Analogous humoral antigen recognition between Monkeypox-infected and Smallpox-vaccinated individuals ==================================================================================================== * Ashley D. Otter * Scott Jones * Bethany Hicks * Daniel Bailey * Helen Callaby * Catherine Houlihan * Tommy Rampling * Nicola Claire Gordon * Hannah Selman * Panayampalli S. Satheshkumar * Michael Townsend * Ravi Mehta * Marcus Pond * Rachael Jones * Deborah Wright * Clarissa Oeser * Simon Tonge * Ezra Linley * Georgia Hemingway * Tom Coleman * Sebastian Millward * Aaron Lloyd * Inger Damon * Tim Brooks * Richard Vipond * Cathy Rowe * Bassam Hallis ## Abstract In early 2022, a cluster of Monkeypox (now termed MPOX) virus (MPXV) cases were identified within the UK with no prior travel history to MPXV-endemic regions, suggesting localised transmission of MPXV within the UK. Subsequently, cases were identified in several other non-endemic countries and currently exceed 80,000 worldwide, primarily affecting gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Public health agencies worldwide have offered the IMVANEX Smallpox vaccination to these individuals to provide protection and limit the spread of MPXV. We have developed a comprehensive array of ELISA assays to study poxvirus-induced antibodies, utilising 24 MPXV and 3 Vaccinia virus (VACV) recombinant antigens. Panels of serum samples from individuals with one, two, or three doses of IMVANEX or ACAM2000 (Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA)) vaccination, and those with prior MPOX infection were tested against these antigens, with Pearson correlation, principal component analysis and receiver operator curve statistics used to further elucidate antigenic responses to pox-virus infection. Furthermore, using our data, we demonstrated the development of a pooled antigen ELISA that can reliably detect antibody responses induced by Smallpox vaccination or MPXV infection. Using diverse poxvirus antigen ELISAs, we observe that one dose of Smallpox vaccination induces a low number of antibodies, primarily against MPXV B2, with a second dose inducing considerably higher antibody responses against B2R but also to other MPXV antigens such as B5, E8, M1, and A35. Prior MPXV infection, both Clades IIa and IIb, induce variable responses, but similarly induce antibody responses to poxvirus antigens observed in Smallpox-vaccinated individuals, and additionally responses to MPXV A27, A29 and H3. Principal component and Pearson correlation matrix identified MPXV A27 as a differential between IMVANEX and MPOX-infected individuals, whilst MPXV M1 (VACV L1) is likely a serological marker of IMVANEX-vaccination. When using recombinant MPXV/VACV protein homologues, we also observe a difference in antigen binding, with variability based on the individual’s originating infection/vaccination. Using a pooled-antigen ELISA, we also demonstrate a sensitivity of 97.14% (95% CI:91.93-99.22) and specificity of 98.23% (96.67-99.07) in detecting poxvirus antibodies with applicability to measuring longitudinal antibody responses post-vaccination/post-MPXV infection. Here, we show that both MPXV-infected or Smallpox-vaccinated individuals mount antibodies able to bind a diverse but core set of poxvirus antigens, with implications for future vaccine (e.g., mRNA-based) and therapeutic (e.g., monoclonal antibodies) targets. We identify low levels of antibodies observed in those post dose one IMVANEX, but considerably higher levels of antibodies post dose two. We also demonstrate that homologous VACV and MPXV antigens may offer a mechanism for discriminating between vaccinated and MPXV-infected individuals through differential binding, aiding in serosurveillance and future immunology studies. ## Introduction MPOX virus (MPXV), is a member of the Orthopoxviruses, a group of closely related viruses, some of which are highly pathogenic that cause distinctive diseases in humans and animals1–5. Within the Orthopoxvirus genus, other members of this viral family include Vaccinia virus (VACV), the foundation of a number of Smallpox vaccinations; Variola virus (VARV), the causative virus of Smallpox disease which was subsequently declared eradicated in 19803,6; and Cowpox virus (CPXV), the virus likely used by Edward Jenner to inoculate individuals against Smallpox2,7. Whilst Orthopoxviruses share a high degree of genetic homology2,8, they vary in their pathogenicity to humans. VARV is highly pathogenic in humans, contributing to 300-500 million historic deaths worldwide, with no known animal reservoir, aiding in its eradication. VACV can cause disease in humans9,10, however attenuated strains of VACV have been developed through serial passage, as the basis of a number of licensed vaccines against Smallpox – Dryvax®®, ACAM2000 (both based on the New York City Board of Health vaccinia virus strain) and Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) Bavarian Nordic (MVA-BN); trade-names ‘IMVANEX’ and ‘JYNNEOS). After the eradication of Smallpox in 19806, routine Smallpox vaccination, using Vaccinia virus, was halted worldwide3,11. Since this vaccination programme stopped, it has been suggested that the worldwide population remain increasingly at risk of poxvirus infection, due to waning antibodies in those with prior Smallpox vaccination and a lack of vaccine-derived immunity in those born after 198011,12. MPXV is a zoonotic pathogen (with a presumed rodent animal reservoir) causing MPOX disease1,13,14. Previously, it has been identified only in central and Western African countries with occasional importations in returning travellers. There have been a small number of onward transmissions in some countries such as the UK15–17 and USA18–20, however minimal mutations are observed between isolates spanning multiple years2. In the UK on the 7th of May 2022, one case of MPXV was identified in a returning traveller from Nigeria. A week later, an autochthonous familial cluster was identified, with no link to the earlier case and no travel history outside of the UK to MPXV-endemic regions21,22. Shortly afterwards, further MPXV cases were identified in the UK, largely in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) with no travel to endemic countries or known exposure to confirmed cases. Thereafter, other non-endemic countries including the USA, Spain, Germany, Portugal and France also identified similar cases and evidence emerged of local transmission in these countries21. To date, >80,000 cases of MPXV have been identified globally23, the majority of which have been in GBMSM22. Whole genome sequencing has identified 30-80 mutations in sequences from MPXV isolated during the current outbreak, which has been termed Clade IIb, compared to previous MPXV cases from Clade I or Clade IIa24–26. Mutations within Clade IIb were primarily either GA-to AA-, or TC-to TT substitutions, suggesting that host factors such as APOBEC3 cytosine modification led to these mutations, possibly due to sustained infection in a new host or altered phenotypic/transmission methods25,26. To limit transmission during the 2022 MPXV outbreak, public health agencies recommend Smallpox vaccination, as previous studies have shown protection from MPOX disease using the Smallpox vaccines such as IMVANEX or ACAM200027–31. The immunology of Dryvax®, ACAM2000 and IMVANEX vaccines has been well studied27,32–36, with antibody responses detected up to 35 years post-Smallpox vaccination34. However, studying the immunology to MPXV infection and disease has been limited by the geographical distribution, limited number of human cases worldwide and access to convalescent serum samples. Animal models have been undertaken to understand immunology from MPOX disease in species such as macaques28,31 and prairie dogs27, however, the translation of this to human MPOX infections is unknown. Whilst T-cell immune responses to MPOX infection have been studied during the current Clade IIb 2022 outbreak37,38 and previous oubreaks39, we sought to determine the humoral response and antigen recognition induced by both Clade IIa and IIb MPXV infection, with comparisons to IMVANEX and ACAM2000 vaccinated individuals. Similarly, using a combination of data, we demonstrate the ability of a multi-antigen ELISA to study antibody responses in Smallpox-vaccinated or MPOX-infected individuals. ## Materials and methods ### Serum samples from Smallpox vaccinated individuals Individuals with prior or imminent IMVANEX vaccination were recruited from UKHSA Porton Down. Written informed consent was given by each participant prior to sampling. Individuals in the process of receiving IMVANEX vaccination were bled before their primary intramuscular vaccination (n=18), then further bled at 24 days post dose one (n=8) and 14 (n=10), 43 (n=7), 63 (n=8) and 84 days (n=7) post dose two. Two individuals with historical IMVANEX vaccination (>4 years prior) receiving a booster were bled 14 days post dose (n=2). In addition, serum samples were provided by the Poxvirus and Rabies Branch at the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (US-CDC) from individuals post ACAM2000 single dose vaccination (n=4) and multiple dose vaccination (n=1). Further detail can be found in **Table 1**. