF 60
Query 61 LRLDILEYFSVYGTALSMWVSLMALADFDEPKRSTFVMFGVLTIAVRIYHDRWGYGVYSG 120
LRLDILEYFSVYGTALSMWVSLMALADFDEPKRSTFVMFGVLTIAVRIYHDRWGYGVYSG
Sbjct 61 LRLDILEYFSVYGTALSMWVSLMALADFDEPKRSTFVMFGVLTIAVRIYHDRWGYGVYSG 120
Query 121 PIGTAALIIAAKWLQQMKDQRRLYPDKSVYTQQIGPGLCFGALALMLRFFFEEWDYTYVH 180
PIGTAALIIAAKWLQQMKDQRRLYPDKSVYTQQIGPGLCFGALALMLRFFFEEWDYTYVH
Sbjct 121 PIGTAALIIAAKWLQQMKDQRRLYPDKSVYTQQIGPGLCFGALALMLRFFFEEWDYTYVH 180
Query 181 SFYHCALAMSFVLLLPKANKKAGSAGPPAKLDCSTLCCACI 221
SFYHCALAMSFVLLLPKANKKAGSAGPPAKLDCSTLCCACI
Sbjct 181 SFYHCALAMSFVLLLPKANKKAGSAGPPAKLDCSTLCCACI 221
SEQ ID NO: 28 (US20190263899A1) (Query1) vs. protein myomaker [Homo sapiens](sbjct)
Identities: 199/221(90%)
Query 1 MGTVMAKLLLPTLSSLAFLPTVSIAAKRRFHMEAMVYLFTTFFVAFYHACHGPGLAMICF 60
MGT++AKLLLPTLSSLAFLPTVSIAAKRRFHMEAMVYLFT FFVA +HAC+GPGL+++CF
Sbjct 1 MGTLVAKLLLPTLSSLAFLPTVSIAAKRRFHMEAMVYLFTLFFVALHHACNGPGLSVLCF 60
Query 61 LRLDILEYFSVYGTALSMWVSLMALADFDEPKRSTFVMFGVLTIAVRIYHDRWGYGVYSG 120
+R DILEYFSVYGTALSMWVSLMALADFDEPKRSTFVMFGVLTIAVRIYHDRWGYGVYSG
Sbjct 61 MRHDILEYFSVYGTALSMWVSLMALADFDEPKRSTFVMFGVLTIAVRIYHDRWGYGVYSG 120
Query 121 PIGTAALIIAAKWLQQMKDQRRLYPDKSVYTQQIGPGLCFGALALMLRFFFEEWDYTYVH 180
PIGTA LIIAAKWLQ+MK+++ LYPDKSVYTQQIGPGLCFGALALMLRFFFE+WDYTYVH
Sbjct 121 PIGTAILIIAAKWLQKMKEKKGLYPDKSVYTQQIGPGLCFGALALMLRFFFEDWDYTYVH 180
Query 181 SFYHCALAMSFVLLLPKANKKAGSAGPPAKLDCSTLCCACI 221
SFYHCALAMSFVLLLPK NKKAGS G PAKLDCSTLCCAC+
Sbjct 181 SFYHCALAMSFVLLLPKVNKKAGSPGTPAKLDCSTLCCACV 221
Prosecution Insights