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/T1) Table 1: Overview of samples used in this study. ### MPOX Convalescent serum Residual and anonymised MPOX convalescent serum from PCR-confirmed cases from the 2022 Clade IIb outbreak (n=43) were obtained for diagnostic assay development from the Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, and Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Date of birth was used a proxy for historic Smallpox vaccination (<1971), although noted that not all patients born prior to the end of the eradication programme may have been vaccinated. Days since diagnosis was also recorded. Convalescent MPOX Clade IIa sera from 2018 and 2019 (n=3) were obtained from the Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory from previous imported MPOX cases. ### Negative and confounder samples To determine pox-antigen reactivity and background pox-antibody reactivity, paediatric serum samples were sourced from the UKHSA Seroepidemiology Unit (SEU), Manchester (n=256). In addition, confounder serum samples from those with PCR-confirmed infection with CMV (n=99), EBV (n=100) and VZV (n=100) along with serum samples positive for Rheumatoid factor (n=100) were used to determine assay specificity. ### Antigens Recombinant MPX protein antigens were sourced from several commercial companies, as either Eukaryotic- or Prokaryotic-expressed proteins (**Table 2** and supplementary table 1) as follows: A14, A26, A27, A29, A36, A44, B5, B6, C15, C18, D13, D14, E8, F3 and L1 (ProteoGenix, France), B2 and C19 (Abbexa, UK), A5L and L4R/VP8 (Native Antigen Company, UK) and A33, A35, H3, I1 and M1 (SinoBiological, China). MPXV sequences for recombinant protein expression were all based on Clade II. View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/T2) Table 2: MPXV antigens and their homologues in VACV and known or predicted functions. Antigens in bold are recombinant antigens used in this study. 1 MPXV proteins labelled according to the genome of MPXV virus Zaire-96-I-16 (NC_003310). 2 VACV proteins labelled according to VACV Copenhagen (M35027). Data obtained from40–44 Additionally, recombinant VACV Copenhagen protein antigens A27, A33 and B5 were sourced from SinoBiological. ### Single antigen ELISAs ELISAs utilising single MPXV or VACV antigens were all performed using the same method, with variation in the coating antigen only. Briefly, 48 wells of a Corning High-Binding 96-well plate were coated with 100 µl/well of 0.1 ug/ml recombinant antigen overnight at 4°C, with the other 48 wells ‘coated’ with PBS (Gibco, 10010). After overnight incubation, plates were washed three times with 300 µl/well of PBS with Tween20 (0.01% final) using a Biotek 405 TS plate washer before being blocked with 200 µl SuperBlock (ThermoFisher, 37516) for 60 minutes at room temperature. Plates were washed again as before, serum samples were diluted to 1:200 in Superblock and 100 µl per well was applied to both the antigen-coated and PBS-only wells. After a 60-minute incubation with the samples at 37°C, plates were washed as before and 100 µl/well goat anti-human IgG preabsorbed H+L (AbCam, ab98624), diluted 1:8000 in Superblock, was added to the plate. Plates were incubated for a further 60 minutes at 37°C, followed by a wash with 300 µl/well of PBS with 0.01% Tween20 five times. Plates were then developed with 50 µl/well 1-Step™ Ultra TMB-ELISA Substrate Solution (ThermoFisher, 34029) for 30 minutes at 37°C and stopped with 50 µl/well KPL TMB Stop Solution (Seracare, 5150-0021). Plates were then read at an absorbance of 450nm using a Infinite F50 plate reader (Tecan, 30190077). ### Pooled antigen ELISA A pooled-antigen ELISA was performed similarly to single antigen ELISAs described above, however, wells were coated with 100 µl/well of a pool of recombinant MPXV antigens A35, B2, B6 and E8, and recombinant VACV antigen B5, each at a concentration of 0.1 ug/ml. In addition, to determine endpoint titres, samples were also serially diluted 1:4 seven times in SuperBlock, starting at a 1:100 dilution and 100 µl added per well. ### Data Analysis Before analysis, the absorbances achieved on the PBS-only wells were subtracted from the corresponding absorbances achieved on the antigen-coated wells. All data analysis (curve fitting, receiver operator curve, Pearson correlation or principal component analysis) was performed using GraphPad Prism 9.2.0 (GraphPad Software, USA) unless otherwise stated. For Pearson correlation, analysis was performed whereby *r* was computed for every pair of *y* data set and used to generate a correlation matrix. Data were assumed to have Gaussian distribution with *p*-values determined using the Two-tailed method. Principal component analysis was performed using the OD of each antigen for each sample as a continuous variable and principal components were selected based on parallel analysis with 1,000 simulations performed at a 95% percentile level. The results of the principal component analysis were grouped by sample group. The endpoint titres of a sample were calculated by fitting a sigmoidal 4PL model to sample absorbances versus log10 transformed sample dilution and interpolating the dilution at an absorbance of 0.1926. ## Results ### Antigen recognition is analogous between Smallpox-vaccinated and Monkeypox convalescent individuals In total 27 pox-virus antigens (24 MPXV and 3 VACV antigens), spanning diverse functions from structural viral proteins to those involved in virion morphogenesis and host immunomodulation (**Table 2**) were tested against a panel of serum samples of those with prior smallpox-vaccination or MPOX infection (**Figure 1**). ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F1) Figure 1: Heatmap of ELISA results of serum samples from negative, vaccinated (IMVANEX or ACAM2000) or MPXV-infected individuals using individual MPXV or VACV recombinant antigens. Colour scale represents the OD. **Top panel)** MPX antigens, split according to the different sample groups. **Middle panel)** VACV antigens, split according to the different sample groups. **Bottom panel)** Using a pool of four MPXV and one VACV recombinant antigens. Of the negative samples, individuals demonstrated minimal antibody binding to all the MPXV or VACV antigens, with the exception of one individual, showing binding to the MPXV H3 and VACV A27 antigen. Binding to MPXV C18 was observed across all negative samples. In individuals that received one dose of the IMVANEX vaccine, antibody binding to MPXV and VACV antigens was generally low (post-dose 1 (PD1), **Figure 1**), however, all individuals generated antibodies post-vaccination that were able to bind the MPXV B2 (VACV A56) antigen. Antibody binding to the VACV B5 and the MPXV homologue; B6, was variable across individuals, only one individual demonstrated robust antibody binding to both the VACV-B5 and MPXV-B6 antigens. Two-dose IMVANEX vaccinated individuals (14-days post-vaccination) demonstrated diverse recognition of a number of MPXV and VACV antigens, with the strongest binding of antibodies observed to VACV B5 and MPXV B6, followed by MPXV antigens A35, B2, E8 and M1 (Post-dose 2, time point 1 (PD2.1), **Figure 1**). Some individuals had antibodies able to bind MPXV A5, A29 and H3, but absorbances were generally low, with the exception of MPXV A29 in which two individuals demonstrated strong binding. Following further time points, post-dose 2 vaccination (43-, 63- and 84-days post-dose 2), lower binding to antigens was observed, in particular to MPXV antigens B2, A35, B6, E8 and M1, and VACV A33 and B5 demonstrating similar decreasing binding. We were also able to sample two individuals that received two historical IMVANEX doses (>3 years prior) with a booster (third) dose of IMVANEX (Post-dose 3 (PD3), **Figure 1**). These individuals show similar antibody binding to antigens as those in the post-dose 2 cohort, with strong antibody binding to the MPXV B6, E8, A35, H3 and M1 antigens, and the VACV A33 and B5 antigens. ACAM2000 Smallpox vaccination similarly induced antibodies that could bind the same antigens as IMVANEX-vaccinated individuals, with the exception of the MPXV M1 antigen, whilst binding was observed to the MPXV A27 antigen, which was not observed in IMVANEX-vaccinated individuals. Serum samples from individuals with prior MPOX infection were similar to those from post-vaccination individuals, primarily mounting antibodies that bind VACV B5, A27 and A33 and MPXV-B2, B6, A27, A35 and E8, with variable binding across different individuals to these antigens and others such as A5, A14, A29, M1 and H3 (**Figure 1**). Serum samples from individuals with confirmed MPOX disease prior to the 2022 outbreak (Clade IIa) displayed similar antibody binding to the same antigens as serum samples from individuals during the 2022 outbreak (Clade IIb), notably A35, A27, B2 and B6, and VACV-B5, but variable binding to MPXV-A29 and A44. Notably, no difference in antigen recognition was observed between those aged <51 and >51, with the latter more likely to have had historical smallpox vaccination (**Supplementary Figure 1**). Using Pearson correlation, trends in antibody binding to diverse MPXV and VACV antigens were determined (**Figure 2**). C18 was removed from the correlation analysis, as non-specific antibody binding was observed. Most negative samples correlated either strongly with one another or with minimal correlation, with some samples demonstrating poor correlation to other negative samples. Furthermore, minimal correlation of antibody binding was observed between negative serum samples and serum samples obtained from those post Smallpox vaccination and post-MPOX infection, with the exception of dose-one IMVANEX vaccinated individuals, who demonstrated variable correlation in antibody binding to those post ACAM2000 vaccination, post-dose 2 IMVANEX vaccination or post-MPOX infection. ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F2) Figure 2: Pearson correlation matrix of VACV and MPXV antigens in groups with no prior infection or smallpox vaccination (negatives), IMVANEX vaccinated, ACAM2000 vaccinated and convalescent MPXV-infected individuals. Correlation was performed using all MPXV/VACV antigens, with the exception of C18. PD: IMVANEX post-dose, 2.1; 14 days, 2.2; 43 days, 2.3 63 days and 2.4; 84 days. Conversely, serum samples from those post two dose IMVANEX vaccination at four different time points (14-, 43-, 63- and 84-days) had the strongest positive correlation observed, both between individuals and over different time points, with decreasing correlation over time since second-vaccine dose (**Figure 2**). Serum from post two dose IMVANEX vaccinated also strongly and positively correlated with ACAM2000 vaccinated individuals and convalescent Clade IIa and IIb MPOX infection, again with similar, strong correlation to one another. MPOX-infected individuals were highly correlated to one another, but as described earlier, also strongly correlated with those post-Smallpox vaccinations. A negative correlation was observed between the negative samples and those ACAM2000 vaccinated, two-doses of IMVANEX, or MPOX-infected individuals. Significance of individual samples to one another using Pearson correlation can be found in **Supplementary Figure 2**. ### Correlation is observed between antibody binding to MPXV and VACV homologous Similarly, Pearson correlation was used again to determine the correlation between MPXV/VACV antigens across the different groups (**Figure 3A-C, Supplementary Figure 4**). MPXV and VACV protein homologues were strongly correlated with one another in all groups, including negative samples: VACV B5 with MPXV B6, VACV A33 with MPXV A35 and VACV A27 with MPXV A29, with the exception of MPXV A29 and VACV A27 in the negative samples. ![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F3) Figure 3: Correlation of antibody binding between MPXV/VACV antigens in **A)** MPOX convalescent and Smallpox-vaccinated individuals, **B)** Smallpox vaccinated individuals and **C)** MPOX convalescent individuals. Coloured asterisks denote protein homologues between MPXV and VACV. Significant p-values for each correlation can be found in Supplementary figure 4. **D)** Principal component analysis of antibody binding to 23 MPXV and 3 VACV recombinant antigens, plotted and coloured by group. Coloured circles represent all samples within that cohort. **E)** Biplot of principal component analysis, highlighting that a number of ELISAs using specific antigens can be used for each particular group. Note: C18L was excluded from all correlation and principal component analysis due to non-specific antibody binding. In negative samples, a number of antigens significantly correlated to one another – including MPXV A26 and MPXV A14, MPXV C19 and MPXV A33, MPXV D13 and MPXV A27, however all of the samples in this group demonstrated minimal antibody binding to these antigens (**Figure 3A, Supplementary Figure 4**). However, within the Smallpox-vaccinated group (IMVANEX or ACAM2000), a positive correlation was observed between a number of MPXV antigens including B2 with A35, B6, E8 and M1, as well as VACV antigens A33 and B5 (**Figure 3B**). Similarly, in the MPOX convalescent group, MPXV antigen B2 correlated strongly with MPXV antigens A35, B6, E8 and H3 but also with MPXV A27, and VACV antigens A27, A33 and B6 (**Figure 3C**). ### Smallpox-vaccinated and MPOX-infected individuals mount a shared yet distinct antibody-binding repertoire Using antibody binding data of serum from individuals to the 24 MPXV and 3 VACV antigens, principal component analysis was performed to determine clusters in differential binding repertoires between pre-vaccination/negative individuals and that Smallpox vaccinated (Dose 1 IMVANEX, Dose 2 IMAVENEX and ACAM2000), or with prior MPOX infection groups (Clades IIa and Clade IIb). Antibody binding within the negative group all clustered similarly close to one another, whilst dose 1 IMVANEX vaccinated individuals similarly clustered both with one another but also with the negative samples (**Figure 3D**). Dose 2 IMVANEX vaccinated individuals showed distinct clusters, different from the negative samples, however, some of the IMAVNEX vaccinated individuals clustered towards the negative samples (later time points post-two dose vaccination, **Supplementary Figure 4**). MPOX convalescent individuals formed a distinct grouping separately from IMVANEX vaccinated or negative samples, however, displayed a degree of overlap with both of these groups. ACAM2000 vaccinated individuals were not distinctive, falling within the middle of the MPOX-convalescent samples but separate from the IMVANEX vaccinated samples (**Figure 3D**). Using a biplot from the principal component analysis, individual antigens were highlighted as distinctive to particular groups (**Figure 3E**). For MPOX-infected individuals, MPXV antigen A27 was the most specific to the MPOX-infected and ACAM2000 vaccinated group, followed by MPXV A14, D13 and A26, as well as VACV A27. Antigens specific to the IMVANEX-vaccinated group were primarily MPXV M1, but also E8, A36 and VACV antigens B5 and A33. ### Using MPXV/VACV antigens as a differential for discriminating between MPOX and Smallpox vaccination Based on a number of analyses (**Figure 1, Figure 3D-E**), several antigens show promise in being used to differentiate between Smallpox-vaccinated and MPOX-infected individuals. We performed ROC analysis on some of the singular antigens identified in analyses described here (MPXV A27 and MPXV M1) to determine their feasibility in discriminating between vaccinated and infected (**Figure 4, Table 3**). No significant difference (p=0.8708) was observed in antibody binding between the negative and IMVANEX vaccinated group for antibodies binding MPXV A27, however, MPOX-infected individuals had significantly higher antibody responses (p<0.0001) compared to negatives. Similarly, ACAM2000 individuals had significantly (p<0.0001) higher antibodies to MPXV A27 than negatives (**Figure 4A**). Utilising the MPXV M1 antigen, only IMVANEX-vaccinated individuals had significantly higher (p<0.0001) antibodies compared with the negative samples, ACAM2000 vaccinated, or MPOX-infected individuals (**Figure 4B**). View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/T3) Table 3: Statistical analysis of individual MPXV/VACV antigens in detecting Smallpox- or MPXV-specific antibody responses. Area under the curve analysis was performed using longitudinal IMVANEX samples. Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test were used for each group, relative to the negative control samples. ROC-analysis was used to determine sensitivity and specificity of antigens in detecting antibodies induced by either Smallpox vaccination of MPOX-infection. * - non-specific binding was observed to C18. Those antigens listed in bold had at least one significant difference relative to the negative samples. ![Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F4) Figure 4: Differential MPXV pox virus antigens used to determine **A)** Prior MPXV infection or ACAM2000 vaccination using MPXV A27, and **B)** recent IMVANEX vaccination using MPXV M1. ### Antigen exposure influences preferential binding to MPXV or VACV antigens In our initial experiments, we observed that Smallpox-vaccinated and MPX-infected individuals had similar binding to both the VACV B5 and the MPXV homologue B6 (**Figure 1**). Separating the Smallpox-vaccinated and the MPOX-infected groups, we observed preferential binding to the protein that individuals were either vaccinated or infected with, whereby Smallpox-vaccinated individuals bind VACV B5 better than the MPXV homologue B6 and skewed towards the B5 (VACV) axis (**Figure 5A**). Conversely, MPXV-infected individuals were found to bind MPXV B6 better than the VACV homologue B5, with the majority of samples skewed towards the B6 (MPXV) axis The same was also observed for the VACV-A33 and MPXV-A35 proteins(**Figure 5B**)., however, there was minimal antibody binding to either pox-virus antigen observed in MVA-vaccinated individuals and only in MPOX-infected individuals. Homologues MPXV A29 and VACV A27 however demonstrated binding that was relatively limited to MPOX-infected individuals and skewed towards binding VACV A27 than MPXV A29 (**Supplementary Figure 5**). MPOX-infected individuals aged ≥51 (and thus likely to have had prior-smallpox vaccination if UK born) did not show increased binding towards the VACV-antigen and were similar to the MPXV-infected individuals <51 (**Supplementary Figure 6**). ![Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F5.medium.gif) [Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F5) Figure 5: Differential binding to the **A)** VACV B5 and MPXV B6 and **B)** VACV A33 and MPXV A35 proteins between the MPXV-infected individuals and MVA-vaccinated (IMVANEX and ACAM2000) individuals. Those with MVA vaccination show stronger binding to the VACV B5 and A33 protein compared to the MPXV B6 and A35 homologue, whilst MPXV-infected individuals show higher binding to the B6 and A35 protein. Contour lines represent density of values. ### Only a subset of MPXV and VACV antigens are recognised longitudinally following IMVANEX vaccination, with waning observed Using a time course from IMVANEX vaccinated individuals, we assessed the antibody binding in these individuals; prior to vaccination, 28-days post-primary vaccination dose (post-dose 1 (PD1) D24), 14-days post second dose (PD2 D14), 43-days post-second dose (PD2 D43) and 63-days post second dose. The majority of individuals demonstrated no antibody binding to the majority of antigens tested, demonstrated in earlier observations (**Figure 1**), however, antibodies were able to bind nine antigens (MPXV antigens B6, B2, E8, A35, M1, A29 and VACV antigens: B5 and A33) across the time course (**Figure 6**). Antibodies induced after one dose of vaccination were minimal, primarily to MPXV B2, however, an induction of antibodies to all nine antigens was observed 14-days post-dose 2. Cross-reactive antibodies to MPXV C18 were observed across all time points. ![Figure 6:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F6.medium.gif) [Figure 6:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/26/2022.12.22.22283648/F6) Figure 6: Longitudinal sampling of individuals receiving IMAVENEX vaccination against **A)** a panel of 24 MPXV and 3 VACV antigens or **B)** Pooled antigen ELISA. **C)** Evaluation of the pooled antigen ELISA to determine sensitivity and specificity. **D)** Using the pooled antigen ELISA, endpoint titres were determined for positive groups. Comparison of the ELISA results of MPXV-infected and Smallpox-vaccinated serum samples using individual antigens relative to the pool of antigens **E)** split by antigen, or **F)** linear regression of individual antigen results relative to pooled antigen ELISA results. Dotted lines represent the 95% confidence intervals. Black lines represent X=Y. Area under the curve (AUC) analysis identified nine antigens with a high AUC, with the exception of A27, which was likely MPXV-specific (**Table 3**). Using Dunnett’s multiple comparison tests, we also identify a number of antigens that are significantly higher at the different timepoints post-IMVANEX vaccination or MPOX-infection compared to negative samples (**Table 3**). In particular, a number of MPXV antigens were significantly higher 14-days post-dose 2 than negative samples (A29 (p= 0.0043), A35 (p=<0.0001), E8 (p< 0.0001) and M1 (p=<0.0001)) that showed no significant difference at day 63 post-dose 2. Similarly, MPXV A27 and VACV A27 were not significantly different between negatives and post-vaccination, however, were significantly higher in MPOX-convalescent individuals compared with negatives (p< 0.0001). When comparing antigens overtime, we observed no significant correlation in antibody binding to any of the antigens relative to time since infection (data not shown). Using individual antigens for detecting post-vaccination or post-MPOX-infection was assessed using ROC analysis (**Table 3**). We observed that individual antigens such as MPXV B2R, which had a sensitivity of 93.94% (95% CI: 80.39-98.92%) and specificity of 94.44% (95% CI: 74.24-99.72%) using a cut-off OD450nm of >0.1743, were well suited in detecting post-vaccination samples (both dose 1 and all time points for dose 2). MPXV A27 was highly accurate in being able to discriminate MPXV-infected individuals, with ROC analysis demonstrating 93.02% sensitivity (95% CI: 81.77% to 97.65%) and 94.44% specificity (95% CI: 83.78% to 98.36%) using a cut-off OD450nm >0.1838 (**Table 3**). MPXV M1 gave a sensitivity of 72.73% (95% CI: 61.22% to 85.08%) and specificity of 94.44% (95% CI 74.24% to 99.72%) in detecting IMVANEX-vaccinated individuals using a cut-off of OD450nm >0.07125. ### Antibodies from MPXV-infected and Smallpox-vaccinated individuals can reliably be detected using a pooled antigen ELISA From the results of individual antigen testing, the dominant antigens recognised by MPXV-infected and Smallpox-vaccinated individuals (IMVANEX or ACAM2000) were highly similar: VACV antigens B5 and MPXV antigens A35, B2, B6 and E8. We sought to determine the feasibility in using a pool of these antigens as the basis of detecting pan-Poxvirus antibodies, preventing the requirement for use of whole-MVA/VACV or individual recombinant pox antigens. We explored the sensitivity and specificity of this pool and comparisons to individual antigen results. Compared to individual antigens, higher ODs were obtained when samples were tested using the pool antigen ELISA, compared with individual antigens, with trends in increasing antibody titres following a second dose of vaccination, and waning observed 63 days post second dose (**Figure 6B**). This sensitivity and specificity of this pooled antigen ELISA was then further explored, to determine feasibility in detecting antibodies induced both by Smallpox vaccination and MPOX infection. An overall sensitivity of 97.14% (95% CI: 91.93% to 99.22%) and specificity of 98.23% (95% CI: 96.67% to 99.07%) was determined using ROC analysis (**Figure 6C**), with an OD cut off of 0.1926, based on testing the pooled antigen ELISA against a total of 613 samples: 508 negatives (paediatric negatives, pre-vaccination samples and confounders) and 105 positives (IMVANEX vaccinated (Dose 1 or Dose 2), ACAM2000 vaccinated or MPOX infected (Clade IIa and IIb)). All samples tested positive by the pooled antigen ELISA, with the exception of two MPOX-infected individuals, however these individuals demonstrated no antibody binding to any of the MPXV/VACV antigens (**Figure 1**). AUC analysis identified the pool antigen ELISA as the highest AUC compared to any individual antigen but was also the only ELISA that show significantly higher results in post-dose 1 vaccinated individuals compared to negative samples, further demonstrating the utility of this pooled antigen ELISA (**Table 3**). This assay could be further quantified by performing endpoint titres, serially diluting samples 1:4 until the cut off of 0.1926 was achieved (**Figure 6D, Table 3**). When using a combined antigen pool, this resulted in a potentiation of antibodies detected by ELISA (Lower panel, **Figure 1**). In general, all samples tested on the individual antigens had lower antibodies determined by OD measurement than the pooled antigen ELISA (**Figure 6E**), with linear regression models similarly demonstrating higher ODs in the pooled antigen ELISA relative to the individual antigens (**Figure 6F**). When comparing ROC analysis, the highest sensitivity and specificity for detecting antibodies induced by Smallpox vaccination or MPOX-infection was in fact the pooled antigen ELISA, with 98.31% and 95.65% sensitivity, and 98.23% and 98.03% specificity, respectively (**Table 3**). ## Discussion MPXV was detected in a wide range of countries during the 2022 outbreak after the initial identification of cases within the UK. Vaccination strategies have been implemented through a number of public health agencies worldwide as means to limit the spread of the disease and protect individuals from infection. Here, we have demonstrated that antibody responses induced by two widely used and licensed Smallpox vaccines (IMVANEX and ACAM2000, post-dose 1, 2 and 3) and prior MPOX infection (both prior Clade IIa or the current 2022 Clade IIb outbreak) are similar and are able to bind a number of MPXV and VACV antigens. We also describe the development of a pooled antigen ELISA to study both Smallpox-vaccine and MPOX-infection antibody responses. ### Analogous antigen recognition is observed between Smallpox-vaccinated and Monkeypox-convalescent individuals Using an array of 27 different pox-virus antigens (24 MPXV and 3 VACV), we observe that Smallpox-vaccination (be it IMVANEX or ACAM2000) induces a similar antibody response to those previously infected with MPOX, both Clades IIa and IIb. Minimal antibodies to the diverse pox-virus antigens were observed in negative samples, with all negative samples correlating positively to one another (**Figure 1, Figure 2**). Surprisingly, however, those with one dose of IMVANEX vaccination demonstrated minimal antigen binding, such as with negative samples, except for the presence of some antibodies able to bind MPXV B2 in one-dose vaccinated individuals, likely explaining the minimal and variable correlation observed in this group to other vaccinated or MPOX-infected groups (**Figure 2**). However, variations in Eukaryotic/Prokaryotic-expressed proteins also need to be further assessed to determine effects due to glycosylation. Furthermore, differences in delivery (subcutaneous vs intradermal) and dosing (full versus fractional dosage) of the IMVANEX vaccination may play additional roles in induction of antibody and antigen binding, which was not studied here and warrants further investigation. Nevertheless, a lack of robust antibody responses after one dose of IMVANEX in previously unvaccinated individuals (aged <50) does not suggest a lack of protection, as recent studies have shown that vaccine efficacy against disease after one dose of IMVANEX has been suggested to be as high as 78% when comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated individuals45. However, one vaccination dose has been shown to induce low-neutralising antibodies46, likely suggesting a role of cellular or T-cell immunity not measured in this study but performed by others37–39. Within our study, we demonstrate that a number of antibodies capable of binding diverse pox-virus antigens are induced by two-dose IMVANEX-vaccination or MPOX prior infection (Clade IIa and Clade IIb), with high correlation between individuals in these groups and to one another (**Figure 2**). Even though we only have three Clade IIa convalescent samples, we observe no difference in antigen recognition between a Clade IIa and IIb MPOX infection, which should be further explored to understand the role of mutations in Clade IIb and their possible role in transcriptional changes and hence antigen recognition after MPOX infection25,26. However, whilst there is a high correlation between antibody binding to diverse MPXV/VACV antigens in two-dose IMVANEX-vaccinated and MPOX-infected individuals, distinctive but overlapping grouping are observed when performing principal component analysis (**Figure 3D**) which is further narrowed with post-vaccination antibody waning (**Supplementary Figure 4**). These data suggest a core set of antigens shared across repeated IMVANEX vaccination and a MPOX infection and similarity across viral epitopes by both the MVA-BN virus used in the IMVANEX vaccine and an MPXV infection37. This aligns with the observed protection afforded when MVA was used for vaccination against MPXV infection in macaques28,29 or used in regions with high MPXV prevalence5. Prior studies have demonstrated a difference in neutralising titres between those infected with MPOX aged <48 and >4846, however, we see no discernible difference in antibody binding to all MPXV and VACV antigens measured in this study (**Supplementary Fig 1**) but similarly confirm the low level of IgG induced by single IMVANEX vaccination. When performing principal component analysis, antibody waning in two-dose IMVANEX-vaccinated individuals results in the harmonisation of IMVANEX vaccinated with MPOX-infected groups, preventing discrimination (**Figure 3D, Supplementary Figure 4)**. This suggests that other additional assays will be required for differentiating between MPOX-infected and VACV-vaccinated individuals such as specific-antigens or an avidity assay. Immunological signatures for MPOX infection were identified such as antibodies induced to the MPXV A27 protein (**Figure 3C, Figure 4E** and **Table 2-3**), a cowpox-like type A inclusion protein that is present in the strain used in the ACAM2000 vaccination and MPXV isolates but missing in MVA-BN (IMVANEX) and VACV Copenhagen. The absence of A27 in VACV Copenhagen and MVA-BN may provide the ability of MPXV A27 to be used as a differential assay in serosurveillance studies in countries such as the UK, that do not or have not previously used the ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine. However, further work is required to ensure that cross-reactivity of antibodies to MPXV A27 is not observed in those with other *Chordopoxvirinae* infections and that a MPXV A27 assay can be used to also detect prior infection with MPXV Clade I that was not assessed here. Similarly, we also identify MPXV M1 (VACV homologue L1) as a serological marker of IMVANEX-vaccination (**Figure 5B**), but antibodies able to bind M1 were observed in some MPOX-infected individuals, possibly due to prior Smallpox-vaccination. The reasoning for MPXV M1 (VACV L1); an IMV surface membrane protein that has shown to be protective against poxvirus challenge47–49, as a differential between IMVANEX vaccinated and MPOX-infected or ACAM2000 vaccinated is unknown, and warrants further investigation, as it is present in all VACV and MPXV strains, with >98% amino acid identity between VACV Copenhagen and MPXV Zaire. Similarly, whilst individual antigens show distinct and differential binding, binding between VACV and MPXV homologous antigens is different depending on individuals having VACV vaccination or an MPXV infection (**Figure 5**). This is further supported by recent work that demonstrated Smallpox-vaccine naïve individuals (e.g. aged <48) neutralise MPXV better than VACV46, reinforcing a virus-specific immunological response that should be further explored in those with heterologous antigenic exposures. We also observe a waning in antibodies at day 84 post two doses, with a decrease in antibodies able to bind the diverse antigens observed at 14 days post two doses and endpoint titres using a pooled antigen ELISA (**Figure 2, Figure 6**). The further extent of this antibody and antigen-specific waning is to be explored, as others have demonstrated waning to individual antigens50, whilst persistence of IgG and neutralising antibodies up to 88 years post-vaccination have been observed51. Further work is needed to study the immunogenicity and persistence of antibodies to diverse pox-virus antigens after MPOX infection and/or IMVANEX vaccination, as means to provide data on antibody persistence and inform recommendations for future vaccination boosters in communities at-risk of MPOX transmission or infection. We are now also pursuing an understanding of the immunological impact of heterologous (both full and partial dosage) antigen exposure in those with MPOX infection followed by two IMVANEX doses, to understand antibody persistence and repertoire. The presence of antibodies able to bind MPXV C18 (VACV F12), an IEV actin tail formation protein52, across all samples suggests either cross-reactivity of antibodies to the recombinant antigen or non-specific sequestration of immunoglobulins. Further work is ongoing to understand antibody binding and MPXV C18. ### A pooled MPXV and VACV antigen ELISA is sensitive and specific than individual antigens To perform reliable immunological studies on Smallpox vaccination, MPOX infection or serosurveillance, standardised and highly congruous ELISA assays are needed. Whilst a number of pox virus ELISAs use whole-MVA or inactivated VACV, this method requires virus growth and quality control with batch-to-batch variability. Using the data from our antigen panels, we describe the development of a pooled-antigen ELISA using commercially available recombinant antigens to study Smallpox-vaccine- and MPXV-induced antibody response. Using a number of pre-vaccination/negative samples, longitudinal samples from IMVANEX vaccinated individuals, those with prior ACAM2000 vaccination but also MPOX-infected individuals, we demonstrate the use of nine antigens in detecting antibody responses in each of these groups (**Table 3**, MPXV antigens B6, B2, E8, A35, M1, A29 and VACV antigens: B5 and A33). Whilst some of these antigens are highly sensitive and specific to detecting Smallpox-vaccination- or MPOX-infection-induced antibodies, the highest achieved was a pool of five antigens (MPXV B2, B6, E8, A35 and VACV B5). This pooled antigen assay demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity but also potentiation in antibodies detected than singular antigen ELISAs (**Figure 1, Figure 6E-F**). Furthermore, quantitation through endpoint titres is possible and enables quantification of antibody responses following vaccination and MPOX infection (**Figure 6D**). The high sensitivity and specificity of the pool are explained by the recombinant antigen components: MPXV B2 (VACV homologue A56) is an EEV Type I membrane glycoprotein hemagglutinin that is integral for *in* vivo and *in vitro* spread of VACV, as well as binding additional VACV proteins in infected cell membranes53–55. MPXV E8 (VACV homologue D8) is an IMV surface membrane protein, shown to be involved in virus entry through binding chondroitin sulphate, eliciting strong humoral immunity56,57. MPXV B6 (and VACV homologue B5) is a 42-kDa EEV outer surface antigen, previously shown to be a major target of EEV-neutralising antibodies47,58,59, likely explaining the immunogenicity observed to MPXV B6 and VACV B5 in this study. Similarly, MPXV A35 (VACV homologue A33) is an EEV envelope protein and also a source of EEV protective antibodies47,58, whilst also previously demonstrated to be associated with B560. Previous studies have also demonstrated anti-A33 (MPXV A35) and anti-B5 (MPXV B6) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) as protective against lethal VACV-challenge in mice61,62, however combinations of anti-VACV mAbs afforded the highest protection. These proteins are highly conserved between VACV and MPXV49 (**Table 2**), likely suggesting minimal changes in assay sensitivity if VACV homologues were used, however, based on differential binding demonstrated here (**Figure 4, Supplementary Figure 5** and **6**), this should be further explored. As a number of antibodies are induced to these antigens due to MPOX-infection, further work is warranted to determine if a combination of these antigens provide protection from disease as next-generation Smallpox vaccines. Prior work has similarly demonstrated that some of these antigens (both individually or combined) induce a robust antibody response when used in an mRNA63,64 or DNA47–49 vaccine, some of which have demonstrated protection against disease. Similarly, monoclonal antibodies against some of these antigens may provide new post-exposure or long-lasting therapeutics for MPOX or broad poxvirus disease, in replacement of convalescent serum such as VIG or recombinant VIG61,62,65. ### Strengths and weaknesses of this study One of the major strengths of this study is that we used a large number of whole recombinant MPXV/VACV antigens, some of which are produced in mammalian cells, which are more representative of viral proteins (including glycosylation) than linear peptides used in protein arrays. Furthermore, using 24 MPXV antigens, this covers ∼15% of proteins encoded within the MPXV genome. Further work is now ongoing to perform expression and purification of all MPXV antigens to determine the range of antibodies involved in antigen binding induced by infection/vaccination using customised-multiplex assays (e.g., Luminex) to determine binding to whole proteins rather than linear epitopes using protein microarrays. Additional VACV homologues are also being sought to provide additional information on the preferential binding. Our pooled antigens are skewed towards MPXV, though the data demonstrated here show that this pool is the only assay (compared to individual antigens) capable of detecting a statistically significant increase in antibodies relative to negative controls. Further optimisation of this antigen pool is ongoing to determine optimum antigens for use in vaccination immunology studies and serosurveillance. Similarly, we did not conduct MVA, VACV or MPXV neutralisation as part of this study, however, our observations of low antibodies induced post one-dose of IMAVENX correlates to observations by others46. Further work is needed to understand the role of binding and neutralising antibodies in the context of correlates of protection. Finally, the samples we used within this study were a diverse mix of vaccination/MPOX samples from individuals at differing time points, however further time points are required to monitor waning in both the vaccination and MPOX-vaccinated individuals, as well as assessing antibody persistence in those with heterologous antigenic exposure. ## Conclusions Here, our results provide a wealth of information on the immunology of MPOX infection, but also demonstrate analogous humoral antigen binding between those with Smallpox-vaccination (IMVANEX or ACAM2000) and those with prior MPOX infection (both Clade IIa and IIb). Furthermore, the singular proteins identified in this study in the immunological responses to both Smallpox vaccination and MPOX-infection may offer new targets for future vaccination strategies (e.g., mRNA vaccines) or therapeutics (e.g., mAbs). Similarly, using the analogous immune responses between Smallpox-vaccinated and MPOX-convalescent, we developed a highly sensitive and specific pooled antigen ELISA that offers a mechanism for reliably measuring immune responses post-infection or post-vaccination without the need for whole-virus ELISAs or live-virus neutralisation. These together offer an opportunity for the development and assessment of next-generation vaccinations. ## Supporting information Supplementary material [[supplements/283648_file02.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors ## Funding This work was funded by the UK Health Security Agency, with additional funding obtained from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Initiative (CEPI) for the development of a MPOX/Smallpox ELISA assay. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank members of the CEPI, in particular Valentina Bernasconi, Mark Manak and Ali Azizi for their guidance throughout the development of the pooled antigen ELISA assay. We also are thankful to members of the Chelsea and Westminster and Imperial College Healthcare trusts that helped in obtaining MPOX-convalescent serum. * Received December 22, 2022. * Revision received December 22, 2022. * Accepted December 26, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Lansiaux, E., Jain, N., Laivacuma, S. & Reinis, A. The virology of human monkeypox virus (hMPXV): A brief overview. Virus Res. 322, (2022). 2. 2.Dabrowski, P. W., Radonić, A., Kurth, A. & Nitsche, A. Genome-wide comparison of cowpox viruses reveals a new clade related to variola virus. PLoS One 8, 79953 (2013). 3. 3.Shchelkunov, S. N. Emergence and reemergence of smallpox: The need for development of a new generation smallpox vaccine. Vaccine 29, D49–D53 (2011). 4. 4.Malshetty, V. S., Jain, R., Srinath, T., Kurthkoti, K. & Varshney, U. Synergistic effects of UdgB and Ung in mutation prevention and protection against commonly encountered DNA damaging agents in Mycobacterium smegmatis. Microbiology 156, 940–949 (2010). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1099/mic.0.034363-0&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19942658&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000276189600030&link_type=ISI) 5. 5.Priyamvada, L. & Satheshkumar, P. S. Variola and Monkeypox Viruses (Poxviridae). Encycl. Virol. 2, 868–874 (2021). 6. 6.Strassburg, M. A. The global eradication of smallpox. AJIC Am. J. Infect. Control 10, 53–59 (1982). 7. 7.Smith, K. A. Edward Jenner and the small pox vaccine. Frontiers in Immunology 2, 21 (2011). 8. 8.Goebel, S. J. et al. The complete DNA sequence of vaccinia virus. Virology 179, 247–266 (1990). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0042-6822(90)90294-2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2219722&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1990EE52300029&link_type=ISI) 9. 9.Lewis, F. M. T. et al. Ocular vaccinia infection in laboratory worker, Philadelphia, 2004. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 12, 134–137 (2006). [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16494730&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000234419700024&link_type=ISI) 10. 10.Silva-Fernandes, A. T. et al. Natural human infections with Vaccinia virus during bovine vaccinia outbreaks. J. Clin. Virol. 44, 308–313 (2009). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcv.2009.01.007&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19243990&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) 11. 11.Pennington, H. Smallpox and bioterrorism. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 81, 762–767 (2003). [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14758439&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000186435100017&link_type=ISI) 12. 12.Hammarlund, E. et al. Duration of antiviral immunity after smallpox vaccination. (2003). doi:10.1038/nm917 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nm917&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12925846&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000185061600024&link_type=ISI) 13. 13.Weaver, J. R. & Isaacs, S. N. Monkeypox virus and insights into its immunomodulatory proteins. Immunological Reviews 225, 96–113 (2008). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1600-065X.2008.00691.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18837778&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) 14. 14.Wilson, M. E., Hughes, J. M., McCollum, A. M. & Damon, I. K. Human monkeypox. Clin. Infect. Dis. 58, 260–267 (2014). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/cit703&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24158414&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) 15. 15.Vaughan, A. et al. Two cases of monkeypox imported to the United Kingdom, september 2018. Eurosurveillance 23, 1800509 (2018). 16. 16.Vaughan, A. et al. Human-to-human transmission of monkeypox virus, United Kingdom, October 2018. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 26, 782–785 (2020). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3201/eid2604.191164&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) 17. 17.Hobson, G. et al. Family cluster of three cases of monkeypox imported from Nigeria to the United Kingdom, May 2021. Eurosurveillance 26, 2100745 (2021). 18. 18.Karem, K. L. et al. Characterization of acute-phase humoral immunity to monkeypox: Use of immunoglobulin m enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of monkeypox infection during the 2003 north American outbreak. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 12, 867–872 (2005). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1128/CDLI.12.7.867-872.2005&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16002637&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) 19. 19.Stephenson, J. Monkeypox Outbreak a Reminder of Emerging Infections Vulnerabilities. JAMA 290, 23–24 (2003). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.290.1.23&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12837700&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) 20. 20.Reynolds, M. G. et al. Spectrum of infection and risk factors for human monkeypox, United States, 2003. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 13, 1332–1339 (2007). [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18252104&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000249148500009&link_type=ISI) 21. 21.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Epidemiological update: Monkeypox multi-country outbreak. (2022). Available at: [https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/epidemiological-update-monkeypox-multi-country-outbreak](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/epidemiological-update-monkeypox-multi-country-outbreak). (Accessed: 14th December 2022) 22. 22.UK Health Security Agency. Monkeypox outbreak: epidemiological overview, 4 October 2022 - GOV.UK. (2022). Available at: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/monkeypox-outbreak-epidemiological-overview/monkeypox-outbreak-epidemiological-overview-4-october-2022](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/monkeypox-outbreak-epidemiological-overview/monkeypox-outbreak-epidemiological-overview-4-october-2022). (Accessed: 14th December 2022) 23. 23.Mathieu, E., Spooner, F., Dattani, S., Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Mpox (monkeypox). Our World in Data (2022). Available at: [https://ourworldindata.org/monkeypox](https://ourworldindata.org/monkeypox). (Accessed: 17th December 2022) 24. 24.Wang, L. et al. Genomic annotation and molecular evolution of monkeypox virus outbreak in 2022. J. Med. Virol. 95, e28036 (2022). 25. 25.Gigante, C. M. et al. Multiple lineages of monkeypox virus detected in the United States, 2021–2022. Science (80-.). 378, 560–565 (2022). 26. 26.Isidro, J. et al. Phylogenomic characterization and signs of microevolution in the 2022 multi-country outbreak of monkeypox virus. Nat. Med. 28, 1569–1572 (2022). 27. 27.Townsend, M. B. et al. Humoral Immunity to Smallpox Vaccines and Monkeypox Virus Challenge: Proteomic Assessment and Clinical Correlations. J. Virol. 87, 900–911 (2013). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6Ijg3LzIvOTAwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTIvMjYvMjAyMi4xMi4yMi4yMjI4MzY0OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 28. 28.Nigam, P. et al. DNA/MVA HIV-1/AIDS vaccine elicits long-lived vaccinia virus-specific immunity and confers protection against a lethal monkeypox challenge. Virology 366, 73–83 (2007). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.virol.2007.04.010&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17507071&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) 29. 29.Edghill-Smith, Y. et al. Smallpox vaccine-induced antibodies are necessary and sufficient for protection against monkeypox virus. Nat. Med. 11, 740–747 (2005). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nm1261&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15951823&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000230304200030&link_type=ISI) 30. 30.Earl, P. L. et al. Immunogenicity of a highly attenuated MVA smallpox vaccine and protection against monkeypox. (2004). 31. 31.Stittelaar, K. J. et al. Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara Protects Macaques against Respiratory Challenge with Monkeypox Virus. J. Virol. 79, 7845–7851 (2005). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI3OS8xMi83ODQ1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTIvMjYvMjAyMi4xMi4yMi4yMjI4MzY0OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 32. 32.Townsend, M. B. et al. Retrospective Proteomic Analysis of Serum After Akhmeta Virus Infection: New Suspect Case Identification and Insights Into Poxvirus Humoral Immunity. J. Infect. Dis. 216, 1505–1512 (2017). 33. 33.Keasey, S. et al. Proteomic basis of the antibody response to monkeypox virus infection examined in cynomolgus macaques and a comparison to human smallpox vaccination. PLoS One 5, (2010). 34. 34.Gallwitz, S., Schutzbank, T., Heberling, R. L., Kalter, S. S. & Galpin, J. E. Smallpox: Residual antibody after vaccination. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41, 4068–4070 (2003). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjQxLzkvNDA2OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzI2LzIwMjIuMTIuMjIuMjIyODM2NDguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 35. 35.Earl, P. L. et al. Immunogenicity of a highly attenuated MVA smallpox vaccine and protection against monkeypox. Nature 428, 182–185 (2004). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nature02331&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15014500&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000220103600049&link_type=ISI) 36. 36.Davies, D. H. et al. Proteome-wide analysis of the serological response to vaccinia and smallpox. Proteomics 7, 1678–1686 (2007). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/pmic.200600926&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17443847&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) 37. 37.Grifoni, A. et al. Defining antigen targets to dissect vaccinia virus (VACV) and Monkeypox virus (MPXV)-specific T cell responses in humans. Cell Host Microbe 1662–1674 (2022). doi:10.1016/j.chom.2022.11.003 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.chom.2022.11.003&link_type=DOI) 38. 38.Agrati, C. et al. Immunological signature in human cases of monkeypox infection in 2022 outbreak: an observational study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 3099, 1–11 (2022). 39. 39.Karem, K. L. et al. Monkeypox-induced immunity and failure of childhood smallpox vaccination to provide complete protection. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 14, 1318–1327 (2007). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY2RsaSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMTQvMTAvMTMxOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzI2LzIwMjIuMTIuMjIuMjIyODM2NDguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 40. 40.Shchelkunov, S. N. et al. Analysis of the monkeypox virus genome. Virology 297, 172–194 (2002). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1006/viro.2002.1446&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12083817&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000176822800002&link_type=ISI) 41. 41.Brown, E., Senkevich, T. G. & Moss, B. Vaccinia Virus F9 Virion Membrane Protein Is Required for Entry but Not Virus Assembly, in Contrast to the Related L1 Protein. J. Virol. 80, 9455–9464 (2006). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI4MC8xOS85NDU1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTIvMjYvMjAyMi4xMi4yMi4yMjI4MzY0OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 42. 42.Chiu, W.-L. & Chang, W. Vaccinia Virus J1R Protein: a Viral Membrane Protein That Is Essential for Virion Morphogenesis. J. Virol. 76, 9575–9587 (2002). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI3Ni8xOS85NTc1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTIvMjYvMjAyMi4xMi4yMi4yMjI4MzY0OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 43. 43.Ember, S. W. J., Ren, H., Ferguson, B. J. & Smith, G. L. Vaccinia virus protein C4 inhibits NF-κB activation and promotes virus virulence. J. Gen. Virol. 93, 2098–2108 (2012). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1099/vir.0.045070-0&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22791606&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000310043400003&link_type=ISI) 44. 44.Patel, D. D., Pickup, D. J. & Joklik, W. K. Isolation of cowpox virus a-type inclusions and characterization of their major protein component. Virology 149, 174–189 (1986). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0042-6822(86)90119-4&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3456179&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1986A133800004&link_type=ISI) 45. 45.Bertran, M. et al. Effectiveness of one dose of MVA-BN smallpox vaccine against monkeypox in England using the case-coverage method. UK Heal. Secur. Agency (2022). 46. 46.Zaeck, L. M. et al. Low levels of monkeypox virus-neutralizing antibodies after MVA-BN vaccination in healthy individuals. Nat. Med. (2022). doi:10.1038/s41591-022-02090-w [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41591-022-02090-w&link_type=DOI) 47. 47.Hooper, J. W., Custer, D. M., Schmaljohn, C. S. & Schmaljohn, A. L. DNA vaccination with vaccinia virus L1R and A33R genes protects mice against a lethal poxvirus challenge. Virology 266, 329–339 (2000). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1006/viro.1999.0096&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10639319&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085018400011&link_type=ISI) 48. 48.Hooper, J. W. et al. Smallpox DNA Vaccine Protects Nonhuman Primates against Lethal Monkeypox. J. Virol. 78, 4433–4443 (2004). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6Ijc4LzkvNDQzMyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzI2LzIwMjIuMTIuMjIuMjIyODM2NDguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 49. 49.Hooper, J. W., Custer, D. M. & Thompson, E. Four-gene-combination DNA vaccine protects mice against a lethal vaccinia virus challenge and elicits appropriate antibody responses in nonhuman primates. Virology 306, 181–195 (2003). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0042-6822(02)00038-7&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12620810&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000181511100020&link_type=ISI) 50. 50.Pütz, M. M., Midgley, C. M., Law, M. & Smith, G. L. Quantification of antibody responses against multiple antigens of the two infectious forms of Vaccinia virus provides a benchmark for smallpox vaccination. Nat. Med. 12, 1310–1315 (2006). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nm1457&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17086190&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000241844900029&link_type=ISI) 51. 51.Taub, D. D. et al. Immunity from Smallpox Vaccine Persists for Decades: A Longitudinal Study. Am. J. Med. 121, 1058–1064 (2008). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.08.019&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19028201&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000261985100025&link_type=ISI) 52. 52.Zhang, W.-H., Wilcock, D. & Smith, G. L. Vaccinia Virus F12L Protein Is Required for Actin Tail Formation, Normal Plaque Size, and Virulence. J. Virol. 74, 11654–11662 (2000). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjExOiI3NC8yNC8xMTY1NCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzI2LzIwMjIuMTIuMjIuMjIyODM2NDguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 53. 53.Girgis, N. M. et al. Cell Surface Expression of the Vaccinia Virus Complement Control Protein Is Mediated by Interaction with the Viral A56 Protein and Protects Infected Cells from Complement Attack. J. Virol. 82, (2008). 54. 54.Wagenaar, T. R. & Moss, B. Expression of the A56 and K2 Proteins Is Sufficient To Inhibit Vaccinia Virus Entry and Cell Fusion. J. Virol. 83, 1546–1554 (2009). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjgzLzQvMTU0NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzI2LzIwMjIuMTIuMjIuMjIyODM2NDguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 55. 55.de Haven, B. C., Gupta, K. & Isaacs, S. N. The vaccinia virus A56 protein: A multifunctional transmembrane glycoprotein that anchors two secreted viral proteins. Journal of General Virology 92, 1971–1980 (2011). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1099/vir.0.030460-0&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21715594&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) 56. 56.Berhanu, A. et al. Vaccination of BALB/c Mice with Escherichia coli -Expressed Vaccinia Virus Proteins A27L, B5R, and D8L Protects Mice from Lethal Vaccinia Virus Challenge. J. Virol. 82, 3517–3529 (2008). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjgyLzcvMzUxNyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzI2LzIwMjIuMTIuMjIuMjIyODM2NDguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 57. 57.Demkowicz, W. E., Maa, J. S. & Esteban, M. Identification and characterization of vaccinia virus genes encoding proteins that are highly antigenic in animals and are immunodominant in vaccinated humans. J. Virol. 66, 386–398 (1992). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjY2LzEvMzg2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTIvMjYvMjAyMi4xMi4yMi4yMjI4MzY0OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 58. 58.Bell, E. et al. Antibodies against the extracellular enveloped virus B5R protein are mainly responsible for the EEV neutralizing capacity of vaccinia immune globulin. Virology 325, 425–431 (2004). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.virol.2004.05.004&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15246280&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000222790300025&link_type=ISI) 59. 59.Nakatake, M. et al. Partial Deletion of Glycoprotein B5R Enhances Vaccinia Virus Neutralization Escape while Preserving Oncolytic Function. Mol. Ther. - Oncolytics 14, 159–171 (2019). 60. 60.Perdiguero, B. & Blasco, R. Interaction between Vaccinia Virus Extracellular Virus Envelope A33 and B5 Glycoproteins. J. Virol. 80, 8763–8777 (2006). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI4MC8xNy84NzYzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTIvMjYvMjAyMi4xMi4yMi4yMjI4MzY0OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 61. 61.Gilchuk, I. et al. Cross-Neutralizing and Protective Human Antibody Specificities to Poxvirus Infections. Cell 167, 684-694.e9 (2016). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cell.2016.09.049&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27768891&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F26%2F2022.12.22.22283648.atom) 62. 62.Chen, Z. et al. Characterization of Chimpanzee/Human Monoclonal Antibodies to Vaccinia Virus A33 Glycoprotein and Its Variola Virus Homolog In Vitro and in a Vaccinia Virus Mouse Protection Model. J. Virol. 81, 8989–8995 (2007). [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoianZpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI4MS8xNy84OTg5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjIvMTIvMjYvMjAyMi4xMi4yMi4yMjI4MzY0OC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 63. 63.Sang, Y. et al. Monkeypox virus quadrivalent mRNA vaccine induces antibody responses and cellular immunity and protects mice against Vaccinia virus. bioRxiv 2022.11.22.517500 (2022). doi:10.1101/2022.11.22.517500 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYmlvcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxOToiMjAyMi4xMS4yMi41MTc1MDB2MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzI2LzIwMjIuMTIuMjIuMjIyODM2NDguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 64. 64.Mucker, E. M. et al. A Nucleic Acid-Based Orthopoxvirus Vaccine Targeting the Vaccinia Virus L1, A27, B5, and A33 Proteins Protects Rabbits against Lethal Rabbitpox Virus Aerosol Challenge. J. Virol. 96, (2022). 65. 65.Bloch, E. M. et al. The Potential Role of Passive Antibody-Based Therapies as Treatments for Monkeypox. MBio (2022). doi:10.1128/mbio.02862-22 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1128/mbio.02862-22&link_type=DOI)